Group polarization in everyday life.

Because we typically associate with people similar to ourselves, our interactions tend to strengthen opinions we already held. Accentuation Phenomenon: Over time, differences between groups increase. Group discussions often result in a pooling of ideas, most favoring the dominant viewpoint. Because people will bring up arguments that other like minded people have not yet considered, these additional arguments can contribute to the polarization effect. According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) , it is human nature to want to evaluate our opinions and abilities, and one way to do this is by comparing our views to others. When people have not made their mind up on an issue, other peoples opinions can affect them even more. Social Comparisons can affect value judgements more, and informational influence can affect factual judgements more. Explaining Group Polarization Two main theories exist which help explain G.P. Informational Influence --- Influence that results from accepting evidence about reality provided by other people Group discussions often result in a pooling of ideas, most favoring the dominant viewpoint. Because people will bring up arguments that other like minded people have not yet considered, these additional arguments can contribute to the polarization effect. Normative Influence-- Conformity based on a persons desire to fulfill other peoples expectations or to gain acceptance.

Group Polarization -- Group produced enhancement of members preexisting tendencies; a strengthening of the members average tendency.

Groupthink -- A tendency by group members to suppress dissenting opinions in the interest of group harmony, which can sometimes lead to disastrous (or unwise) decisions. Groupthink is most likely in centrally directed groups which view themselves as a highly cohesive unit.

Irving Janis (1971) Janis developed a list of 8 symptoms which contributed to groupthink behavior.

1. An illusion of invulnerability -- excessive optimism makes group members oblivious to the actual probability of mission failure. 2. Unquestioned belief in the groups morality -- group members tend to ignore ethical and moral issues, believing strongly in the groups moral superiority. 3. Rationalization -- Groups spend as much time justifying their decisions as they do considering other possible alternatives. 4. Stereotypical views of opposition -- Underestimation of the opposing groups capabilities. Finally, basic group pressures which contribute to groupthink. Conformity pressure -- Group members will typically attack other members who bring up opposing viewpoints. Self-censorship -- When groups seem to be in agreement on an issue, group members will withhold their viewpoints in fear of upsetting the consensus. Illusion of Unanimity -- conformity and self-censorship pressures create the image that only one opinion exists within a group, and that all members agree with that opinion. Mindgaurds -- Sometimes group members hold back information as a way of "protecting" the group from conflicting information. Problems that Groupthink can cause: 1. Incomplete analysis of alternatives 2. Incomplete survey of objectives. 3. Failure to examine the risks associated with the preferred choice. 4. Poor information search. 5. Selective bias in processing available information. 6. Failure to work out contingency plans.

 How can Groupthink be prevented ? Education -- telling group members about the groupthink phenomenon and its
consequences. Group leader should not publicly endorse either position while a discussion is ongoing. Encourage doubts and criticisms Assign someone the role of playing "devils advocate"

After preliminary discussions have concluded, encourage people to offer

dissenting opinions at a "second-chance" meeting. Invite outside experts to evaluate the groups decision.

Encourage members to seek feedback from people outside the group. Lastly, considering what we learned about gender differences and managerial
styles, perhaps women group leaders will be less likely to fall into groupthink traps than male leaders.

One problem why groupthink still exists is that the above suggestions will all add time to the decision making process. To the extent that group decisions are made under time constraint situations, groupthink processes will act that much more.

Although our discussions of social facilitation, groupthink, and group polarization highlight the importance social influences have on our behavior, the individual does have powers of their own.

Reactance: The tendency to react opposite of how we know people want us to act, especially in a coercive situation. Reactance helps to restore or strengthen a sense of personal freedom. Reactance may contribute to underage drinking -- There is a higher rate of abstinence among people over the drinking age than people under the drinking age. In other words, people telling you that you cant drink is more likely to encourage you to drink. Asserting Uniqueness -- although people dont typically like to stand out in the crowd, they will do small things which assert their independence. People are likely to mention any distinguishing qualities when describing ourselves.

