Groups, Networks, And Organizations

7/30/2019 Groups, Networks, And Organizations

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-networks-and-organizations 1/30

Groups, Networks, and

Organizations

How do these groups affect the

individual? How does theindividual affect these groups?



Groups Within Organizations

Two or more people who interact to meet a

shared goal

A shared sense of purpose sets a group apart

from just a gathering of people

Are motivated to participate in the activities of

the group



Social Groups

Social groups are collections of people who

share a sense of common identity and

regularity interact with each other on the

basis of shared expectations. These social

groups shape nearly every experience in our

lives. Among the types of social groups

there are:



Reference groups provide a standard bywhich we judge ourselves in terms of how

we think we appear to others. – Cooley called this the “looking glass self”

Group size affects group dynamics

– Small groups are more intimate and have fewer numbers of relationships

– Large groups are more stable with far morerelationships and complexity

– Groups of 12 or more usually have some formalstructure

– Smallest group is a dyad



Leaders are able to influence other membersof the group to what they want

– Transactional leaders involves routine leadership

concerned with getting a job done

– Transformation leaders involve changing the very

nature of the group itself

– Can you think of examples of each?



Research supports the idea that individuals in thegroup are highly susceptible to group pressure

Solomon Asch (1952) – Going along with the group

– Participants were shown a standard line and then three

comparison lines. Their task was simply to say which of the three lines next to the standard line match it. Whenconfederates gave false answers first, 75% of participantsconformed by giving the wrong answer.



-The participants — the real subject and the

confederates — were all seated in a classroom

where they were told to announce their judgment

of the length of several lines drawn on a series of displays. They were asked which line was longer

than the other, which were the same length, etc.

The confederates had been prearranged to all give

an incorrect answer to the tests.



- While most subjects answered correctly, manyshowed extreme discomfort, and a high proportion

(32%) conformed to the erroneous majority viewof the others in the room when there were at leastthree confederates present, even when themajority said that two lines different in length byseveral inches were the same length. When theconfederates were not unanimous in their

judgment, subjects were much more likely todefect than when the confederates all agreed.Control subjects with no exposure to a majorityview had no trouble giving the correct answer.



"I am, in plainer words, a bundle of

prejudices—made up of likings anddislikings—the veriest thrall of

sympathies, apathies, and

antipathies."

- Nineteenth century English author

Charles Lamb

"I have no race prejudices,

and I think I have no color prejudices nor creed

prejudices. Indeed, I know it.

I can stand any society.”

-- Mark Twain

Intergroup Relations



North vs. South

East vs. WestU.S. vs. Iraq

Racism

Sexism

Heterosexism

Rich vs. poor

Elitism Ageism

Serbs vs. Croats

Darfur’s Fur, Masalit,

and Zaghawa vs.the

Baggara

ALL Examples of

US vs . Them

Issues

Does membership in onegroup require rejection of

other groups?

How does groupmembership change

member’s perceptions?

How can conflicts bereduced?



What Interpersonal Factors Disrupt Relations

Between Groups?

The Robbers Cave

Experiment

– Conducted by

Muzafer andCarolyn Sherif

and colleagues

in 1950s

– Two groups of young boys:

The Rattlers and

the Eagles



Scenes from theRobbers Cave



The Robbers Cave Experiment

Result: Reactions to conflict escalated

from exclusion to verbal abuse to

discrimination to violence

What caused the conflict between

these two groups?

Interpersonal factors Cognitive factors



What Interpersonal Factors DisruptRelations Between Groups?

Competition and conflict

– Realistic conflict theory: competition over scarce

resources

– Discontinuity effect: Insko, Schopler, et al. findgroups are more competitive when playing the

Prisoner’s Dilemma Game (PDG)

• Greed

• Identifiability• Fear




Norms and conflict

– Norm of reciprocity and conflict spirals

– Cultural norms• Chagnon’s studies of the Yanomanö

• Collectivistic and individualistic societies

– Subcultural norms: Collectivism,

individualism, and conflict




Power and domination

– Economic versus militaristic (coercive)

exploitation

– Insko’s study of laboratory microsocieties

Negative affect and conflict

– Frustration-aggression and conflict

– Scapegoating and intergroup conflict

Group hate (Sternberg)



What are the Cognitive Foundations

of Conflict Between Groups? Ingroup-outgroup bias

– Favoring the ingroup over the outgroup:

• “we are better than them”

• ethnocentrism

– Ingroup favoritism tends to be stronger thanoutgroup rejection



What are the Cognitive Foundationsof Conflict Between Groups?

Ingroup-outgroup bias (cont.)

– Conflict and categorization increases

• cohesion of ingroup

• differentiation between groups

• doublestandard thinking

• outgroup moral exclusion (Staub)

• group hate



What are the Cognitive Foundationsof Conflict Between Groups?

Cognitive consequences of categorization

– Outgroup homogeneity bias

– Law of small numbers – Group attribution error

– Ultimate attribution error

– Linguistic group bias

– Stereotypes



What are the Cognitive Foundations ofConflict Between Groups?

Social categorization may be sufficient to

create conflict

– Tajfel and Turner’s minimal intergroupsituation finds bias

– Social identity theory and the ingroup-

outgroup bias/self-esteem link.

– Instinctive bases of intergroup discrimination



How can Intergroup Relations be

Improved?

Intergroup contact

– Contact hypothesis: Contact is more effective

when

• it creates cooperation between the groups

• participants are equal in status

• interaction is intimate (stimulated

friendships across groups)

• norms encourage cooperation



Intergroup contact (cont.)

– Pettigrew and Tropp's review: contact is more effective

in work and organizational settings than in recreationaland tourist settings.

– Robbers Cave contact

• Initially contact between the groups failed

• Contact worked when groups worked toward

superordinate goals



Cognitive approaches to conflict reduction

– Decategorization

– Recategorization: common ingroup identity model

– Cross-categorization

– Controlling stereotyped thinking

Conflict management: interpersonal skill trainingprocedures

– Jigsaw learning groups

– Constructive controversy procedures

– GRIT: Graduated and Reciprocal Initiative in Tensionin Tension Reduction



Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (1986)

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is a classic case of groupthink. The Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff on

January 28, 1986 (Vaughan 33). The launch had been

originally scheduled for January 22, but a series of problems

pushed back the launch date. Scientists and engineersthroughout NASA were eager to get the mission underway.

The day before the launch an engineer brought up a concern

about the o-rings in the booster rockets. Several conference

calls were held to discuss the problem and the decision to go

ahead with the launch was agreed upon. The group involved

in making the Challenger decision met several of the

symptoms of groupthink. They ignored warnings that

contradicted the group’s goal.



- The goal was to get the launch off as soon as possible, and itended up being a fatal mistake. They also suffered from afeeling of invulnerability, up until that point NASA had analmost spotless safety record. They also failed tocompletely examine the risks of their decision; they played

it off as if it was nothing important. Another factor thathad suppressed the few engineers who were "going against

the grain" and "sounding the alarm" was that all eyeswere on NASA not to delay the launch and that Congresswas seeking to earmark large funding to NASA given the

large amount of publicity on the Teacher in Spaceprogram. These misjudgements led to the tragic loss of

several astronauts, and a huge black mark of NASA’s nearperfect safety record.



Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do

that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and

toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of

destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting

hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we

shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Groups, Networks, And Organizations

Documents

Transcript of Groups, Networks, And Organizations