5 Attraction to Groups Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating What makes a group work most efficiently? What techniques are available to make group members feel more as if they are part of the team? How can managers avoid making members of an organization feel excluded? What are the challenges of measuring how cohesive a group really is? Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 91 9/1/11 9:59 AM CHAPTER 5 Introduction Chapter Outline 5.1 Factors of Attraction Personality Gender Similarity Other Factors 5.2 Exchange Theories 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups 5.4 C \u0007 reating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion What Is Group Cohesion? How Do We Measure Group Cohesion? \"If you give people tools, [and they use] their natural ability and their curiosity, they will develop things in ways that will surprise you very much beyond what you might have expected.\" Bill Gates Businesses, teams, nonprofits, and many other organizations are built around groups. The success of these organizations often depends on how well groups within the organization function in order to be more productive and efficient, as well as to be more satisfying to the members who belong to the organization. In this chapter, we explore some of the dynamics of how people work together, in order to see what factors are involved in increasing the effectiveness of groups. We will also look at some of the challenges organizations encounter, and consider some possible responses to those challenges in order to avoid them or at least to minimize the potential risks they may pose. Sit down for a minute and consider all the various groups that you belong to. Now think back to how and why you joined each of these groups. Recall from Chapter 3 that some groups, such as your family, are ascriptive, which means you were born or adopted into that group. You may have joined other groups when you were young because your family belonged to them, such as a particular religious congregation. You may still belong to that house of worship, or perhaps you have joined a new congregation or even converted to a different faith. You probably had little choice about which high school you attended, although you may have voluntarily joined clubs there, such as choir or future engineers. As you grew older, your choices about your membership groups and aspiring membership groups increased, as did the number of possible available groups. Even during high school you had preferences about your friends, school clubs, or a romantic partner. You had considerably more latitude about picking the college you attend than you did about your high school. You chose your college major. And even when economic times are tough, you have some options about employment. You've probably added new friends, different romantic partners, and college activities. You also may belong to a professional association, a neighborhood crime-watch group, or a hobby club. Although virtually all of us belong to groups, how many and which groups we belong to can show individual differences as well as differences by our social location. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 92 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.1\tFactors of Attraction CHAPTER 5 5.1 Factors of Attraction Individuals join groups for many reasons, some of which bear surprisingly little surface relationship to the ostensible rationale for the group's existence. One might think, for example, that adult parishioners join a particular religious congregation after considerable thought because its doctrine, theology, or liturgy are consistent with the parishioner's own, or perhaps because the individual finds the services spiritually uplifting. Yet research has found that of there are other popular reasons to join a specific congregation, including Location. Place of worship is convenient to the parishioner's home. Belonging. The parishioner's close friends or neighbors belong to that congregation and/or it is a great way to become part of the community. Inspiration. The preacher delivers really rousing sermonsyou don't fall asleep during this pastor's sermons! Loyalty. The parishioner grew up in this denomination or even this congregation. Economic. This congregation will help the parishioner grow a local real estate or catering business. Similarly, a young manager may join a civic business group for several reasons that have little to do with her or his job or with forging business connections: It's a great place to meet potential romantic partners. The appetizers are consistently delicious. The young manager lives alone and hates going home to an empty apartment. Some of his or her best friends from college belong. The group recruiter made a special effort to sign up the manager. The first-year membership fees are so low that (especially when the food is considered) it's practically free! Situation-specific variations on these reasons (e.g., convenient to work or to a bus/subway line) can also help explain the neighborhoods we choose, the jobs we take, or the clubs we join. As you can see, what makes a particular group appealing to a specific potential member is not always immediately obvious. Attractive features, described in more detail below, can relate to personality, gender, power and prestige, propinquity, the group's unconditional acceptance of a recruit, mere exposure, and similarity. Personality The negotiation of a personality-oriented perspective versus a situational perspective emerges frequently in the study of group processes. Which perspective you choose to believe can determine how you will approach any particular group dynamics topic. For example, if you take a personality perspective, you might favor individual assertiveness training to bring shy individuals out of their shell and make them more social, perhaps even assuming leadership positions. If you take a situational approach you might try to help your shy members increase their interpersonal interactions by altering aspects of group interaction, or even redesigning your physical work or living spaces. For example, Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 93 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.1\tFactors of Attraction CHAPTER 5 comfortable sofas, a small refrigerator, and a coffee machine in an employee lounge can invite workers to cluster there. Most of the time when we study group processes, we address the social aspects, such as specific roles or conformity. However, at times individual differences or personality variables appear relevant to joining or playing roles in a group. Leadership, of course, is one obvious example in both the research literature and in popular stereotypes; we take a thorough look at leadership in Chapter 9. Another issue where personality traits may be relevant is why we join groups, the kinds of groups we join, and how many groups we join. What do we know about personality characteristics that could affect group processes? Many taxonomies of personality describes an introversion-extroversion dimension, or a \"moving toward\" people versus a \"moving away\" orientation. Scholars such as Jerome Kagan (Kagan, 2004; Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005) believe that qualities such extroversion are basic, biologically influenced individual traits. The general theory goes that individuals with relatively high internal levels of neural stimulation (introverts) seek quieter surroundings to dampen down neural excitement to an optimal level, while those with relatively low internal levels of neural stimulation (extroverts) seek more exciting surroundings in order to maintain a comfortable internal equilibrium of neural stimulation. This, of course, is a predilection only; Kagan points out it is not even close to \"biology is destiny.