How can Individuals influence groups ? People holding a minority opinion in a group can sometimes turn their minority opinion into the group norm by: Being Consistent and Persistent in expressing their viewpoint Showing self-confidence in holding onto your opinion. Trying to focus the group discussion on the minority opinion. (Talkative group members tend to be more influential than reserved group members) How can the group leader affect group decisions? Two types of leadership have been recognized: Task leadership -- organizing work, setting standards, and focusing on group goal attainment. Social leadership -- building teamwork, mediating within-group conflicts, and building on group cohesion. Task leaders tend to have a directive style, while Social leaders often have a democratic style. Social leadership can lead to group members being more satisfied, because of increased group involvement and input.

Highly successful, charismatic leaders often embrace both styles of leadership, tailoring their behavior (either directive or democratic) toward the specific situation. Highly successful leaders are able to communicate a vision to the group members, a vision which inspires the group members to work toward the common group goal.

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/groups.html

Group Think and Group Polarization

Group Think The tendency for members of a cohesive group to reach decisions without weighing all the facts, especially those contradicting the majority opinion. Group Polarization The tendency for members of a cohesive group to make more extreme decisions due to the lack of opposing views.

If you've ever been involved in a group decision making process, you've probably seen one of two things happen: either the group agrees on all of the major issues, or there is significant dissent that splits the group. If the group is cohesive; if they agree on most issues, they tend to stifle dissent because group harmony is the anticipated outcome (Janis, 1972). When we all agree, and are happy with that agreement, we typically do not want to hear opposing arguments. This phenomenon is referred to as Group Think. It can lead to impulsive decisions and a failure to identify and/or consider all sides of an argument. Some classic examples of group decisions going bad include lynch mobs, actions of the Ku Klux Klan, discrimination among hate groups, and mass riots. Similar to this, Group Polarization refers to a groups tendency to talk itself into extreme positions. In this case, a group gets so focused and energized about a decision that it creates an internal fuel, so to speak, which pushes itself forward faster than originally intended. Imagine a group of protesters, all agreeing and deciding to picket. You can see how this could get out of hand because opposing views (Group Think) are not considered and the push to move forward for the cause is fueled internally (Group Polarization).

6 Steps for Avoiding Groupthink on Your Team

JULY 8, 2010 BY ART PETTY 7 COMMENTS

28 http://artpetty.com/2010/07/08/6-steps-for-avoiding-groupthink-on-your-team/ 6 Steps to Avoid Groupthink on Teams: 1. Anticipate Groupthink in your Risk Plan. While it might sound like planning to fail, ignoring the potential for Groupthink is a failure to plan for a very real risk. And like any risk plan, there must be processes for monitoring and mitigating emerging Groupthink. 2. Size counts. Limit the typical team size to less than 10 and ensure that there are welldefined boundaries for inclusion. Porous team boundaries and widespread casual involvement on teams breeds dysfunction, including pressure towards consensus for the wrong reasons.

3. Invite external perspectives at various stages of the process. Of course, youve got to have the procedures in place to both protect external viewpoints and to find ways to incorporate them into the groups thinking and plans. 4. Lengthen the discussion phaseuse structured discussion to focus on vetting the issues. Delay a rush to judgment. I encourage groups to incorporate non-typical discussion processes such as Six Hats Thinking to dramatically improve discussion quality. 5. Develop a second solution. I referenced this approach in Practical Lessons in Leadership. Challenge your team to assume that management will reject their first solution. Develop an alternative and very different second solution and be prepared to defend it. 6. Invite the Devils Advocate to the party. While a designated Devils Advocate is a contrived role and everyone knows it, at least someone will be throwing rocks at the groups beautiful picture. Rules on respecting and vetting the DAs perspective are critical to benefitting from this approach. The Bottom-Line for Now: Forewarned is forearmed. Decision-making is tough enough, and it grows in complexity when there are groups involved. Dont naively assume that your group of smart people is immune to the many pitfalls and missteps that dot the path towards a decision. Groupthink is like the common cold, and while there may not be a cure, there sure are some preventative measures that can help keep it at bay.
1. Mullins, L J (2010) Management & Organisational Behaviour, 9 Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. th 2. Martin, J and Fellenz, M (2010) Organizational Behaviour and Management, 4 Edition, SouthWestern: Cengage Learning. th 3. Robbins, S and Judge, T (2011) Organisational Behaviour, 14 Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 4. Ivancevich, J M, Konopaske, R and Matteson, M T (2011) Organizational Behaviour and Management, th 9 Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
th

