1. Function of Groups Affiliation (e.g., sororities, fraternities, clubs) Survival Vital for task completion (organizations, work groups, charities) Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

2. Group Processes

3. Do people try less hard when working in groups? Does social loafing occur? Ringleman Effect? Social Loafing The average performance (input) of individuals decreases as group size increases

4. Ringelmann Findings IndividualsIndividual Efforts (Sum) Group EffortGroup/Individ ual Ratio 1-7764480.63 8-14516432.84 15-21533.7435.4.82 22-28575.5471.2.82 15-281109.2858.9.78 Why? a) Less effort b) Coordination issues

5. Precursor to the Latane et al study (Ingram et al, 1974)

6. Yelling (& clapping) study by Latane, Williams, & Harkins Procedure? Alone In actual groups In pseudo-groups Less individual effort when in groups, even in “groups” when no one was present (but people thought they were)

7. 10 8 6 4 2 Sound pressure per person 1 2 6 Group size Reduced effort (Social loafing) Coordination loss Potential productivity Pseudo-groups Actual groups

8. Social Loafing on a More Complex Task

9. Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)

10. Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics Procedure? Survey: List of 92 adjectives rated on a 5-point scale from (1) “Not Characteristic to (5) “Characteristic” Ratings on: Men in General, Women in General, and Successful Manager in General

11. Results – Ratings by males? Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics

12. Results – Rating by females? Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

13. Results? Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.) High agreement in ratings Less agreement on ratings of women by males and females

14. Results regarding specific trait differences? Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.) Males higher ratings on “ Dominant-Aggressive ” characteristics – e.g., competitive, need for power, aggressive, assertive (especially by male raters) Females higher ratings on “ Social Humanitarian ” characteristics - - e.g., sympathetic, desire for friendship, helpful (especially by female raters) Big Picture Implications? Less representation of females in business (e.g., CEOs), politics (e.g., U.S. Senate), academic administration (e.g., universities)

15. Females in Leadership Positions - Percent of females in US Senate? Barbara MikilskiDianne FeinsteinBarbara Boxer Debbie StabenowMaria Cantwell Parry MurraySusan Collins Mary Landrieu Lisa MurkowskiAmy KlobucharJeanne Shaheen Kirsten Gillibrand Kelly Ayotte Claire McCaskillKay Hagan Tammy Bladwin Deb FischerHeidi Heitkamp Mazie Hirono Elizabeth Warren 20

16. CompanyCEOCompanyCEO GENERAL MOTORSMary Barra 2014 AVONSherilyn McCoy 2012 HEWLETT-PACKARDMeg Whitman 2011 SEMPRA ENERGYDebra Reed 2011 IBMVirginia Rometty 2012 GUARDIAN LIFEDeanna Mulligan 2011 PEPSICOIndra Nooyi 2006 CAMPBELL SOUPDenise Morrison 2011 A.D.MPatricia Woertz 2006 MYLANHeather Bresch 2012 LOCKHEED MARTINMarillyn Hewson 2013 INGREDIONIlene Gordon 2009 DUPONTEllen Kullman 2009 CH2M HILLJacqueline Hinman 2014 MONDELEZIrene Rosenfeld 2006 GRAYBAR ELECTRICKathleen Mazzarella 2012 GENERAL DYNAMICSPhebe Nokakovic 2013 GANNETTGracia Martore 2011 TJXCarol Meyrowitz 2007 FRONTIER COMM.Maggie Wilderotter 2006 XEROXUrsula Burns 2009YAHOOMarissa Meyer 2012 DUKE ENERGYLynn Good 2013 Female CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies? 2011 = 12; 2012 = 18 23 (Link)Link

17. Females as CEOs --- increase in stock price But, it depends on industry Price goes up higher if female CEO is head of female-dominated business, otherwise small decrease in stock price (Cooke & Glass, 2011) Survey of over 60,000 direct reports No gender preference for one’s own boss “Ideal” boss: 54% -- No Preference 13% -- Female Preference 33% -- Male Preference Gender and Leadership: Recent Findings Small but significant preference for opposite-sex bosses Increased preference for stereotypical female leader characteristics (sensitive, supportive) vs. direct, forceful. Study by Elesser & Lever (2011)

18. Zajonic’s Theory of Social Facilitation Well-learned (dominant) response Poorly learned or novel (non-dominant) response Social Facilitation Performance enhanced Social Interference Performance hindered Arousal caused by presence of others

19. Charting the Course of Groupthink Irving Janis depicted groupthink as a kind of social disease, complete with antecedents and symptoms, that increased the chance of making a bad decision. (Based on Janis, 1982.) Antecedents High cohesiveness Isolation Directive leader Homogeneous members Stressful situations Symptoms Overestimation of the group (invulnerability) Close-mindedness Rationalization Increased pressures toward uniformity “Mindguards” and pressure on dissenters Self-censorship Illusion of unanimity Consequences Incomplete survey of alternatives Poor information search Failure to examine risks of preferred choice High probability of a bad decision

20. Other Group Decision-Making Phenomena Collective Entrapment --- The more effort used to make a decision, the greater likelihood of sticking to that decision (even if it’s been shown to be incorrect) Common Knowledge Effect --- Information held by most group members exerts a stronger impact on final decisions

21. ~ Social Identity Theory ~ [In-Group Bias] They tendency to link one’s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or behavior of groups Also, people tend to reward members of ingroups and disfavor those in outgroups (e.g., Minimal Group Paradigm ) --- Basking in Reflected Glory --- Favorite Football Team wins --- “We;” More likely to wear team t-shirt Favorite Football Team loses --- “They”

22. Liking, spend time with leader Challenging, visible jobs Better memory for good behavior Treated warmly Performance evaluations Allocation of rewards Less desirable jobs Less time spent with supervisor Treated formally Lower performance evaluations Less rewards In and Out-Groups Bias In-group characteristics Out-group characteristics

23. Are Groups Good or Bad? Gustav Le Bon (1895) stated that leaders can manipulate citizens by simplifying ideas, substituting affirmation and exaggeration for proof, and by repeating points over and again. (From: Forsyth, 2010) --- Concept of “deindividuation” LeBon and Tarde --- Mass hysteria