Agenda. Handbook update Test? Due date for Handbook Social Influence: conformity, norms, groupthink Team time for Handbook Next week: Team and member performance assessment– Each team brings a proposal and instrument for assessment. Social Influence: Cohesion, norms & groupthink.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Social Influence: Cohesion, norms & groupthink
Team cohesion, norms & groupthink
The Advantages of High
Solomon Asch Line Experiment:
How group pressure affects individual opinion on a task
Eight male students were arranged around a table as shown by the circles in the image below. Only one of them however was a real participant (shown in blue) the others were confederates of the researchers. The task was to identify which of the lines (A, B or C) was the same length as the test line (X). They answered out loud in turn and the confederates were all told to answer the same incorrect letter. The real participant was placed in his position because it would give him a chance to see what the other participants answers were, but not right at the end as he may become suspicious.
the (genuine) participants conformed on 32% of the trials and only 26% of people never conformed.
Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect
Bean counters unite!– Jesness study of conformity around an ambiguous task
Participants guessed at the number of beans in the jar before joining groups and comparing estimations. Jenness found that participants guess at the answer, but when put into groups their answers start to converge around a similar estimate as individuals look to others for help. Unsure of the answer they look to others for guidance and support
Zimbardo’s 1973 “prison” experiment (shades of Abu G’raib?)
24 volunteer college students at Stanford University were divided into “prisoner” and “guard” groups. Over several days the guards became more humiliating and abusive and prisoners became more rebellious, eventually reaching dangerous stress proportions. The experiment was discontinued when the effect were finally noted.
Overview of GroupThink
Advantages of Cohesion
GroupThink Profile Scales
Team Cohesion: The level of commitment, loyalty, and team spirit experienced by team members
Pressure: Organizational culture and situational conditions that create stress and performance pressure on the team
Flawed Organizational Structures: A lacking of organizational and team procedures and controls by which team processes and outcomes are monitored
Group Think: Eight symptoms of decreased decision making effectiveness
Counter-measures: Internal and external procedures to monitor team processes and decisions in order to reduce the risk of groupthink and promote effective decision atmosphere
When it hits the fan:
Consequences of GroupThink--faulty decisions
1. Fail to adequately determine their objectives and alternatives
2. Fail to adequately assess the risks associated with group decisions
3. Fail to cycle through discarded alternatives to reexamine their worth after a majority of the group discarded the alternative
4. Not seek expert advice
5. Select and use only information that supports their position and conclusions
6. Does not make contingency plans in case their decision and resulting actions fail
GroupThink Profile for CSS-IT
Reducing or Preventing Groupthink
Team Task (30”): Consultation to a team at risk for GT