One explanation for a reduction in potential productivity is loss of motivation. This reduction in motivation and effort when individuals work collectively, compared when they work individually, is described as social loafing (Williams, Harkin, & Latan, 1986). Group members identification of loafing (whether justified) among their teammates has shown the potential to reduce motivation and effort among the evaluators and ultimately to reduce team performance. In research on group dynamics, group cohesion and group norms have been identified as key factors exerting considerable influence on team performance (Carless & DePaola, 2000; Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002; Kim, 1995; Langfred, 1998). According to theories of group cohesion (Carron, Colman, et al., 2002) and theories of group norms (Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987), it is reasonable to assume that group cohesion and performance-related group norms may inhibit an athletes perception of social loafing.

In a study of military units, Langfred (1998) found that units with high cohesion but low standards of norm for performance (high and low) were less productive than units with high scores for cohesion and high performance norms (high and high). Langfred summarized that a more cohesive group influences its members in whatever directions the norms are oriented (p. 129). In an examination of work -group effectiveness, Goodman et al. (1987) stated that norm and cohesiveness are the two central socialpsychological concepts in a model of group effectiveness. Cohesiveness captures the energy and effort members will allocate to the group task, and norms identify the ways to channel this effort (p. 151). Carron (1993) also claimed that high cohesion and high norms should lead to the best performance; high cohesion and low norms should lead to the worst performance, and low cohesion with high or low norms should lead to intermediate levels
220 Small Group Research
2010 Downloaded from http://sgr.sagepub.com at K.U.Leuven - Universiteitsbibliotheekdiensten on April 29,

of performance.

Characteristics of Effective Teams

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e140/e140a/effective.html 1. There is a clear unity of purpose. There was free discussion of the objectives until members could commit themselves to them; the objectives are meaningful to each group member.

2. The group is self-conscious about its own operations. The group has taken time to explicitly discuss group process -- how the group will function to achieve its objectives. The group has a clear, explicit, and mutually agreed-upon approach: mechanics, norms, expectations, rules, etc. Frequently, it will stop to examined how well it is doing or what may be interfering with its operation. Whatever the problem may be, it gets open discussion and a solution found. 3. The group has set clear and demanding performance goals for itself and has translated these performance goals into well-defined concrete milestones against which it measures itself. The group defines and achieves a continuous series of "small wins" along the way to larger goals. 4. The atmosphere tends to be informal, comfortable, relaxed. There are no obvious tensions, a working atmosphere in which people are involved and interested. 5. There is a lot of discussion in which virtually everyone participates, but it remains pertinent to the purpose of the group. If discussion gets off track, someone will bring it back in short order. The members listen to each other. Every idea is given a hearing. People are not afraid of being foolish by putting forth a creative thought even if it seems extreme. 6. People are free in expressing their feelings as well as their ideas. 7. There is disagreement and this is viewed as good. Disagreements are not suppressed or overridden by premature group action. The reasons are carefully examined, and the group seeks to resolve them rather than dominate the dissenter. Dissenters are not trying to dominate the group; they have a genuine difference of opinion. If there are basic disagreements that cannot be resolved, the group figures out a way to live with them without letting them block its efforts. 8. Most decisions are made at a point where there is general agreement. However, those who disagree with the general agreement of the group do not keep their opposition private and let an apparent consensus mask their disagreement. The group does not accept a simple majority as a proper basis for action. 9. Each individual carries his or her own weight, meeting or exceeding the expectations of other group members. Each individual is respectful of the mechanics of the group: arriving on time, coming to meetings prepared, completing agreed upon tasks on time, etc. When action is taken, clears assignments are made (who-what-when) and willingly accepted and completed by each group member. 10. Criticism is frequent, frank and relatively comfortable.

The criticism has a constructive flavor -- oriented toward removing an obstacle that faces the group. 11. The leadership of the group shifts from time to time. The issue is not who controls, but how to get the job done.
Sources: The Human Side of Enterprise, by Douglas MacGregor The Wisdom of Teams, by Kaztenbach and Smith

Twelve Characteristics of Effective Teams

1. Clear purpose. Each member of the team understands the mission or objective, and the team has a plan of action.

2. Informality. The working environment is informal. Team members feel comfortable with the project and with each other. No one is either tense or bored.

