8.4 The Downside to Teams

Not only are there different types of groups and teams, there are also different types of outcomes and challenges that groups can encounter. In this section, we will look at some of the negative challenges to teams. In this section, you will learn about the downside to teams and ways to prevent them from happening.

Groupthink

Irving Janis (1983) brought attention to the idea of “Groupthink.” Irving described groupthinkThe group’s inclination to defer critical thinking and accept solutions without much consideration. as a group’s inclination to defer critical thinking and accept solutions without much consideration. Groups that encounter groupthink misjudge their own resources, find supporting evidence, and evade analyzing opposing ideas. Groupthink usually occurs when a crisis is discovered. Think back to an organization that you were involved with and how the crisis was dealt with. Was it handled in a responsible and ethical manner? Why or why not?

Take a few minutes to complete the crisis knowledge index. Compare your answers with others in your class. How can identifying a crisis help you prevent groupthink? How can identifying a crisis allow for groupthink to happen?

Crisis Knowledge Scale

Crisis Knowledge Index Instructions: Below are several descriptions dealing with the extent to which you are now aware of the crisis that occurred. Please use the scale below to rate the degree to which each statement applies to your perceptions about your knowledge of the crisis:

1.       I know the details of the crisis.
2.       I do not feel knowledgeable about the crisis that occurred.
3.       The details of the crisis that occurred are very clear to me.
4.       I do not know enough about the crisis that occurred.
5.       I do not comprehend the details of the crisis that occurred.
6.       My knowledge of the crisis that occurred is limited.
7.       I completely understand the details of the crisis that occurred.
8.       I feel knowledgeable about the details of the crisis that occurred.
9.       I comprehend the details of the crisis that occurred.
10.       The details of the crisis that occurred are not clear to me.

Recode = 2, 4, 5, and 10. Add all items together.

Source: Wrench, J. S., Fiore, A., & Charbonnette-Jordan, C. (2007). The impact of crisis communication on levels of acutetraumatic stress disorder as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Journal of the Wisconsin Communication Association, 26, 30–45.

Janis (1983) noted that groupthink as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative course of action” (Janis, 1983, p. 9).

Groupthink happens quite often. Think about a group meeting that you have been involved with. Perhaps, one person in the group will offer a suggestion and/or idea, then everyone in the group agrees with it without thinking about the negative or positive consequences of the idea. People do this all the time because the person who offered the idea might be a highly powerful member, others don’t want to disagree, or there is not a huge stake in the decision. At times people will not offer resisting ideas or be a devil’s advocate on an idea because there may be consequences or the person is fearful of what others may think. Groupthink can cause frustration to individuals who feel that their voices are not heard and their time was not valued. Hence, it is important to provide opportunities for all group members to speak so that groupthink does not occur.

Risky Shift

Groupthink is not the only thing that happens in groups. Sometimes groups will make “risky” or precarious decisions (Isenberg, 1986). This results in what is known as risky shift. Isenburg (1986)found that individuals are more likely to make riskier group decisions than individual decisions. For instance, in a group discussion, there are members that may advocate for an extreme position more than they would in other circumstance, because they are part of a group. Daniel Isenburg (1986) illustrated that risky shift has occurred in jury decision making processes. Mock jury members were more likely to choose punitive damages that varied significantly from individual juror members. The findings revealed that when individuals would support a low award, group discussion would influence the juror to a more compassionate result. At the same time, if the juror wanted a harsh penalty, after group discussion, the juror would be more likely to give a harsher punishment. Risky shift maintains that a group’s decision tends to be more risky than the individual group member’s decision before the group convened. Risky shift is an important concept, because it not only illustrates how one group member cannot affect the entire group, but also how it impacts the individual’s own decision. Thus, communication between and among group members cannot be overstated.

Team Conflict

Conflict is inevitable and will most likely occur in groups and teams. Roy Berko, Andrew Wolvin, and Darlyn Wolvin  (2012) categorized two types of tensions that group will encounter: primary and secondary. The first is primary tension, which happens initially when groups are formed. The second is called secondary tension, which happens after group has been developed. In other words, primary tensions are ones that often happen before the group meets and secondary tensions often happen after the group meets.