\" Recent research indicates that whatever we wish to call these relatively constant methods of acting upon and responding to one's environment, they can be recognizably stable for decades. Negotiating and handling different personality types is an important part of any manager's job. Recall from the discussion of social facilitation (Chapter 1) that the mere presence of other people can be physically arousing. Thus extroverts may seek out others to raise their levels of arousal. For extroverts, the mere presence of others can be stimulating and rewarding, so extroverts can grow to relish life in groups. For introverts, however, the increased arousal levels created by the presence of others is undesirable. Thus, among introverts the presence of others may become associated with discomfort and a desire for solitude, making them more likely to avoid group situations. Introverts enjoy time without the distraction of others. Their best Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 94 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.1\tFactors of Attraction CHAPTER 5 work may come when they are able to work alone. Introversion-extroversion is one of these trait constellations that is remarkably consistent, although introverts do become somewhat more sociable over the lifespan and extroverts become somewhat more subdued. One of your responsibilities as a group leader or facilitator will be to guide members with introversion and extroversion tendencies. You will need to recognize these traits in your members and work to establish and maintain group productivity and cohesiveness as these personalities interact and sometimes clash. Techniques to deal with some of the personal tendencies you might find in a group can be simple. Philip Zimbardo (1999) conducted research about shyness with young children at school. His method of overcoming shyness and encouraging these children to become more sociable has been to drape simple brown lunch bags over their heads, with holes cuts for eyes, nose, and mouth. Apparently, despite what would seem to be the conspicuousness of brown bags for heads, hiding one's face makes timid youngsters less self-conscious and more outgoing. Obviously the type of experience one has had in groups counts too. People who have generally had supportive, positive group experiences in the past will seek similar situations more often. The kind of group may vary as well. Some people are drawn to task-oriented groups while others join groups that appear to support socioemotional needs. Our location in the social system or life cycle stage often determines the attractiveness of a particular group. Someone active in the business world may join a civic group, such as the local chamber of commerce, to generate a network of professional contacts. A young parent may want assistance or social support from a \"mothers' morning out\" club. Teenagers look to their peers to provide informationand possible mates. Retirees may sign up to volunteer at local organizations or charities. Within the world of work, individuals are first attracted to the group because of personal goals or because the group solicited the help of the individual in order to accomplish group goals. The individual works overtime to meet personal and group goals. When those goals Business in the Real World Dress for Success Many companies expect their employees to dress in a certain way. Of course, the nature of the work will determine this to some extent: A coal miner is not likely to wear a coat and tie into the mine. Standard office dress generally is considered to be business suits, dress shirts, and ties for men and skirted suits or tailored pantsuits for women. The uniformity of dress reduces distractions and helps employees identify with each other. Some companies have also instituted a \"casual\" dayoften Fridaysas a way of improving worker morale, and can also help with the cohesiveness of the group. Imagine the employees of Company X going to lunch on \"casual Friday\" wearing blue jeans and Hawaiian shirts. They may well see employees from Company Y in business suits; this allows the employees from Company X another opportunity to see their group as a cohesive unit, and also helps identify those (the employees of Company Y) who are excluded from that unit. In this way, both kinds of dress codes can help generate group cohesion and increase organizational unity. What advantages do you see from a company having a \"casual Friday\"? What disadvantages might arise? Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 95 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.1\tFactors of Attraction CHAPTER 5 are accomplished or when it becomes evident to the individual that the group no longer holds the same attractiveness, a breakdown or disintegration of the individual's relationship with the group may occur. This is something that you must always remember as a group member or as a group leader. Gender Although sex differences have been reported in some of the group dynamics research literature, one social source of gender disparities that becomes immediately apparent upon reflection is life cycle issues. More women than men tend full-time to domestic labor, including childcare. More men than women are found at the top of business and professional echelons. Increasingly, retirees are disproportionately females, who live alone, because of current sex differences in life span longevity (see, e.g., Austad, 2011). Thus, at least part of the greater propensity some researchers find for women to join more \"informal and intimate groups\" (Maccoby, 1990; Tiger, 2005) is their location in social structures and roles that make the \"informal trading\" of information and social support more likelyfor example, as young mothers or elderly widows. Since men in their middle years are more likely than women to be engaged full-time in the economic marketplace, men more often join structured groups such as professional associations or business clubs. Finally, remember that nature and society may block membership in certain groups by gender. Almost all members of Lamaze breastfeeding classes are female, for obvious reasons. Some business groups still exclude women from membership or use unwritten sanctions to make women uncomfortable in largely male groups, so they neither join nor attend. Often such arrangements are informal; a group of businessmen may conduct important discussions while golfing at an all-male golf club, or may interact after taking part in an activity that is clearly exclusive, whether a night out at a \"gentleman's club\" or playing in a men's softball league. The question then becomes whether these discussions function as carrying out an organization's business, and what problems might emerge from this exclusivity. Similarity Similarity is the number one factor fostering attraction to a group (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008) . Similarity can take several forms. It can be based on demographics or Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 96 The exclusion of women from workplace environments may often be subtleperhaps woven into prior cultural norms among men rather than a conscious, formal plan. A typical golf outing among male colleagues may be one such cultural factor that works to make women feel like outsiders in their own company. 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.1\tFactors of Attraction CHAPTER 5 one's stage in the life cycle (e.g., young mothers). The group may appeal to members of a particular age group, educational type (e.g., college graduates) or occupation (e.g., attorneys). Recall from Stanley Schacter's research described in Chapter 4 that similarity also can be based on specific circumstances, such as waiting for a strong versus a mild electric shock as part of an experiment. The \"American abroad\" phenomenon refers to the presumed similarity upon meeting another person from the United States while visiting a different country, particularly if the second individual is from the same state or city. Because the two individuals are in a place foreign to them, they form a group due to the relative similarity they share in nationality. Yet they may be different in every other way and would not form a group at all in any other context. Similarity can also occur on values and attitudes, such as politics or consumer goals, and the group may be seen as one avenue to express these. Why is similarity so important? First, similarity is comfortable. We find it easier to immediately start a conversation with similar others, because we believe we will have interests and conversational topics in common. The behavior of similar others appears more predictable, thus lulling our initial social anxieties. Similar