Motivation & Group performance (chpt 5.) Flashcards
Ringlemann effect (1913) rope-pulling task
The greater the group size the smaller the performance by an individual group member
Productivity
Actual Productivity= Potential Productivity- Process Loss
Process Loss
Coordination Loss
Motivation Loss
Coordination
How individual input is transformed into the group’s output
Motivation Loss
Less effort shown by group members working in a group than working alone
Ingham (rope pullin) 1974
Members pulled on rope with less amount off effort when in a team. Verses when told no team they pulled harder as individuals.
Real group condition
Pseudo-group condition*
Blindfolded individuals performed believing that others were performing, too.
Designed to isolate motivation loss
Individual work condition*
Social loafting
A group-produced reduction in individual output on easy tasks in which contributions are pooled.
Identifiability mean -when individuals slack off when your work doesn’t seem visible as a group
evaluation potential- means individual work is visible good or bad work
Task attractiveness or importance- means is the task fun or important
Attractiveness/importance of group’s performance-means group performance what we deliver is important
Harkins & Jackson 1985 Evaluation Potential
Ea. individual had to think of idea for a use of a pencil
- writing etc. they wrote their samples on a piece of paper and drop it in a box.
1) Identifiability manipulation ea. paper’s ideas collected individually was seen from each group member how many idea’s placed in the box
one idea in ea. paper
Although ea. member was lied to they all were generating idea’s for separate tools
2) Evaluation potential manipulation
Ps generated ideas re: same object vs. each p generated ideas re: different objects
Idea generation performance of ideas
Evaluation potential high when number of idea’s is high in individual contribution identifiable and when individual contribution not identifiable number of ideas is low
Evaluation potential low in individual contribution identifiable and in individual contribution not identifiable number of ideas is low
Self-efficacy
Which combination between the following two factors maximizes effort?
Simple vs. difficult task
Evaluation potential: high vs. low
Free riding
Contributing less to a collective task when a member believes that other group members will compensate for this lack of effort.
Causes intragroup conflict.
Likely to happen when individuals believe their contribution is dispensable
Public Goods Dilemma
public contribution charity work, fundraising
some people don’t want to contribute
Sucker effect
When individuals don’t want to be exploited by the other free riders in the group.
The negative effect of free-riding.
Mixed-Motive Situations
Many situations involve the motive to compete mixed with the motive to cooperate.
Incompatible goals + Compatible goals.
Social Dilemmas
Interpersonal situations where individuals must choose between maximizing personal outcomes and maximizing their group’s outcomes.
When group achieves collective goal, everybody can enjoy the benefits temptation to not contribute but still reap the benefits
Resource Dilemma
When group members share a common resource that they want to maintain, but each member is tempted to take more than their fair share.
Short-term gain may lead to long-term loss
Motivation loss
-social loafing
-free riding
-self-efficacy (tends to decrease in large groups)
-Group size
-Social dilemma
-mix motives
-Performance Matching”
What concept does this remind you of?
-Illusion of Group Productivity
How could this lead to social loafing
Motivation loss less likely to occur
Members believe that their own performances can be identified and thus evaluated by others.
The task is important or meaningful to group members (personal involvement).
Members believe that their own efforts are necessary for group success.
Each member believes that other members will put in maximum effort.
Increase group cohesion while establishing a norm of high productivity.
Setting clear, attainable goals.
Increase collective efficacy – the group’s expectation about reaching its goal.
Social Compensation
Group members trying to compensate for lack of effort or performance by other members
High able co worker has low meaningful task and co worker has low ability has high meaningful task
The Kohler effect
A group member fears group failure due to him/herself (especially the weakest member)
Sense of indispensibility
Likely under conjunctive task situation
Upward social comparison & competition
Likely under co-action
Expectancy value theory for group members Karau & Williams 1993
when self efficacy is high and can perform and outcome expectancy what you do in the group matters to you
Instrumentality is the rewards you get
Based on assumption that people are ONLY motivated for valued, individual outcomes
Lock & Latham 1990 Importance of group goals
They enhance group productivity goals lead group members to work faster and longer on task focus more on task less distracted by irrelevant things
Clarity of, and agreement regarding, the group goals are important.
Commitment to group goals
Goal attractiveness.
Efficacy belief -> that the goal can be met by the group.
Feedback Regarding Group progress toward the goal
Group members need this information!
Allows members to adjust their behavior if required.
Thus, goals need to be stated concretely, in measurable terms so that it is possible to monitor progress toward goal and provide feedback.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Contextual/citizenship performance”
“Prosocial organizational behavior”
OCB is personal support, Organizational support like defending the group, and conscientious intiative leads to process gain
