C4.2 Groups at Work
Summary of all lectures and articles
(and brief overviews of the additional resources)
Course Code: FSWP4046AO
Academic Year: 2019-2020
Professor: dr. H van Mierlo
, P4.2 GROUPS AT WORK
Lecture 1: Social Psychology of Groups and Teams (Heleen van Mierlo)
Heleen explained that you will gain the following knowledge during this course: (1) basics knowledge of groups at work,
(2) knowledge about diversity in groups, (3) knowledge about group processes and (4) leadership in and of groups. You
should be able to develop an integrative, critical view of the literature about groups at work. When studying, you should
look at the general resources for every problem and use the empirical/textbook articles which are provided for each problem.
Also, you should integrate your knowledge after reading the literature.
There are five meetings and four themes. You should prepare by reading and gain a meta-view of the literature (think about
what you read and why). You should also integrate the resources and discuss the literature based on the learning goals. The
course exam will take place on November 8th. It is a digital exam in the M-hall with multiple choice and open questions.
Emphasis will be on integrating your knowledge and reflecting on the quality of the information (put it in perspective).
There will be an exam preview on Canvas before the exam.
The practical will consist of four meetings and four preparative assignments. You finish the practical by turning in a
portfolio. This information will not be part of the exam.
Baumeister & Leary (1995) explained about the need to belong. Heleen explained that no man is an island and you need
to have social bonds to feel complete. You can be conditioned to behave in a certain way to fit in the group. Conditioning
helps humans to survive (also in social contexts). We also use social comparison, which means that we look at others to
understand ourselves and our environment. On this, we base our decisions. Furthermore, there is social identity which helps
people and groups shape and emphasize the identity they have. Charles Darwin proposed that we have socio-biology, which
is based on our genetics. We need to work in groups to survive. Finally, we use social exchange (based decisions on the
social fairness; the ratio of costs and benefits).
In addition, there is optimal distinctiveness which means that people look for a balance between being unique and the need
to belong. Norman, Triplett and Zajonc et al. presented the idea of mere presence, which refers to the concept that we are
most, if not all, the time with people. Your social environment influences you (e.g., if people facilitate performing, you
perform better; social facilitation). However, this only usually applies to simple/familiar tasks. For difficult tasks, groups
can also lead to social impairment and social loafing. There are multiple reasons for social impairment: (1) drive theory,
(2), distraction/conflict theory, (3) self-efficacy theory, and (4) attentional strategies.
✓ Drive theory (Zajonc): arousal results in a dominant response. This instinct is often effective for simple tasks, but not
for difficult tasks.
✓ Distraction/conflict theory (Baron): this theory is based on the drive theory. When others are around, there are more
cues which can lead to an attention conflict. This leads to arousal, which in turn leads to a dominant response.
✓ Self-efficacy theory (Sanna): the presence of others for a difficult task may be threatening, because you don’t know
your performance for a difficult task.
✓ Attentional strategies (Geen): when others are around, you try to focus on the task rather than the
environment/audience. However, for difficult tasks cues from the environment facilitate performance.
Zajon, Heingarten & Herman (1969) did an experiment with cockroaches. They let the roaches perform an easy task and
a more difficult task in a box. The roaches had to find their way to the food from one end of the box to the other. In the
simple task, the roaches actually performed better when they were alone. However, in the maze task, an audience
significantly increased their performance. This shows that the mere presence of others can influence our behavior, decisions
and outcomes of our behavior. Nevertheless, working in a group relates to more than only mere presence. Groups generally
perform better than individuals, but people who work in groups sometimes have lower individual productivity compared to
individual employees.
Page 1 of 93
, P4.2 GROUPS AT WORK
Shaw (1932) performed a study in which individuals and small groups were compared on their ability to make a rational
solution for complex problems. The individual group had a 14% success rate, whilst the groups had a 60% success rate.
Steiner (1972) also showed that potential productivity depends on (1) member resources and (2) task demands. He created
a format with four different tasks demands (1) additive tasks; being a sum or average of individual contributions, (2)
disjunctive tasks; being based on the performance of the strongest member, (3) conjuntive tasks; being based on the
performance of the weakest member, and (4) discrete tasks; being based on what the group decides to base the performance
on. He found that actual productivity is potential productivity – process loss (e.g., coordination/motivation/communication
issues). Coordination and communication problems can be due to status (willingness to share and accept information
depends on the status of the group member), confidence, and talkativeness.
Motivation loss can be due to a lot, but Heleen pointed out the ringelmann effect, which is the decreased productivity of a
team as more group members enter the group. This effect was first found by Igham, Levinger, Graves and Peckham
(1974) in an experiment with a tug war. Furthermore, it was found in an experiment by Latane, Williams and Harkins
(1979) that people clap/cheer less hard individually when the group is bigger. This can explain social loafing (free riding)
and the sucker effect (not wanting to help someone who does nothing for the group).