others may be able to give us useful advice that is based on relevant circumstances or dilemmas. Thus, to interact with similar others can be intrinsically rewarding. Many group dynamicists go further. Recall that Leon Festinger's theory of social comparison is now over 50 years old (it appeared in Human Relations in 1954). Festinger and his contemporaries took a highly cognitive approach to group processes, believing that similar others were more informative for us than dissimilar others. Similar others tell us what is reasonable to expect, how well we are performing compared with our peers, and help us feel less embarrassed about anxiety-provoking situations. A company may, for example, have a number of employees who went to the same university; this similarity may make these employees feel more comfortable, and each employee thus has others with whom he or she can discuss various work-related issues. The increased comfort level, based on this similarity, may provide these employees with information they regard as reliable, and offers an environment where this kind of communication becomes more frequent. Having access, then, to those who are similar can often make the work environment more comfortable and, consequently, more productive. The notion that group membership can be rewarding for us spurred the development of several exchange theories. Rewards for group membership can stem from the benefits individuals receive. However, we also can invest considerable time, energy, money, and other resources in groups, thereby incurring personal costs. Further, groups differ in terms of how much they reward individuals and in what kind of rewards they bestow. Groups that appear to become too costly ultimately may lose members or have trouble attracting new recruits. For instance, a woman may be offered a very lucrative partnership in a well-known law firm. The rewards are significant: In addition to the obvious financial gains involved, she will also receive increased access to important and influential members of her profession, and the position brings with it considerable prestige. At the same time, the position requires extensive travel, requiring her often to be away from her family. Here, she may well regard the rewards of this position as not being sufficient to outweigh the costs of being away from her young children. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 97 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.2\tExchange Theories CHAPTER 5 Correctly assessing the costliness of group membership is a very important business and group application. As you return to the workplace or group participation it is important to make sure that your group or organization attracts and not repels current and potential members. Managers must develop techniques to achieve this very important strategic initiative. Other Factors The potential membership group may offer the new member tangible or intangible rewards or an ability to meet goals that coincide with the individual's own values and standards. For example, joining a particular civic organization may help the new member's real estate business by providing a readyand renewablesource of customers. For many people, the prestige or power of the group can be a very important resource. The formal versus informal dimension of groups can become important here because formal groups may be able to provide greater tangible rewards and more prestige to members more thoroughly and readily than informal groups can. While such intangible benefits may be difficult to quantify, or to put a price tag on, they can clearly be very significant. Access to those who can help one advance in his or her career, via networking, is such an intangible but extremely valuable benefit. Public recognition within the organization or in the larger community, the personal satisfaction one gains by taking on challenges and meeting them, and developing a more broadly based and more widely applied set of skills within one's profession can all be regarded as such intangible rewards. In some circumstances, these intangible benefits can be as important to an individual as the more traditional and quantifiable rewards a position offers. Another engaging feature of a group can be its acceptance of the individual as a new member, that is, other people in the group find the member personally attractive and freely express their feelings. The group may engage in active recruitment. Often active recruitment occurs because members are people the individual already knows. For example a cult might express unconditional approval for the individual and offer an effusive welcome with the hope of recruiting that individual to be part of the cult. Very often we interact continuously with the same people who live or work nearby; thus propinquity and familiarity can make a group desirable. Although these features could be a matter of convenience, they need not be. We know from Robert Zajonc's research (1968), among others, about the positive effects of repeated mere exposure research that, other things being equal, means the more we are exposed to something and the more familiar it is, the more we like it. 5.2 Exchange Theories When contemplating an expensive purchase, such as a house or a car, individuals often engage in a cost-benefit analysis; if the total expenditure appears to exceed the rewards they expect the acquisition to provide, they may consequently either fail to buy that item or reformulate their wants. A business may decide against hiring new employees if it believes these workers will not create sufficient new business to justify their cost. This is commonly known as a return on investment (ROI) in business circles. CEOs, boards of Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 98 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.2\tExchange Theories CHAPTER 5 directors, and managers carefully track the ROI of strategies, acquisitions, and human resources. As a group member, consider how you and others in the group enhance the investment that the group or organization is making. Similarly, there often is a tangible or psychological benefit for the person wanting to join the group. Social psychologists have proposed that similar processes may occur when someone considers entering a new group or creating a new relationship. Individuals weigh the costs of joining a group and participating in its activities against the rewards they anticipate receiving in return. The rewards of joining a group or beginning a relationship are diverse and can consist of: Group resources can include, among many other things, the feelings of self-satisfaction that the status and prestige of membership can bestow. Socioemotional benefits include the alleviation of loneliness through group interaction, a sense of belonging, and contributions to one's social or collective identity. Rewards can also be more tangible, such as access to Internet technology at a good university or higher interest rates on savings at a particular bank. Advancement goals may be more easily achieved in a group than individually, such as the opportunity to work with exceptional students or pay lower rates for health insurance for workers at a particular company. However, the costs of joining a group or starting a new relationship also can be plenty: Financial. Financial investments of various kinds, from initiation fees for a fraternity, sorority, or country club to more expensive clothing for the job to nursery school costs for employed parents. Time. The time required, especially at the beginning of the relationship or group membership, in addition to time spent in meetings and routine group activities. Effort. The amount of effort involved such as typing meeting minutes, setting up a new store display, or studying for the state legal bar exam. Regret. Less obvious costs include forgone opportunities. Generally you can only attend one university at a time, marry one person at a time, or work for one company at a time. \"Buyer's remorse\" refers to the feelings of sadness involved after a purchase that involved a choice among alternatives. Social. Costs can also be social. For example, in the course of working with other members to set goals or create a course of action, you may experience unpleasant confrontations with others. Ultimately such disputes may even become impor- A sense of belonging can be a sociotant enough to split the group. emotional benefit to group memberSociologist George Homans's theory of exchange in groups (1974) emphasized \"minimax\" principles Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 99 ship that's just as powerful and fulfilling as any tangible reward. 