Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Group Processes - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Task-oriented: More concerned with getting the job done than the workers' feelings
      - Relationship-oriented: More concerned with workers' feelings and relationships
    - - Low situational control: Chaotic and cannot predict anything. Task-oriented leaders are better as people would be seeking direction and prioritising tasks over relationships
      - High situational control: Everyone is clear about their roles and want to stay efficient. Hence, task-oriented leaders would thrive in these situations
      - Moderate situational control: People would start to direct their attention to relationships and getting along. Relationship-oriented leaders are better suited
  - - - Agentic traits: Assertive, controlling, dominant. These are traits that are associated with leadership and males.
        If women have these traits, they are criticised for not behaving how they should
      - Communal: Warm, helpful, and caring. These are traits that are associated with females.
        If women behave like this, they are considered to not have leadership qualities
        
        Moreover, because they are perceived to be more communal, women are often thought to be better at managing crises, particularly those involving interpersonal conflicts. As such, women are placed in charge of high-risk units and situations, where failure is more likely
- - - - If both parties do not trust each other (often they don't), this lack of trust leads to an escalating series of competitive moves so that in the end, no one wins
      - Increasing cooperation
        
        Framing the conflict: Subtly changing the norms about what kind of behaviour is expected (e.g. "wall street game" vs "community game"
        
        Tit-for-tat strategy: First acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did. This can communicate that you are willing to cooperate but an unwillingness to be exploited. This can help both parties take turns to benefit
        
        Discontinuity hypothesis/effect: It is much easier for two individuals to cooperate with each other than two groups. Groups can be deindividuating and can produce more extreme and polarised attitudes. As a result, it is harder for groups to trust each other than individuals
  - - - Communication can be an opportunity to threaten each other. Hence, it may not be helpful in resolving conflict. In order for communication to resolve conflict, it must foster trust
- - - - Depending on what the group norm is, deinidividuation does not always lead to violent and rowdy behaviour. If the group is calm and peaceful, deindividuation would lead to an increase in this behaviour
  - - - The presence of others increases arousal
        
        Alertness: We have to be alert to the possibility that others would do something that requires us to respond
        
        Evaluation apprehension: The presence of others who are evaluating us causes arousal as we are more concerned about their appraisal of us
        
        Non-social Distraction: The presence of others can cause distractions as there is more stimuli in our environment and us to split our attention
      - Men and those from Western cultures tend to engage in social loafing relatively more compared to women and those from Asian cultures
    - - The presence of others causes relaxation instead of arousal as individual performance is less accountable. This makes performance on simple tasks lower. However, this increases performance for complex tasks as individuals are more relaxed and can thus perform better.
      - The difference between social facilitation and social loafing is whether there is an evaluation of individual performance
- - - - Unique information is more likely to be brought up later in the discussion: Group discussions must last long enough
      - Tell group members to not share their initial preferences at the start so that they won't focus less on unique, unshared information
      - Assign different group members to specific areas of expertise so that they know that they alone are responsible for certain types of information. The group would then rely on each other for different information.
        
        Transactive memory: The combined memory of a group that is more efficient than the memory of the individual members
    - - Groupthink leads to decisions that would not have been made if any one member of the group were making the same decision by themselves
      - Antecedents: Precipitating factors
        
        Group is highly cohesive: The group is valued and attractive and people want to be or remain members. People feel a strong connection to the group, and thus would feel the need to conform
        
        Group isolation: The group is isolated and protected from hearing alternative views
        
        A directive leader: The leader controls the discussion and makes their wishes well-known. This can pressurise dissenters to self-censor and agree with the group
        
        High stress: Time stress and pressure may result in the group ignoring risks and problems with their decisions
        
        Poor decision-making procedures: No standard methods to consider alternative viewpoints.
        
        Unwillingness to revisit previous points
      - Symptoms of groupthink
        
        Illusion of invulnerability: The group feels invincible and that they can do no wrong
        
        Stereotypes of opponents: Opponents are people who disagree with the group consensus. They would be stereotyped and not taken seriously
        
        Direct pressure on dissenters to conform: People who have opposing views are pressured to conform to the group's consensus
        
        Self-censorship: The pressure to conform results in people deciding not to voice contrary opinions
        
        Illusion of unanimity: Public compliance without private acceptance
        
        Mind guards: Group members protect the leader from contrary viewpoints and people who disagree would think twice before voicing out their opinions
        
        Belief in the moral correctness of the group: E.g. "God is on our side"
      - Consequences of groupthink
        
        Incomplete survey of alternatives: The group fails to consider all other possible viewpoints and outcomes
        
        Failure to examine the risks of the favoured alternative: Discussion is focused on the good things expected from the decision at the expense of considering the bad outcomes that might happen
        
        Poor information search: The group selectively relies on information that supports its viewpoint
        
        No contingency plans: As the group is too confident about their decision, they do not consider a back-up plan
      - Minimising group think
        
        Seek anonymous opinions within the group: People would be less concerned about being rejected by the group for their opinions.
        The group can also focus more about the contents of the opinion or viewpoint rather than the person giving the opinion
        
        Seek outside opinions: People who are not part of the group would not be influenced by the need to belong to the group
        
        Have somebody to play the devil's advocate: A person with the sole purpose of raising different opinions. This person would not be blamed for having dissenting opinions as there is a common understanding that they are just playing a role.
        
        Impartial leaders: Leader should remain impartial
        
        Create subgroups within a big group: A leader can divide the group into subgroups that first meet separately and then together to discuss different viewpoints. The more diverse the group, the less the need for agreement and solidarity. Therefore, there will be more emphasis on problem-solving
    - - Persuasive argument interpretation: Each member brings arguments that the others have not considered before
        
        These two processes work in tandem
      - Social comparison interpretation: Once people are in a group, they want to become better members of the group to fit in and be liked. a way to become better is to be more extreme in your opinions to support the group. If an individual sees that they are milder than other members in their opinion, they would become slightly more extreme in their opinion to increase their support for the group. Another member sees this and the cycle continues.