3. Participation. Discussions are lively and each member of the team has a chance to participate.

4. Listening. Team members listen to each other. They summarize, paraphrase, or ask questions in order to encourage explanation or elaboration.

5. Civilized disagreement. Team members feel comfortable disagreeing with each other. Disagreements are polite and friendly. 6. Consensus decisions. The team arrives at its decisions through discussion of each members ideas. Team members avoid both formal voting and easy compromises. 7. Open communication. Team members tell each other how they feel about the teams project and the teams operation. They have no secrets or ulterior motives.

8. Clear roles and work assignments. Each member of the team understands the job that he or she is expected to do. Work assignments are fairly distributed and promptly completed.

9. Shared leadership. The responsibilities of leadership rotate periodically among the members of the team.

10. External relations. The team develops a working relationship with the supervisor and with other teams. It displays to those outside the team a distinct identity.

11. Diverse responsibilities. Each member of the team has a special emphasis. The team includes members who emphasize the quality of the document, the setting of objectives, the process of investigating alternatives, and building consensus, and the administration of the team.

12. Self-assessment. The team does periodic self-examinations. Each member of the team evaluates how effectively the team is functioning and recommends how it might improve.
Adapted from Glenn Parkers Team Players and Teamwork. San Fransisco: Jossey -Bass, 1990. Page 33.

Characteristics of an Effective Team

1. The team members share a sense of purpose and common goals, and each team member is willing to work to achieve these goals. 2. The team is aware of and interested in its own processes and examines norms operating within the team. 3. The team identifies its own resources and uses them, depending on its needs. The team willingly accepts the influence and leadership of the members whose resources are relevant to the immediate task. 4. The team members continually listen to and clarify what is being said and show interest in others thoughts and feelings. 5. Differences of opinion are encouraged and freely expressed. The team does not demand narrow conformity or adherence to formats that inhibit freedom of movement and expression. 6. The team is willing to identify conflict and focus on it until it is resolved or managed in a way that does not reduce the effectiveness of those involved. 7. The team focuses on problem solving rather than allowing by interpersonal issues or competitive struggles to drain the teams energy. 8. Roles are balanced and shared to facilitate both the accomplishment of tasks and feelings of team cohesion and morale. 9. To encourage risk taking and creativity, mistakes are treated as sources of learning rather than reasons for punishment. 10. The team is responsive to the changing needs of its members and to the external environment to which it is related. 11. Team members are committed to periodically evaluate the teams performance. 12. The members identify with the team and consider it a source of both professional and personal growth. 13. Developing a climate of trust is recognized as the crucial element for facilitating all the above characteristics.

Characteristics of Effective Team Members

Effective Team Members: 1. Support the team leader 2. Help the team leader to succeed 3. Ensure that all view points are explored 4. Express opinions, both for and against 5. Compliment the team leader on team efforts 6. Provide open, honest and accurate information 7. Support, protect and defend both the team and the team leader 8. Act in a positive and constructive manner 9. Provide appropriate feedback 10. Understand personal and team roles 11. Address problems to the team (upward feedback) 12. Accept ownership for team decisions 13. Recognize that they each serve as a team leader 14. Accept ownership for team decisions 15. Participate voluntarily 16. Maintain confidentiality 17. Show loyalty to the organization, the team leader, and the team 18. View criticism as an opportunity to learn 19. State problems, along with alternative solutions/options 20. Give praise and recognition when warranted
Based on Teamwork: We Have Met the Enemy and They are Us by M.M. Starcevich and S.J. Stowell. Bartlesville, OK: The Center for Organizational Effectiveness. Based on "Team Building as Group Development" by Philip Hanson and Bernard Lubin. Organizational Developmental Journal: Spring 1986. and George Mason Universitys Center for Service and Leadership

http://www.drexel.edu/oca/l/tipsheets/Effective_Team.pdf

Team Tactics: Top 10 Characteristics of Effective Teams

>Excellerate

Home >Really Useful Free Stuff >Excellerate Team Tactics: Team Building Strategies to Improve Performance >Team Tactics Top 10 Characteristics of Effective Teams