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.2\tExchange Theories CHAPTER 5 that minimal costs and maximum rewards make a group more attractive to recruits or even to current members. Homans believed that if the costs of group membership increased to become greater than its rewards, or if rewards dropped or costs increased during one's tenure as a member, individuals would begin to leave the group. Here one might consider the Internetbased company Google. Its Like Google, many companies today provide an abundance business model has been of attractive features to their employees, such as strong benremarkably successful by efits plans, free food, and even help with daily chores, like emphasizing the importance laundry facilities. of employees for meeting its goals. Google insists that its employees feel part of the organization, and make that clear by emphasizing its innovations, from its health and retirement plans, to its flexible and generous scheduling options for vacation and maternity leave, and even free laundry facilities. Google's workers consistently point out how much time they spend at work, but just as consistently identify it as one of the best companies to work for in the United States (see\"100 Best Companies,\" 2011) Often to gain employment with organizations, applicants must possess a college degree applicable to the job that is being applied for. The degree represents a personal cost that the applicant was willing to incur in the hope of future gain or reward. In order to minimize the costs associated with attaining the degree, the applicant often searches for schools that offer comparable degrees at lower costs. The applicants also seek ways to reduce the costs associated with materials needed for school. The applicant assumes the risks associated with going to school because of recognized proof that having a degree increases earning potential after graduation. Thus applicants for certain jobs view education costs as being necessary for obtaining desired positions in the work environment. Life is not always as simple as toting up the rewards and costs of group membership, then staying or leaving as the benefits and costs balance out. Many costs and rewards are hard to quantify, such as feelings of satisfaction. Furthermore, without other options, an individual may feel constrained to remain with his or her current group or relationship. For example, during hard economic times, people keep the jobs they already have, fearing that another job may not become readily available or that the current employment alternatives are worse than the job they now have. An individual may remain in an unrewarding \"love\" relationship, feeling that it is better than being alone or fearing that no one as good as the current partner will come along. Thus individuals also need to consider their available choices. Thibaut and Kelley's classic (1959) interdependence theory directly addresses this issue of alternatives. In Thibaut and Kelley's theory, individuals have an established and relatively stable comparison level (CL) of expectations for their interactions, rewards, and costs associated with a particular Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 100 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.2\tExchange Theories CHAPTER 5 group. Their comparison level can come from previous experiences, the experiences of similar others, cultural expectations, or advance research completed through libraries or the Internet. Perhaps even the individual's level of self-esteem may affect his or her CL. For example, your salary expectations may be based on your initial salary working for a company, what you've been able to glean about salaries from co-workers (since many companies want their workers to hold salaries totally confidential), and advertisements in trade publications. These inflows of information plus current employment figures in your field can influence your decision to ask for a raise and the dollar figure that you believe you currently deserve, or to seek employment elsewhere. Thibaut and Kelley also posit a comparison level for alternatives: \"CLalt\" is the least satisfying alternative available to the individual. Individuals are hypothesized to compare their CL with their CLalt to decide whether to leave or stay in a relationship, remain in an existing group, or join a new group. Let's take a very simplistic example: Consider someone who currently holds a job paying $40,000 per year. She interviews on the job market and is blissfully happy to receive the following three offers: $45,000 per year $50,000 per year $55,000 per year According to interdependence theory, our fortunate employee's choice is clear. Our job seeker's CLalt of $45,000, which is her lowest offer, is still greater than her comparison level, which is $40,000. Interdependence theory predicts she will leave her current job to take another, even if it is not the $55,000 job of her highest offer, because she now knows that her baseline of worth in the market is still more than she's currently being paid. Of course, most situations are multidimensional and the prospective member of a group, or someone deciding to leave a group or relationship, typically considers a range of alternatives along each dimension. All together, Thibaut and Kelley believe that if CL > CLalt the individual will remain in the current group CL < CLalt the individual will leave the current group CL = CLalt the choice cannot be predicted While some of this may seem like simple common sense, it is important to recognize that not all researchers agree with minimax principles. Equity theory (Adams, 1965), for example, postulates that individuals will try to achieve consistency between their costs and rewards in their interactions with others. For example, if you work very hard yet feel underpaid for your efforts, due to your perceived disparity between cost (to you in work) and reward (to you in compensation) you may feel compelled to seek employment in a group where these where cost and reward were better aligned for you. On a less formal basis, we often discuss our romantic relationships in almost economic terms. If we feel we aren't getting enough out of a relationship, we may sever it. Conversely, it might seem close to paradise to give very little to a job or a relationship but to receive a great deal in return. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 101 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.3\tEntering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups CHAPTER 5 Minimax theory is a good theory for recognizing basic behaviors for persons seeking membership in a group. However, once a person joins a group, commitment levels may rise. This commitment level can be recognized by the amount of extra effort that the person will apply to assigned tasks and also the person's strong desire to maintain membership in the group (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) Consider what is needed in order to encourage higher levels of commitment to the group. While all exchange theories assert that the underrewarded usually become irate, feeling cheated and deprived, and seriously consider leaving the group or relationship, equity theory directly addresses the case of overreward. The overrewarded individuals may also change their behavior (Leventhal, Weiss, & Long, 1969). Realizing the inequity of receiving more than they should they might increase their group inputs by, for example, working harder or producing more goods. If it is not possible to increase the quantity of one's productivity in these situations, the individual may try to increase the quality of his or her output. Initially, the overrewarded also may feel guilty. However, another possibility, particularly for those occupying a leadership role, is to alter their perceptions of others, such as co-workerstypically downwardto justify the higher rewards they