Lecture 7: Teams (Intra-Group Processes) Flashcards
WHat does intra-group behaviour span?
Many subjects!
Ex:
Communication network, intragroup conflict, groupthink, group norms,
group cohesion, escalation of commitment, conformity, hidden profile,
leadership, minority influence, obediance, voice
Explain how teams require a multilevel perspective (2)
- Teams are a level of analysis, but also an empirical phenomenon
- They’re ultra social Multi-level: Indiv, Group, Organis, National, Global (cultures)
What is a group?
2 or more indiv who are connected by and within social relationships
Give the 4 types of groups
- Primary groups
- Social groups
- Collectives
- Categories
Primary groups
Small long-term groups characterized by a high frequency of interaction, cohesiveness and member identification
Ex: families, close friends
Social groups
Small groups of moderate duration and permeability characterized my moderate levels of interaction over an extended perioed of time, often goal-focused
Ex: coworkers, crews, teams
Collectives
Aggregations of indiv tha form spontaneously, last only a brief period of time and have very permeable boudaries
Ex: Audiences, bystanders, crowds
Categories
Aggregations of indiv who are similar to one another in some way
Ex: Asian, New Yorkers, women
What is a team?
A group collaborating towards achieving (organisational) goals
What are 5 characterics of groups
Interaction
Goals
Interdependence
Structure
Cohesion
Explain group interaction
Groups create, organize and sustain relationship + task interactions
Explain goals in groups
Have instrumental purposes to facilitate achievement aims + outcomes sought by members
Explain interdependence for groups (2)
Depend on one another
Influences and is influenced by each other
Explain structure for groups
Organized: Each individual connected in pattern relationships, roles and norms
Explain cohesion for groups
Unite in bonded network of interpersonal relations recognised by members inside and people out of group
Team VS Group (4)
- Goal: Collective performance VS share information
- Synergy: Positive VS Neutral (sometimes negative)
- Accountability: Individual and mutual VS individual
- Skills: Complementary VS random / varied
Teams: cost / benefit scenario (1:2:2)
Presence of others => evaluation of indiv effort (1) OR no eval indiv effort (2)
- Eval apprehension (arousal) => social facilitation
- No evaluation apprehension (less / no arousal) => social loafing
Yet:
- arouse tends promote dominant response
- arousal can interfere with highly complex task
Tuckman: groups develop in stages (6)
Prestage 1
Stage 1: Forming → tentative comm + exchange background info
Stage 2: Storming → dissatisfaction, disagreement, leader and procedures challenges, cliques form
Stage 3: Norming → cohesiveness, agreement on procedures, standards + roles, improved communication
Stage 4: Performing → focus on work of group, task completion, decision making, cooperation
Stage 5: Adjourning → departures, withdrawal, decreased dependence, regret
Temporary groups develop through..? (1)
Inertia and activity
Why does Tuckman’s model have only partial applicability (2)
- rate progression across stages varies across groups
- transition across stages isn’t always clear
Punctuated-equilibrium model (2:1)
- Applies to temporary groups with deadlines
- Describes phases of transition between inertia and activity
Direction set → Inertia → Accelerated activity → Inertia → Accelerated activity
Social identity theory (1:2)
Groups develop as we form social identity
- When acting in groups, define ourselves in terms of group membership → Part of self-concept
- social identity is the individual’s portion of the self-concept derived from perceived membership of group
Social identity processes are rooted in (2)
- Social categorization
- In-group favouritism
Social norms (1:4)
Acceptable standards of behaviour within group + shared by members (Initially revealed by Hawthorne studies)
Ex:
- Perform
- Appear
- Engage with others
- Allocate resources
Conformity
Tendency of individuals to adjust to group norms
Asch’s experiment
Teams provide norms (experiment of saying right answer and then purposefully wrong to change answers of participant)
What are 2 types of norms?
- Descriptive: perception what most people do as norm. (ex: trash cans)
- Injunctive: perception of what most people approve or disapprove → norms of “ought”
Descriptive norms have what compared to injunctive norms
Stronger effect
Injunctive norm violations: people demonstrate they think ignoring the rule is fine.
Role
Set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit
Role ambiguity
situation where lack clarity about expected behaviour
Role conflict
Situation where indiv. faces divergent role expectations
Explain how very strong roles lead to deindividualisation
Roles provide very strong influence** on how people are expected to → behave according to the **role** → instead of according **individual characteristics
GIve an example of deindividualisation
Zimbardo’s Prison experiment
My guess: cults?
Milgram’s obedience experiments (1963)
Normal people can make horrible actions simply because given order, experiment
What should be done to decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities
Ensure group norms do not support antisocial behaviour
Why pay attention to the status and power aspect of groups
People find it difficult to speak-up to power → increase psychological safety
Hofling’s (1966) study of obedience in US healthcare (3:3)
- Nurses were phoned by “Dr Smith”: asking to give 20 mg dose of “Astroten”
- Broke several safety rules
- unlisted drugs
- instructions over phone
- safe medication dosages
- 21 / 22 nurses were prepared to give it
Psychological safety
shared belief that is safe to engage in interpersonal risk taking
- ensures organisational learning through creating environment where people can raise concers + ideas
- varies at organisation, team and dyadic level
dyadic
Explaisn relationship / relation between 2 things / entities
Inclusive leadership
Inclusive leadership → psychological safety → engagement in quality improvement work
