1. If group members end up “working around” shirkers, do you think this information should be communicated to the instructor so that individual’s contribution to the project is judged more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical responsibility to communicate this to the shirking group member?

2. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to one’s responsibilities)? Is social loafing always unethical? Why or why not?

3. Social loafing has been found to be higher in Western, more individualist nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S. workers to a greater degree than if it occurred with someone from Asia?

As you now know, social loafing is one disadvantage of working in groups. Regardless of the type of task—from games of Tug of War to working on a group projects—research suggests that when working in a group, most individuals contribute less than if they were working on their own. We might call those who do social loafing “shirkers” because they are not living up to their responsibilities as group members.

Most of us have experienced social loafing, or shirking, in groups. And we may even admit to times when we shirked ourselves. We discussed earlier in the chapter some ways of discouraging social loafing, such as limiting group size, holding individuals responsible for their contributions, and setting group goals. While these tactics may be effective, in our experience, many students simply work around shirkers. “We just did it ourselves—it was easier that way,” says one group member.