receive. Consider Emily and James, who inherited a large, very valuable company from their father. Both were traditionally hard workers, but having gained control of this company, they discover that they spend considerably more time at work than they used to; while they used to work 50-hour weeks, they are now working 60-, 70-, and even 80-hour weeks. In this way, they may be trying to justify their new positions of increased power and wealth. They also notice that most of their employees do not spend the kind of hours at work that they do, which also allows them explain to themselvesor rationalizewhy they receive the much greater financial benefits that they do. Exchanges also can occur across groups, contributing to the decisions of two or more groups to work together. We will address intragroup versus intergroup cooperation versus competition in Chapter 10. It's worth noting here, however, that many groups regularly engage in bargaining and mediation practices with each other to achieve satisfactory exchanges. The exchange theory research literature makes it clear that groups with relatively low costs have an advantage attracting members. Groups offering rewards, perhaps especially rewards proportionate to costs, as the equity theory research literature suggests, also have an edge on gathering recruits. When a member has a choice of groups, a group cannot simply hold out rewards at the very beginning of admission. The group that maintains rewardsor rewarding experiencesthroughout the membership experience will probably have more success at maintaining membership, and thus, continuing to survive. 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups People enter groups several ways. Recall again the clich \"you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family.\" From darling Aunt Lil to eccentric Uncle Bill, family is an ascribed group. In addition, prisoners, pupils, drafted soldiers, workers in a bad labor market, all can find themselves continuing in groups not of their own choosing. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 102 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.3\tEntering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups CHAPTER 5 Similarly, you may have little choice about leaving a group. If your violation of group norms is severe enough, you can be expelled. In certain kinds of routinized aggregates, such as college cohorts, the only way to stay a member is to fail. Graduation, retirement, widowhood, even promotions, are socially validated rites of passage to commemorate role and group loss. Let's suppose you at least had some choice about affiliation. Recall from Chapter 3 that Bruce Tuckman has one theory of group growth and dispersion that assumes members enter, make adjustments to one another, encounter conflict along the way in establishing one's position in the group and setting group norms, and then eventually the group dissolves. Recall, too, we would suspect that Tuckman probably envisioned informal groups because many groups (as well as formal organizations) survive even several turnovers of membership. Moreland and Levine (1982) see a longer, perhaps even permanent group phenomenon, a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization. Potential members investigate a group and in turn groups recruit members. New members undergo initiation rituals and a period of adjustment. In return, the group may assist members in their preferences. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, many American businesses offered help with childcare, flexible hours, and even job sharing to accommodate changing norms about family care. Once a member is established, he or she may engage in role negotiation and maintenance. Resocialization may occur in response to changes in the member, such as the physical changes associated with aging; changes in the organization, such as the introduction of new technology; or changes in the environment, such as requests for the company to engage in greener manufacturing processes. The member may need to learn new skills, such as online course management or a new statistical analysis program, or increase their productivity. Eventually, due to incompatibilities, illness, or joining another group, membership may end. Both the individual and the group may create accounts or stories to explain this disjuncture (\"I wasn't fired, I quit.\"). However, it is also possible for membership to continue until Companies must keep up with cultural shifts and changes. company or member relo- For example, in the 1970s and 80s, many companies started cation, retirement, or death offering more attractive maternity and childcare options for brings the group relationship women entering the workplace in higher numbers. to a halt. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 103 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.3\tEntering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups CHAPTER 5 As a group member or group leader you must be aware of personal needs. These personal needs will motivate group members to stay or leave the group. Likewise, group needs can perform other functions. These needs can cause joining, growth, disintegration, firing, and/or leaving behaviors to surface. As a leader you can prepare the organization and the individual to perform most of these functions in a productive manner. Joining and Groups that don't make themselves attractive enough to workleaving are natural occurers risk being weak not only in recruiting potential job seekrences in group life. Recogers, but also in retaining their existing personnel. If employees nizing this fact and planning leave en masse, the company could collapse altogether. for its eventuality is what will make both a constructive and not a destructive process. Consider what you can do to make the latter stages of group life a constructive process for the individual and the group. In families, the \"he said, she said\" accounts are often fascinating. Each romantic partner appears to create a totally different account of \"how we met,\" \"how we wed,\" \"what was right,\" \"what went wrong,\" and in cases of divorce or dissolution, \"how we parted.\" For example former Florida U.S. Senator Bob Graham delights in telling about how his parents met on a bus traveling in north Florida. His mother entered the bus at a small town and his father later joined the journey. According to the senior Graham, the bus was absolutely packed and the only available seat was next to his future bride. According to the Senator's mother, the bus was nearly empty and this stranger insisted on sitting down next to her. Sometimes parting can amount to literal social obliteration. If a person you've been in contact with leaves a firm, her contact information may be wiped clean, leaving no way of contacting her in her new place of employment. In such a case, her parting from her former group amounted to her previous status as a member being completely erased, as if she had never existed at all. Such occurrences are frequent when people change jobs; contacts can be easily lost unless a conscious effort is made to maintain them before the changes takes place. Situations like the preceding can occur because in many groups, a voluntary exit is defined as tantamount to disloyalty. Although the individual may have been treated poorly in the group, either individually or collectively, at some primitive level, she or he appears to be expected to remain and \"take it.\" If, instead, the individual leaves, especially if it is for a better job or more prestigious group, the action is seen not only as betrayal, but possibly a cause for imitation. If one member leaves, why not others as well? If too many members leave, the word may get around and the group could begin to have problems recruiting. If the situation becomes too extreme, the group may even collapse or totally disband. