As we discussed in class, social loafing is one potential downside of working in groups. Research suggests that regardless of the type of task, when working in a group, most individuals contribute less than if they were working on their own. Sometimes theses people are labelled shirkers because they dont fulfil their responsibilities as group members. Other times, social loafing is overlooked, and industrious employees do the work to meet the groups performance goals. Either way, social loafing creates an ethical dilemma. Whether in class projects or in jobs we have held, most of us have experienced social loafing in groups. We may even have been guilty ourselves. Although limiting group size, holding individuals responsible for their contributions, setting group goals, and rewarding both individual and group performance might help reduce the occurrence of social loafing, in many cases people just try to work around shirkers rather than motivate them to perform at higher levels. Managers must determine what level of social loafing for groups and for individual employees will be tolerated in terms of nonproductive expectations, and counterproductive work behaviours. Employees must decide what limits to social loafing they will impose on themselves and what tolerance they have for social loafers in their work groups.

1. Do group members have an ethical responsibility to report shirkers to leadership/Professor? (1 mark) Which framework for ethical decision making would apply here? (2 marks) Explain why you choose that framework? (2 marks)

2. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to your responsibilities)? Are there times when shirking is ethical or even justified? (2 marks)

3. Social loafing has been found to be higher in individualistic nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking by North American students and employees to a great degree than if someone else does it? Why or why not? (3 marks)