Primary Tension

Individuals might feel tension before a meeting begins due to the following reasons (Zaremba, 2010):

• A fear that the each member in the group will not have similar tasks and responsibilities.
• An uncertainty about the topic of the meeting and the possibility for uncomfortable topics.
• The topic is uneasy and/or distressing.
• The task might involve written or speaking skills and they do not feel competent in those skills.
• They have communication apprehension, which means they are nervous about communicating in that context.
• They meeting will cause more work or work that is beyond their capabilities.
• They do not feel properly prepared.
• Previous negative group experiences. Negative working relationship with the team leader.
• Time constraints
• Other personal issues that might interfere with their involvement with the group.

As you can see, each of these tensions can make work conditions rather uncomfortable. Think about a group meeting that you had to prepare for, did you have any of these primary tensions? How did you react to them?

Secondary Tension

As stated earlier, secondary tensions occur after the meeting begins. These tensions can be classified into four types: procedural, equity, affective, and substantive.

• Procedural tensions originate from group members’ perceptions that the group is not productive. Group members believe that the agenda is ineffective and/or that the team leader is not adhering to the agenda.
• Equity tensions happen when group members do not feel equal. They may feel that certain things are not fair, such as work load and/or responsibility. On the other hand, equity issues may stem from feeling that there are more controlling members that dominate and their opinions are worth more than others.
• Affective tensions happen when team members do not like each other. Team members will find it more difficult to communicate. There may be huge rivalry and competitiveness in the group.
• Substantive tensions happen when there are legitimate concerns about the task. Conflict here can turn into problem solving moments, creativity, increased information sharing, and provide a better perspective of the opposition. Substantive conflict is beneficial because everyone gets a different perspective of the same topic. It can result in a better outcome because all voices are heard (Zaremba, 2010, p. 184).

Social Loafing

Another downside to teams is social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loading happens when certain group members do not put forth as much effort in the group compared to when they are working independently. Sometimes groups are not productive because group members do not fully contribute. Sometimes you will get the best work when group members work by themselves because they don’t have to report or communicate with anyone else. Think about a group that you were involved in, did someone “ride your coat tails” or became a “free-rider”? Take a few minutes to complete Note 9.18 “Workplace Input Scale” on Workplace Input Scale. Do you think you engage in social loafing? Why or why not?

There is research that discusses how social loafing can be avoided. Dan Rothwell (2012) argued that social loafing can be prevented by collaboration, content, and choice. He noted that competitive situations will not get group members motivated and motivation can impede social loafing. First, collaboration is the key to get everyone involved. If everyone feels like they are special and are given meaningful tasks, then they are more likely to contribute. Second, content provides each group member with their importance to the task. People are more likely to contribute if they are informed with the knowledge about their task and other group members are informed about that group members contribution. Third, choice is helpful for social loafing because it provides group members to pick the task that they are better apt or skilled to complete.

Workplace Input Scale

Workplace Input Scale

Instructions: This survey includes a number of statements about how you may feel about your current working condition. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements and disagree with others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each of the statements by marking your opinion to the left of each statement according to the following scale:

1.       I have no input at work at all.
2.       Nobody cares about what I say at work.
3.       People at work do not listen to my input at all.
4.       When I have a good idea at work, it’s like I’m talking to a wall.
5.       People always listen to my suggestions at work.
6.       No one wants to hear my ideas at work.
7.       My co-workers pay attention to my input.
8.       People in my workplace always heed my suggestions.
9.       People take my ideas seriously at work.
10.       I have no problem having my ideas heard at work.
11.       I have a lot of input on the job.
12.       My input plays an important part on my job.
13.       People listen to what I have to say at work.
14.       No one pays attention to my ideas at work.
15.       Nobody listens to my suggestions at work.
16.       People care about my ideas at work.
17.       When I have a good idea at work, people listen.
18.       No one takes my ideas seriously at work.
19.       No one in my workplace heeds my suggestions.
20.       I have a problem getting my ideas heard at work.

Recode: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 15, 18, 19, & 20

Source: Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Brogan, S. M. (2005). The development, reliability, and validity testing of new measures in organizational communication. Manuscript in preparation.

References:

Berko, R., Wolvin, A., & Wolvin, D. (2012). Communicating: A social and career focus (12 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6): 1141– 1151.

Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

Rothwell, J. D. (2012). In the company of others: An introduction to communication (4 ed.). New York, NY: Oxford.

Zaremba, A. J. (2010). Organizational communication (3 ed.). New York, NY: Oxford.