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 104 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.4\tCreating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion CHAPTER 5 All organizations are, thus, organic: They develop and grow, they confront various challenges, they gain new members and lose old members. A successful business organization will recognize these as characteristics fundamental to any group, and develop strategies to deal with them. Such strategies may include techniques for retaining good employees, removing bad employees, making employees feel part of a larger group, and motivating employees to identify their success (at least in part) with the success of the business as a whole. All organizations change over time; the organization that recognizes this and effectively prepares for it is much more likely to be successful. 5.4 C \u0007 reating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion This final section discusses ways to foster productivity in groups. To do so, we need to look more closely at group cohesion and how we can attempt to measure it. What Is Group Cohesion? Cohesiveness is central to the study of groups. It is considered vital in group decision making, group performance, goal attainment, social identity, and member satisfaction. Yet cohesion, \"studied more than any other aspect of group structure\" (Moreland & Levine, 1982), has also been a problematic concept to conceptualize and measure (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Mudrack, 1989)). Often cohesion has been implied in scholarship rather than explicitly defined or measured. Indeed, many definitions of cohesion confound it with its antecedents or consequences. And is group cohesion a part of group structure or is it an ongoing group processor both? Typically, \"cohesion\" implies solidarity, or group \"we-feeling.\" It is not always clear whether scholars mean the accumulated feelings, beliefs, or actions of individuals toward each other, or toward their group, or whether cohesion is a property of the group rather than the attitudes of individuals toward the group. Those who focus on attitudes among individual members include Dorwin Cartwright (1968), who defined cohesion as \"the degree to which members of the group desire to remain in the group,\" and Bernice Lott (1961), who defined it as \"the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes among the members of a group.\" Leon Festinger's definition of cohesion as \"the resultant of all the forces acting on the member to remain in the group\" appeared to address the total group, although he suggested what cohesiveness resulted from but never defined what it was. The thousands of published cohesiveness reports describe these \"forces\" in idiosyncratic and unsystematic ways. The affective perspective (how you feel) appears to be the most common in definitions of group cohesion, either as interpersonal attraction among members or to the group itself. However, the affective view truncates other facets of cohesion, especially more collective structural or interactional dimensions. Let's begin with the first item: interpersonal attraction among members. Concentrating on interpersonal relations accentuates individuals and the characteristics they possess that induce liking. Despite some disagreement, Bernice Lott's definition of cohesion as positive affect among group members is currently Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 105 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.4\tCreating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion CHAPTER 5 the most common. Yet this definition can be the most restrictive and the most applicable to informal groups only. It certainly doesn't describe faculty members at that prestigious university described earlier who disliked to even interact with one another. Members can be attracted and remain because of the rewards the groups offers, not because of affinity toward the members. Cohesion, as stated in the previous paragraph, can also be conceived as an individual's attraction to the total group, which preserves an affective orientation in the definition but stresses the collectivity. One scholar who takes this perspective is Kenneth Bollen at the University of North Carolina. Envisioning cohesion as attraction to a collectivity can target why people join or maintain membership in groups that bestow status or other impersonal rewards even if they do not particularly like other group members. Bollen's research on group identity has helped move \"cohesion\" beyond simple interpersonal liking (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). A more communal perspective about group cohesion redirects our focus to group properties, such as a \"common fate,\" or collective empowerment, or to structures that encourage total group unity. Terms such as group solidarity, or esprit de corps, invoke a communal sentiment, although as Mudrack (1989) points out, reliance on individual attitude surveys has made measurement difficult and confusing. The inconsistent consequences of cohesion prevalent in the research literature that we'll examine in more detail in Chapter 6 may result in part from trying to squeeze a complex, continuous, and clearly multidimensional phenomenon into a restrictive single conceptual container. At times, the research literature resembles a ludicrous struggle over the \"right\" dimension of cohesionas though there were only one. After all, a casual friendship group differs from a coordinated sports team performance, and we might suspect different dimensions of cohesion apply at work. Once we look past friendship groups or the artificial setting of laboratory dyads to large or complex organizations and the groups Management Connections Fostering Cohesion You are the boss of a large company in a very competitive business environment. It has been brought to your attention that a number of your midlevel male managers have begun working out together at a local gym, a gym that is exclusively open to males. Several of these managers have made important contacts at this gym that have led to important sales for your company. Several of your employeesboth men and womenhave made it clear that they feel excluded from some important parts of your company's business, either because they are not allowed to join this gym, do not have the time to do, or simply don't have any interest in doing so. They feel that the managers who have benefited from the networking they have done at the gym have an unfair advantage in obtaining results that can lead to larger salaries and bonuses, promotions, and enhanced security. As the boss, what if any action do you take? How do you address the concerns of the employees who either can't, or won't, join the gym? Can you reward the initiative of those managers who have utilized the gym to increase your company's revenues, without alienating or excluding those who do not go to this gym? Map out a strategy that seeks to reward the initiative of the managers who go to this gym, while maintaining the loyalty of those managers who do not. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 106 9/1/11 9:59 AM Section 5.4\tCreating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion CHAPTER 5 embedded within them, structural, affective, interactional, and other forms of cohesion will operate, some simultaneously. To best understand group cohesion, it is a very good idea to employ multiple dimensions. Thus, in this text, group cohesion is defined as the degree to which a group exists or operates as a unified entity. This descriptive definition is meant to introduce sufficient flexibility to encompass individual and collective properties and processes. \"Group unity\" can include variation along individual affect, interpersonal relations, and structural continua. (See also recent work by Reitz, Breton, Kisiel Dion, & Dion, 2009.) How Do We Measure Group Cohesion? Defining, predicting, and measuring cohesion can all be conflated. Indeed, some have defined any variable that increases cohesion as \"cohesiveness\" itself. Instead of directly measuring cohesiveness, an experimenter in a study may simply assume it is present by manipulating perceived member similarity or attraction. In many cases, researchers have assigned group prestige, emotionally aroused the membership, or designed cooperative tasks, yet never directly assessed which dimension of cohesion was created. Thus, as you can see, perceived similarity, group prestige, emotional arousal, or tasks such as Aronson's \"jigsaw classroom,\" which are designed to raise cohesion, can influence group cohesionyet are distinct from it. To study cohesiveness mainly