Although teams have enormous performance potential, one of their problems is social loafi ng. Also known as the Ringlemann effect, it is the tendency of people to work less hard in a group than they would individually.23 Max Ringlemann, a German psychologist, pinpointed the phenomenon by asking people to pull on a rope as hard as they could, fi rst alone and then as part of a team.24 Average
• Synergy is the creation of a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
• Social facilitation is the tendency for one’s behavior to be infl uenced by the presence of others in a group.
• Social loafi ng occurs when people work less hard in groups than they would individually.
c07TeamsInOrganizations.indd Page 153 7/21/11 7:46 PM ff-446
c07TeamsInOrganizations.indd Page 153 7/21/11 7:46 PM ff-446 Schermerhorn_OBSchermerhorn_OB
154 7 Teams in Organizations
productivity dropped as more people joined the rope-pulling task. Ringlemann suggested that people may not work as hard in groups because their individual contributions are less noticeable in the group context and because they prefer to see others carry the workload.
You may have encountered social loafi ng in your work and study teams, and been perplexed in terms of how to best handle it. Perhaps you have even been surprised at your own social loafi ng in some performance situations. Rather than give in to the phenomenon and its potential performance losses, you can often reverse or prevent social loafi ng. Steps that team leaders can take include keeping group size small and redefi ning roles so that free-riders are more visible and peer pressures to perform are more likely, increasing accountability by making indi- vidual performance expectations clear and specifi c, and making rewards directly contingent on an individual’s performance contributions.25
Other common problems of teams include personality confl icts and differences in work styles that antagonize others and disrupt relationships and accomplish- ments. Sometimes team members withdraw from active participation due to uncertainty over tasks or battles about goals or competing visions. Ambiguous agendas or ill-defi ned problems can also cause fatigue and loss of motivation when
SOCIAL LOAFING AND SURVIVOR
While teams offer tremendous performance potential, there are also unique problems in the team context. Social loafi ng is the tendency for an individual to do less in a group than he or she would individually. Two factors increase the likelihood of loafi ng. The fi rst relates to the diffi culty of identifying how individuals perform. When you do not know what others are doing, they can avoid working as hard. It is tempting to say the second factor is individual laziness. However, many times individuals simply recognize that others will pick up the slack and make sure tasks are accomplished. As a result, they simply opt out.
In the ever-popular reality show Survivor, individual players must balance cunning and competitiveness against the need for teamwork and collaboration. In Season 10, Willard Smith fi nds himself a member of the successful Koror tribe. Willard’s contribu- tions are limited, so his tribe assigns him to tend the fi re at night. Instead of fulfi lling his obligation, Willard sleeps in the only hammock available. When morning comes, eventual winner Tom Westman complains about losing sleep because he has to “cover” for Willard.
He and Gregg Carey talk about how easy it is to make a contribution to the team even if physical ability is lacking.
Westman’s assessment of Willard’s motives (e.g., “Why should I do it if somebody else is going to do it for me”) shows that social loafi ng can be a diffi cult problem to address even when others know it is happening.
Get to Know Yourself Better Has this been your experience when working in groups? Take the Assessment 9, Team Effectiveness, in the OB Skills Workbook. If the score suggests previous groups were ineffective, explore the reasons. If social loafi ng was a problem, how would you deal with it in the future? If there were issues with other dynamics, think about ways that you could help future group members develop greater trust, communicate more effectively, and become more committed.
OB IN POPULAR CULTURE c07TeamsInOrganizations.indd Page 154 7/21/11 7:46 PM ff-446
c07TeamsInOrganizations.indd Page 154 7/21/11 7:46 PM ff-446 Schermerhorn_OBSchermerhorn_OB
Team Effectiveness 155
teams work too long on the wrong things with little to show for it. And fi nally, not everyone is always ready to do group work. This might be due to lack of motiva- tion, but it may also stem from confl icts with other work deadlines and priorities.
Low enthusiasm may also result from perceptions of poor team organization or progress, as well as from meetings that seem to lack purpose. These and other dif- fi culties can easily turn the great potential of teams into frustration and failure.
RESEARCH INSIGHT
“Why do individuals reduce their efforts or withhold inputs when in team contexts?” This question led researchers Kenneth H. Price, David A.
Harrison, and Joanne H. Gavin into social loafi ng theory. The authors designed a study of natural teams consisting of students working together in course study groups for a semester. They posed hypotheses linking the presence of individual evaluation, perceived dispensability, and perceived fairness of group processes with the presence or absence of social loafi ng.
Price and colleagues studied 144 groups with a total of 515 students in 13 undergraduate and graduate university courses. Participants completed a questionnaire before group work started and again at the end. The fi nal questionnaire included a section asking respondents to rate the extent to which each other group member “loafed by not doing his or her share of the tasks, by leaving work for others to do, by goofi ng off, and by having other things to do when asked to help out.”
Findings showed that social loafi ng was negatively related to perceived fairness of group processes and posi- tively related to perceived dispensabil- ity of one’s contributions. The relation- ship between social loafi ng and perceived dispensability strengthened when individual contributions were more identifi able. Task-relevant ability was negatively associated with per- ceived dispensability; the presence of relational differences among members was negatively associated with per- ceived fairness of group processes.
Do the Research Build a model that explains social loafi ng in the teams you often work with. What are the major hypotheses? How might you test them in an actual research study?
Source: Kenneth H. Price, David A. Harrison, and Joanne H. Gavin, “Withholding Inputs in Team Contexts: Member Composition, Interaction Processes, Evaluation Structure, and Social Loafi ng,” Journal of Applied Psychology 91.6 (2006), pp. 1375–1384.
Membership, Interactions, and Evaluation Infl uence Social Loafi ng in Groups
Identifiability of individual contributions
Task-relevant knowledge, skills,
abilities +
+ +
+ + –
–
+ –
Perceived dispensability of
contributions
Social loafing Relational
dissimilarity of group members
Perceived fairness of group processes c07TeamsInOrganizations.indd Page 155 7/21/11 7:46 PM ff-446
c07TeamsInOrganizations.indd Page 155 7/21/11 7:46 PM ff-446 Schermerhorn_OBSchermerhorn_OB
156 7 Teams in Organizations
There is no doubt that the pathways to team effectiveness are often complicated and challenging. One of the fi rst things to consider, whether we are talking about a formal work unit, a task force, a virtual team, or a self-managing team, is the fact that the team passes through a series of life cycle stages.26 Depending on the stage the team has reached, the leader and members can face very differ- ent challenges and the team may be more or less effective. Figure 7.3 describes the fi ve stages of team development as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.27
Forming Stage
In the forming stage of team development, a primary concern is the initial entry of members to a group. During this stage, individuals ask a number of questions as they begin to identify with other group members and with the team itself. Their concerns may include “What can the group offer me?” “What will I be asked to contribute?” “Can my needs be met at the same time that I contribute to the group?” Members are interested in getting to know each other and discovering what is considered acceptable behavior, in determining the real task of the team, and in defi ning group rules.