Top 10 Characterstics of Effective Teams

by Sharon Feltham Years of research into teams, and our own experience in working with many different groups, has shown that the following 10 characteristics are present in successful teams. These teams work well together, achieve their goals and enjoy themselves in the process. How does your team measure up? http://www.excellerate.co.nz/tt10characteristics.html 1. Clear Purpose. Members understand and are fully committed to the vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the team. Ineffective teams lack clarity of purpose, a plan and specific goals. Members wonder, wander and pull in different directions. 2. Open Communication. Effective teams pride themselves on open, participatory communication and vigorous discussions. Ineffective teams are marked by gossip, hidden agendas and guarded communication. 3. Constructive Conflict. On effective teams, there's disagreement, but members are comfortable with this and deal with it openly. There are very few signs of avoiding or suppressing conflict. Ineffective teams lack trust and are often undermined by personal disagreements and their inability to resolve conflict constructively. 4. Effective Problem Solving and Decision-making. Approaches to problem solving and decision making are well established in effective teams. Ineffective teams lack problem-solving strategies and are stymied by inefficient decision-making processes and low quality decisions. 5. Defined Roles, Responsibilities and Accountability. Roles, responsibilities, expectations and authorities are well defined, understood and accepted. Work is fairly distributed and skills are well represented with team members' abilities recognized and fully utilised. Team members are fully accountable for individual and collective team performance. Ineffective teams struggle with role conflict, unclear boundaries, confused expectations and poor accountability. 6. Strong Relationships.

Effective teams work on building and maintaining internal relationships. Team members are supportive; trust one another and have a lot of fun together. Members also invest in developing relationships and building credibility with important stakeholders in other parts of the organization. Poor collaboration, low morale, cliques and silos characterize ineffective teams. 7. Systems and Procedures. Effective teams implement and support procedures to guide and regulate team functioning. Ineffective teams rarely invest in developing their team systems or improving work processes 8. Experimentation and Creativity. Well functioning teams encourage creativity and risk taking and experiment with different ways of doing things. Ineffective teams often are bureaucratic, low risk and rigid. 9. Measurement and Self-assessment. Effective teams have clear shared measures. They schedule time to regularly assess their progress and performance, identifying achievements and areas for improvement. Ineffective teams tend focus on individual measurement and rarely review their collective performance. 10. Shared Leadership. Effective teams share leadership roles depending upon the circumstances, needs of the group, and expertise of members. The formal leader co-ordinates the integration of effective team functions and models appropriate behaviour to help establish positive norms. Ineffective teams often have one person dominating.

How to Work with This

Schedule time to take your team through a self-assessment against this list. Use a simple 1-5 rating scale and then combine individual scores to identify and prioritise areas for improvement. Establish an action plan and set a timeframe to reconvene and review your progress

Seven Characteristics of Groups and Teams http://leadingtoserve.com/?p=172 Wed Jul 21st, 2010 by Tom Nees Comments 3 Ive been in groups that called themselves teams and really werent. And Ive also been on teams and know how challenging, as well as rewarding, teamwork can be. A team leader is like a player/coachextremely rare in sportsbut essential in organizations. Leaders seldom if ever lead alone. They serve with peers and followers in a variety of partnerships including groups and teams. Here are 7 parallel characteristics of groups and teams. Groups
1. Members have a common purpose but work independently, sometimes competitive with one another 2. Individuals may have limited knowledge about one another 3. Meetings serve as a forum to receive reports and coordinate activity 4. Meetings follow an agenda with set time constraints 5. Attendance is not essentialthe group can function with absent members and substitutes 6. The composition of the group may vary 7. Individuals rather that the group are recognized for effectiveness

Teams
1. Members are interdependent, collaborating for a common mission or project, never competitive with one another 2. Trust develops from learning about one anotherhow to anticipate behavior 3. Meetings serve to evaluate team effectiveness 4. Meetings are often unstructured allowing time for strategic planning and team development 5. Attendance and participation of each member is essential 6. Team members may not appoint substitutes 7. Individual performance is secondary to team effectiveness

There is nothing wrong with a good group. Groups shouldnt necessarily try to become teams. However, some goals and objectives can only be achieved with effective teams and good team leaders.