as casual face-to-face interaction, which is the case in most laboratory experiments, has implications for how we measure cohesion. That may be the major reason why most measures of cohesiveness have been self-reports, including sociometric individual choices or sociograms, which show the geographic or affective proximity of members. A collective or group level concept (cohesion) thus becomes measured as the sum, average, or variance of individual scores. Yet by manipulating group prestige, group identity, or setting arousal, social and behavioral scientists have paid at least token attention to cohesion's communal properties. Here's how we have produced group cohesiveness in experimental laboratory groups (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Friedkin, 2004): We can simply tell group members that they will like each other (yes, it can be that easy!) We can manipulate group prestige; more prestigious groups are generally more cohesive groups. We can provide an emotionally arousing experience such as electric shock. We can assign group tasks that require cooperation among the members. We can create a group enemy. Because so much laboratory research on group cohesion describes experiments with college student participants, the manipulations of arousal, prestige, or threats to the group are often weak or artificial, the research period brief, and group \"members\" are initially strangers. Even when existing groups are studied, structural aspects of the organization itself that could affect cohesiveness, such as levels of hierarchy or ecological design are neglected. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 107 9/1/11 9:59 AM What Did We Discover? CHAPTER 5 Ultimately, as a group member you must consider whether you facilitate group cohesion or whether you stand in the way of it. You must take an inventory of factors that may deter cohesion in the groups that you currently belong to and/or lead. It should be noted that not all disagreements should be considered as deterrents to group cohesion or group unity. Some disagreement is healthy as long as it is constructive and leads to the achievement of healthy group goals. Consider all relationships with and between each group member. Carefully consider each interaction. Pay close attention to each action that you take and why you have taken that action and its impact on yourself and on each member of the group. Consider whether your actions and the actions of each group member help the group or are selfish and detrimental to group goals. Summary We are attracted to and join groups for a variety of reasons. Personality, gender, similarity of group members, and a variety of other factors can impact how a group functions. Group members generally pay attention to the costs they incur and the benefits they obtain from group membership. A variety of theories have been proposed to assist in understanding how group members go about evaluating costs and benefits from group membership. These evaluations, and other factors, can influence who and when individuals enter and exit various groups. Groups vary in the level of cohesiveness they have, though researchers have had difficulty defining those differences and the concept of cohesiveness itself. What Did We Discover? Group cohesion can be difficult to obtain, but is a crucial feature of a successful organization. Various rewards are available to good employees, but the rewards must be considered relative to the costs incurred. While making employees feel part of an organization, managers must avoid the risks of making some employees feel excluded. Intangible benefits are often a significant factor in how an employee will regard his or her satisfaction in the workplace. Business Application Exercises 1. Employee satisfaction is notoriously difficult to measure, but it can be pretty easy to spot. Identify two different ways employees behave that indicate they are satisfied, or very satisfied, with their jobs. Identify two different ways employees behave that indicate they are dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied, with their jobs. 2. What kinds of strategies can a company use to create a sense of group loyalty to a corporation? Name three specific techniques a company might use to increase group cohesion. Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 108 9/1/11 9:59 AM CHAPTER 5 What Did We Discover? 3. Give an example of your own where the costs incurred by taking a certain job would outweigh the potential rewards that job offers. In what ways could the company offering the job restructure these costs in order to make the job more attractive? 4. Explain why employees may be more likely to put up with an unsatisfactory work environment during times of high unemployment. Key Terms affective perspective interdependence theory ascriptive mere exposure cohesion minmax theory comparison level personality-oriented perspective comparison level for alternatives propinquity equity theory return on investment (ROI) exchange theories similarity group cohesion situational perspective group socialization and resocialization tangible rewards intangible rewards theory of exchange in groups Related Web Links Austad, Steven. \"Why women live longer than men: Sex differences in longevity\" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550857906801981 100 Best Companies to Work For http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/ What Is Group Cohesion? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-group-cohesion.htm The Characteristics of a Good Team http://www.teambuildinginformation.com/characteristics-of-a-good-team.html Retaining Good Employees http://humanresources.about.com/od/retention/a/more_retention.htm Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 109 9/1/11 9:59 AM Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 110 9/1/11 9:59 AM 6 Group Cohesiveness Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating What are some of the ways members of groups identify with each other? What helps foster the effectiveness of teams? What are some of the obstacles to groups working well together? What specific differences are there between a mere group and a genuine team? Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 111 9/1/11 9:51 AM CHAPTER 6 Introduction Chapter Outline 6.1 Togetherness Interpersonal Factors Structural Factors Organizational Factors 6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: \"The Good Stuff\" Autonomy Representation Enforcement 6.2 Teams Ways to Foster Team Cohesion Detriments to Team Cohesion 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: \"The Bad Stuff\" Pluralistic Ignorance Scapegoating and Aggression Self-Censorship Groupthink Cohesion and Productivity: Another Look \"Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.\" Henry Ford Before we begin to examine causes and consequences of group cohesion, let's consider the following questions: What has been your most stellar group experience? What were the qualities or events that made it such a good experience? What has been a negative group experience you've had? What were the qualities or events that made it a negative experience? Was there anything that could have been done to improve that experience? It's very likely that the quality of the interpersonal relations that you had with other members, the attraction you had to the group itself, or the efforts made by the larger organization to make the group attractive to you played important roles in your overall assessment of your group experience. Cohesion has probably been studied more than any other feature of group dynamics. Recall from Chapter 5 that group cohesion is defined as the degree to which a group exists or operates as a unified entity. This definition can refer to attraction to the other group members and to the larger collectivity itself. In this chapter, we examine the many causes of group cohesiveness as well as several outcomes of belonging to a cohesive group. We start by looking at togetherness and the three primary factors associated with it. Then the focus turns to the dynamics of teams. The chapter concludes with a closer look at the pros, as well as the cons, of cohesion. Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 112 9/1/11 9:51 AM Section 6.1\tTogetherness CHAPTER 6 6.1 Togetherness There are positive and negative examples of togetherness. First we'll discuss negative examples to help illustrate that togetherness can occur in all types of group contexts good, bad, and traumatic. During World War II, the German army, or Wehrmacht, was famous for its national and internal loyalty. Even when outnumbered and outarmed by Allied Forces, ill fed and in rags, German soldier brigades often literally fought to the last man without surrender. Japanese pilots in World War II deliberately crashed their planes into enemy targets, committing suicide in the process (Janowitz, 1948). More recently, followers of the Reverend Jim Jones first trailed their leader to Guyana, and then committed mass suicide at his apparent request. Several years later, Heaven's Gate commune members committed mass suicide in California, apparently believing that space aliens would whisk them away in the process. Even more recently, suicide bombers have killed thousands of people (including, obviously enough, themselves). Worldwide, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of young persons who are apparently willing to die for their cause, including jihad. Such willingness to sacrifice everything, including one's life, for the larger collectivity demands our attention. But what builds and nourishes this kind of loyalty? Many would argue that members of highly cohesive groups are more willing to sacrifice for the sake of the collectivity, even if it means their lives. Thus, this chapter combines the earlier material on attraction to groups with research on cohesiveness to examine several of the determinants and outcomes of group cohesion. There's a special something about a group that functions well together. Yet you may recall that attempts to define cohesion frequently break down into either vague or overly restrictive terms. Part of the problem is failing to consider the many dimensions of group cohesion. What makes up the group is a significant factor in how that group does its work. Indeed, the very transition from a mere group to a genuine team can often be the result of the characteristics of those who make up the group. At the same time, the goals of a group, and its success in meeting those goals, provides another way of evaluating its performance and effectiveness. And these are just two important factors to consider in evaluating how well a group performs its functions. A unified sports team is not a neighborhood after-school friendship group. Different bases for group cohesion depend on the type of group and on the resources that the group and members can offer one another. Similarly, the dimension of cohesion that may work well for one type of task (providing Working together as a unified team is often the cornerstone of success in business, academics, sports, and indeed any context. emotional support in a drug recovery group) may work Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 113 9/1/11 9:51 AM Section 6.1\tTogetherness CHAPTER 6 poorly in another (assembling a car in a garage). This chapter will start by explaining the three main factors of togetherness: interpersonal, structural, and organizational. Interpersonal Factors There are several possible sources of group cohesion. Some sources are more interpersonal, while others are structural in nature. Of course, more than one source can operate simultaneously for a particular group. Interpersonal sources of group cohesion depend on the characteristics of individual members. The group is cohesive because members like and are attracted to one another. Some major sources include member similarity and member attractiveness. Member similarity, which is probably the number one factor in interpersonal attraction (Chapter 5), includes demographic factors, such as age and gender; similarity in attitudes, such as values and beliefs; and situational similarity, such as travelers in a foreign country or employees in danger of being laid off or fired. Member attractiveness is an interpersonal resource that can induce group cohesion. It is very often characteristic of an informal group because informal groups frequently have Management Connections Diversity and Cohesion Most research studies, especially laboratory experiments that examine the influence of member characteristics on interpersonal ties, use groups of strangers. Other \"members\" of these experimental groups can immediately know information about these individuals only from superficial observation or because the experimenters provide selected, often bogus information about them. (See McGrath, 1984.) How do you think the results might differ if we studied intact groups instead? Might an oral history of the group or a longitudinal, natural setting design such as Newcomb's scholarship house for students (Chapter 4) yield different data? Consider a small company of 30 or so employees: 25 are male, five are female. Two of the women are Latinas, two of the males are African American, and the rest are White. A new manager is employed, who is a Chinese American female. What characteristics might the new manager have that provides some common ground with the other employees? What characteristics might be seen by some employees as obstacles to the group's cohesion? What kind of strategies might the owner of the company develop to help the new manager feel part of the group, and as adding to group cohesion, rather than subtracting from it? Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 114 Diversity adds tremendous value in terms of achieving a company's goals. But bringing diverse backgrounds and perspectives together in a cohesive, focused way also can create challenges for those in leadership positions. 9/1/11 9:51 AM Section 6.1\tTogetherness CHAPTER 6 more limited structural resources that they can use to recruit appealing members. Interpersonal attraction can come from various sources. The prestige or social class of individual members (irrespective of the status of the group itself), member physical attractiveness, and supportive warm personalities of members can all be attractive forces. Structural Factors A large company can only do so much about the personal characteristics of the people who work there and the effects those characteristics may have within the company. However, large companies do typically have control over all kinds of structural properties, from salary schedules to attractive physical dcor. For example, someone may wish to work at IBM because it produces a well-known product and has a good reputation for treating its employees well, irrespective of what the other workers may be like. Structural sources of cohesion refer to properties in the group's physical or social environment or regular, systematic rewards that a group can offer to its members. Structural sources of cohesion center more around attraction to the group itself or aspects related to group tasks than they do around the positive characteristics of individual members as is the case with interpersonal sources of cohesion. Structural cohesion thus is usually more apparent in formal than in informal groups. Propinquity One very basic structural element of cohesion is propinquity, or spatial proximity to others. This can be an important structural property because people interact more with individuals who are next to them, regardless of how they feel towards those individuals. By seeing the same people in the elevator every day, standing in line in the cafeteria with the same individuals, or always being seated next to the same person in a training workshop, those persons become familiar to us. Other things equal, Zajonc (2000) found that we like familiar objects, even familiar nonsense syllables, better than unfamiliar ones. There is, presumably, sufficient stress within a workplace already, due to deadlines, production schedules, meetings, and other work-related obligations. Familiarity can help with this Business in the Real World Fostering Teamwork Consider a job you have had, or a job you currently have. How many of the people with whom you work do you know well? Do you know the names of their spouses and children? Do you know what they do for fun, or where they went on vacation? Have you ever been to their house, or they to yours? Have you gone out with th