1. If group members end up “working around” shirkers, do you think this information should be communicated to the instructor so that each individual’s contribution to the project is judge more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical responsibility to communicate this to the shirking group member? If not, isn’t the shirking group member unfairly reaping the rewards of a free ride?
Yes, members should be allowed to report to the instructor that there was a shirker in their group. This could be accomplished with peer reviews. Instead of group members telling the shirker that they are informing their instructor of this, the instructor should strongly emphasize the implications of the peer review, and that part of the student’s grade will rely upon the grade given to them by their peers. The percentage from the peer review could make or break a good grade for each individual, so this should be enough motivation to avoid shirking. Communicating to the shirker that the other group members are reporting on him or her could reap negative outcomes. The shirker could feel tattled upon, and be discouraged from any further action within the group. Peer reviews can ensure fairness across the board, and no free rides.

2. Do you think confronting the shirking group member is justified? Does this depend on the skills of the shirker (whether he or she is capable of doing good-quality work)?
Confronting a shirking group member is just that, a confrontation. The shirker needs to find intrinsic motivation to work towards the group’s goals, to produce quality work, and to earn a good grade. Part of this could depend on the shirker’s skills, if they are unable to complete a task due to a disability or perhaps even a time constraint, the shirker should assume the responsibility of informing the rest of the group of this. Each member needs to assume their complete responsibilities. Communicating the ability to complete a task is necessary, and not doing so could qualify as shirking.

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?
Absolutely not. In a group setting, all members should be treated equally. The diversification of the workers should generate equality and fairness. An American needs to be held accountable for their work just as much as an Asian member needs to be. Tolerating shirking is turning a blind eye towards it. It does not help to eliminate the problem, but allows it to grow.

Tell me about your experiences with social loafing. What do you think are the best approaches to dealing with social loafing? As a manager, what would you do to prevent social loafing from occurring?
I once worked as an assistant receptionist at a job where the main receptionist would shirk her responsibilities. This put significant pressure on me to complete more tasks than I could handle. I also began to resent the shirker, and it was hard to interact with the individual. The individual was prone to excuses, and not fully learning how to complete the tasks at hand. I felt I had to do two jobs, some which were outside of my job description. Eventually, I left the job, even though I had greatly enjoyed working there initially.
The best approach to social loafing would be to approach the instructor or immediate supervisor. In my experience, approaching this shirker did not encourage them to change their behavior. It is part of a manager’s job to deal with social loafing, not part of my job.
A good way to deal with social loafing, for a manager, could be to have monthly or quarterly performance reviews with every employee or group member. This could allow the manager to acknowledge everyone’s concern and give everyone feedback, especially if they need to pick up the pace!