Motivation & Group performance (chpt 5.)

Question 1

Ringlemann effect (1913) rope-pulling task

Answer 1

The greater the group size the smaller the performance by an individual group member

Question 2

Productivity

Answer 2

Actual Productivity= Potential Productivity- Process Loss

Process Loss
Coordination Loss
Motivation Loss

Question 3

Coordination

Answer 3

How individual input is transformed into the group’s output

Question 4

Motivation Loss

Answer 4

Less effort shown by group members working in a group than working alone

Question 5

Ingham (rope pullin) 1974

Answer 5

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*

Question 6

Social loafting

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Harkins & Jackson 1985 Evaluation Potential

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Idea generation performance of ideas

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Self-efficacy

Answer 9

Which combination between the following two factors maximizes effort?
Simple vs. difficult task
Evaluation potential: high vs. low

Question 10

Free riding

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Public Goods Dilemma

Answer 11

public contribution charity work, fundraising

some people don’t want to contribute

Question 12

Sucker effect

Answer 12

When individuals don’t want to be exploited by the other free riders in the group.

The negative effect of free-riding.

Question 13

Mixed-Motive Situations

Answer 13

Many situations involve the motive to compete mixed with the motive to cooperate.
Incompatible goals + Compatible goals.

Question 14

Social Dilemmas

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Resource Dilemma

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Motivation loss

Answer 16

-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

Question 17

Motivation loss less likely to occur

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Social Compensation

Answer 18

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

Question 19

The Kohler effect

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Expectancy value theory for group members Karau & Williams 1993

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Lock & Latham 1990 Importance of group goals

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Commitment to group goals

Answer 22

Goal attractiveness.

Efficacy belief -> that the goal can be met by the group.

Question 23

Feedback Regarding Group progress toward the goal

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Answer 24

Contextual/citizenship performance”
“Prosocial organizational behavior”
OCB is personal support, Organizational support like defending the group, and conscientious intiative leads to process gain

Question 25

Hunt 2002

Answer 25

OCB can do as much harm as good for highly structured jobs involving following rigid rules (such as steel workers, nuclear power plant operations)