4.3 Group behaviour in organisations
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 4.3
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
4.3.1Group development• 4.3.1 Group development and decision-making- Tuckman and Jensen's (2010) stages of group development.- Belbin's nine team roles.- faulty decision-making, explanations and strategies to avoid it:- - groupthink including features with examples- - Forsyth's cognitive limitations and errors including types and subtypes.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic, generalisations.4.3.2Group performance• 4.3.2 Individual and group performance- individual and group performance focusing on social facilitation and social loafing including definitions, drive theory and evaluation apprehension, social impact theory.- group performance across cultures focusing on social loafing in individualistic and collectivist cultures, including a study, e.g. Earley (1993).- performance monitoring of employee productivity (exemplified by the following key study).- Key study looking at concentration levels when being monitored: Claypoole and Szalma (2019), focus on experiment 1, specifics of methodology for experiment 2 will not be needed.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, determinism versus free-will, idiographic versus nomothetic, quantitative and qualitative data.4.3.3Conflict at work• 4.3.3 Conflict at work- levels of group conflict (intra-individual, inter-individual, intra-group and inter-group). Causes of organisational and interpersonal group conflict.- Thomas-Kilmann's five conflict-handling modes.- bullying at work; types, phases and causes, including a study, e.g. Einarsen (1999).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, cultural differences, reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic.
Groups develop, divide roles and still make predictable errors
| Tuckman–Jensen stage | Main group job |
|---|---|
| Forming | Orient to task, test boundaries and establish initial rules/roles |
| Storming | Work through status, control, goal and method conflict |
| Norming | Build cohesion, shared expectations and accepted roles |
| Performing | Coordinate flexibly around the shared task and results |
| Adjourning | End/review work, recognise contributions and transfer learning |
| Belbin role | Distinct contribution |
|---|---|
| Plant | Generates creative solutions |
| Resource investigator | Explores external opportunities/ideas and brings them back |
| Coordinator | Clarifies goals and draws contributions together |
| Shaper | Drives progress and challenges inertia under pressure |
| Monitor-evaluator | Analyses options impartially and strategically |
| Teamworker | Supports relationships, cooperation and conflict reduction |
| Implementer | Converts ideas into practical plans/action |
| Completer-finisher | Checks errors, deadlines and final quality |
| Specialist | Supplies focused, in-depth expertise |
| Forsyth error family | What goes wrong | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Commission | Information is used wrongly | Sunk-cost commitment; hindsight; belief perseverance; using evidence meant to be ignored |
| Omission | Relevant information is overlooked | Base-rate neglect; fundamental attribution error |
| Imprecision | A simplifying heuristic misleads | Availability, representativeness or conjunction error |
Groupthink occurs when pressure for unanimity overrides realistic appraisal. Warning signs include invulnerability/overconfidence, rationalising warnings, assumed morality, stereotyping outsiders, pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity and mindguards. Reduce risk by withholding the leader's preference initially, inviting dissent and outside expertise, splitting into independent groups, using a devil's advocate and revisiting assumptions/risks before commitment.
These are diagnostic models, not a fixed script. Groups can revisit stages; one person can fill several roles; nine people are not required. Cohesion supports coordination but becomes risky when it suppresses disconfirming evidence—so role balance must be paired with decision checks.
Presence and shared responsibility change effort and attention
| Effect/theory | Mechanism | Prediction/boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Social facilitation: drive theory | Presence raises arousal and strengthens the dominant response | Helps simple/well-learned tasks; can impair difficult/new tasks |
| Evaluation apprehension | Performance changes when people expect others can judge them | Mere presence is insufficient if no evaluation is expected |
| Social loafing | Individual effort falls when contribution is pooled/less identifiable than alone | Reduce with small groups, individual responsibility/feedback, meaningful contribution and fair rewards |
| Social impact theory | Impact depends on source strength, immediacy and number; each extra target can diffuse pressure | Larger groups can dilute responsibility, but status/proximity/monitoring alter the effect |
Earley (1993) compared individualistic and collectivistic work groups across the United States, China and Israel. Under high shared responsibility, highly individualistic participants performed more poorly, whereas collectivists could perform better because group goals and identity carried value. This is a probabilistic culture-by-accountability interaction, not a claim that every person in a collectivist culture works harder.
| Claypoole & Szalma (2019), Experiment 1 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Sample/design | 106 US university students (65 women, 41 men; mean age 20.57), randomly assigned to electronic monitoring or no-monitoring control |
| Monitoring/task | Webcam above screen plus video recorder one metre behind for later evaluation; 24-minute sustained-attention task pressing space for critical two-digit signals |
| Outcomes | Correct detections, false alarms and response time |
| Results | Vigilance declined over time, but monitored participants detected more signals (.69 vs .60), made fewer false alarms and responded faster (767 vs 802 ms) |
| Inference | Electronic presence facilitated this vigilance task similarly to human social presence |
Random allocation, a no-monitoring control and standardised signals/equipment support causal inference and reliability. But a short lab vigilance task with student volunteers does not prove that surveillance improves complex work, long-term productivity or welfare. Monitoring may change autonomy, stress, privacy and behaviour; fewer errors here must not substitute for an ethical workplace evaluation.
Conflict needs a level, cause and proportionate response
| Conflict level | Example source |
|---|---|
| Intra-individual | One worker faces incompatible values, goals or role demands |
| Inter-individual | Two people compete, misunderstand, distrust or depend on incompatible actions |
| Intra-group | Roles, status, resources, norms or task methods divide one team |
| Inter-group | Departments/groups compete over goals, identity, resources or workflow |
| Thomas–Kilmann mode | Assertiveness | Cooperativeness | Useful when… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competing | High | Low | Urgent, vital action outweighs agreement |
| Collaborating | High | High | Both concerns matter and time permits an integrated solution |
| Compromising | Medium | Medium | A fair workable settlement is needed quickly |
| Avoiding | Low | Low | Issue is trivial, unsafe, or needs cooling/information—not when delay preserves harm |
| Accommodating | Low | High | The other concern matters more or preserving relationship is justified |
Einarsen (1999) defines workplace bullying as systematic aggressive behaviour over time in a situation where the target has difficulty defending themselves or escaping. Conflict can escalate through early disagreement/aggression, repeated bullying, stigmatisation and severe trauma. Predatory bullying exploits power without a preceding dispute; dispute-related bullying grows from escalating conflict.
| Cause level | Possible contributors—not excuses |
|---|---|
| Bully/relationship | Status competition, envy, insecurity, displaced stress, escalating hostility |
| Power/target exposure | Formal authority, isolation or low ability to defend/exit makes repeated aggression possible |
| Workplace system | Poor job design/leadership, role conflict, workload, low morale, permissive norms and weak reporting/accountability |
A target's anxiety or sensitivity may shape reporting or vulnerability but does not cause or justify aggression. Diagnose repeated acts, duration, power and system response before labelling ordinary disagreement as bullying. Conflict modes are situational tools; ethical management must stop harm, protect reporting and correct organisational conditions rather than ask the target simply to accommodate or avoid.