In conclusion, people are generally drawn to groups and the mere presence of others can change our behavior for the better
or worse.
General Resources
1. Mathieu, J., Maynard M.T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent
advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
Introduction
Mathieu and his colleagues focused on what there is still to learn about working in teams, after years of research. They use
the input-process-outcome (IPO) framework and the team effectiveness model to do so.
Teams Defined
The authors use the following definition of work teams: “collectives who exist to (1) perform organizationally relevant
tasks, (2) share one or more common goals, (3) interact socially, (4) exhibit task interdependencies, (5)maintain and manage
boundaries, and (6) are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences
exchanges with other units in the broader entity” (Kozlowski & Bell). A team has several taxonomies (types of classes)
and act in different environments. This means that different teams face different challenges, demands, and yield different
results.
Team Effectiveness Framework
McGrath created the input-process-outcome (IPO) framework (figure 1)
which could help capturing team effectiveness. It consists of:
✓ Inputs: antecedents of (lack of) interactions, consisting of: (1)
individual team member characteristics, (2) team-level factors, (3)
organizational and contextual factors. For example, the input is a
combination of the personality of the team members, the task structure
and the environmental complexity.
✓ Processes: a combination of the three team inputs mentioned above.
These are the interactions (and reasons for the interactions) which drive teams towards task accomplishment.
✓ Outcomes: the results and by-products of the processes, which can be categorized as being (1) performance and (2)
affective responses. For example, one can have achieved a target of selling 10.000 items and feel satisfied about this.
Page 2 of 93
, P4.2 GROUPS AT WORK
This model has been modified by others, stating that temporal and contextual
elements should also be included (figure 2; input-mediator-outcome
framework). Furthermore, the IPO does not include multiple types of
processes and outcomes. In terms of differences with the original model, one
will notice that the input levels influence each other (higher level factors have
more influence over lower level factors than reversed), that episodic cycles
are included as well as developmental processes. Also, the new model
includes not only processes but also emergent states (e.g. affect). The IMO
model includes both episodic approaches (teams must execute different
processes at different times in a cycle) and developmental models (teams change, are influenced by external factors and
mature over time). Due to the development, the IMO model turns into the IMOI (or input-mediation-output-input) model.
The dotted line means that teams will not be influenced by the mediators as much as by the outcomes (solid line).
Team Outcomes
▪ Team Performance: A lot of sources state that performance could act as the criterion variable (which still needs to be
“found” in the field of group effectiveness). There are three categories:
✓ Organizational-level performance: performance on an organizational (higher) level is very relevant for teams
high in the hierarchy but less for lower level teams. The authors suggest that there should be a compilation model
in which it becomes clear how team outcomes combine in organizational benefits.
✓ Team performance behaviors and outcomes: a performance behavior is an action which is relevant to achieving
a goal, whilst a performance outcome is the consequence of the performance behavior. For example, think about
actively seeking feedback and making good decisions.
✓ Role-based performance: role-based performance relates to the extent to which members are capable of fulfilling
their tasks.
The authors explained that it is also possible to combine behavior and outcomes into a composite measure of
performance. Actually, the authors think that this is a better indicator of effectiveness than a single measure.
Nevertheless, these measures are hard to interpret and lack discriminant validity.
▪ Members’ Affect and Viability: affect and viability play a role in team outcomes as well. Affect relates to the emotional
and attitudinal experiences at work (e.g. team/job/organization satisfaction) whilst viability relates to belongingness
and the which to stay in a team (e.g. team/job/organizational commitment). This aspect often lacks in the measurements
of team outcomes.
▪ Summary Impressions and Future Directions:
✓ Utilize a complication model to link team performance to organizational outcomes;
✓ The definition of performance should be context specific and matched with relevant measures. The team
performance criteria should be (1) carefully tied to the function and tasks of a team, (2) differentiated into
constituent parts, and (3) combined using a formal combination algorithm;
✓ The measurements should be longitudinal and should devote attention to developmental and episodic stages;
✓ One should take into account what the time-span of one cycle is;
✓ Discriminant validity should be established between measures of team mediators and outcomes;
✓ There should be more research towards how team processes and outcomes contribute to organizational benefits.
Mediator-Team Outcome Relationships
▪ Team Processes: team processes have been divided into two processes: (1) taskwork and (2) teamwork. Taskwork is
the actions you must perform to accomplish a team’s task, whilst teamwork is the interaction between people to
accomplish this task. Building on this, three superordinate categories of processes were created: (1) transition, (2) action
and (3) interpersonal. During transition phases, team members focus on activities such as mission analysis, planning,
Page 3 of 93
