Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Group decision making and leadership (Y1) - Coggle Diagram
Group decision making and leadership (Y1)
Brainstorming and group memory
Jury's, politicians, friends and other groups all impact decision making
Brainstorming - Osborn, 1957:
Uninhibited generation of as many ideas as possible in a group in order to enhance group creativity
Group members generate a lot of ideas very quickly, with no inhibitions or concerns about quality - creative thinking
However, research suggests otherwise - Stroebe and Diehl, 1994 -
Nominal groups (members brainstorming alone) are twice as creative as groups that actually interact
Brainstorming groups do generate more ideas than non-brainstorming groups - but the individuals in the group are more creative than if they had worked alone
Why this is the case -
Evaluation apprehension - group members are concerned about making a good impression, and so engage in self censorship of ideas
Social loafing and free riding - motivation loss because the task is collective
Production matching - group members use average group performance to construct a performance norm because the task is novel
Production blocking - creativity and productivity blocked by interruptions, turn taking and listening to others - electronic brainstorming reduces blockage through using computers and heterogeneous groups which have diverse knowledge can produce stimulating brainstorming
Illusion of group effectivity - we believe we brainstorm better in groups than alone, generated in three ways:
Although groups have fewer non-redundant original ideas, they are exposed to more ideas
Brainstorming is fun
People are not aware of undisclosed bias
Group memory - recall of memory to arrive at a group decision e.g. juries, interview panels
Remembering itself is the reason why a group comes together
Do groups remember more material and remember it more accurately than individuals:
In simple and artificial tasks, groups are superior
In complex and realisitic tasks, individuals are superior
Why - this is due to process loss -
Steiner (1976) - groups fail to adopt appropriate recall and decision strategies when trying to recall complex information
Clark and Stephenson (1989) -
Listen to police interrogation
Then recall the interrogation and answer factual questions - individually v collectively
Groups recall more correct information and made fewer meta statements
Transactive memory (Wegner, 1987) -
Group members have a shared memory for who within the group remembers what, and is the expert on what
A shared system for encoding, storing and retrieving information
Allow a group to remember significantly more information (Hollingshead, 1996)
Development of transactive memory -
-> When groups first form, transactive memory is usually category based
-> Groups can negotiate and develop more sophisticated memory-assignment systems - responsibility, relative expertise and access to information
Groupthink and polarisation
Janis (1972) - archival method of comparing several American foreign policy decisions with unfavourable outcomes to other decisions that had favourable ones
Groupthink - a mode of thinking that people engage in when their desire to reach unanimous agreement overrides the motivation to adopt proper rational decision-making procedures
Groupthink - defective decision thinking model -
Antecedents of groupthink:
Excessive group cohesiveness
Insulation of group from external information and influence
Lack of impartial leadership and of norms encouraging proper procedures
Ideological homogeneity of membership
High stress from external threat and task complexity
Symptoms of groupthink -
Feelings of invulnerability and unanimity
Unquestioning belief that the group must be right
Tendency to ignore or discredit information contrary to group's position
Direct pressure exerted on dissidents to bring them into line
Stereotyping of outroup members
Leads to poor decision making procedures - ones with low chance of success or favourable outcomes
Empirical evidence is equivocal -
Descriptive studies - largely support the model (Hart, 1990, Hensley and Griffin, 1986)
Experimental studies - mixed or little support for the role of cohesiveness (Callaway and Esser, 1984 and Flowers, 1977)
Alternative explanations - groupthink is merely a specific instance of 'risky shift'
Tendency for a group that already favours a risky decision producing an even more risky decision through discussion
Risky shift (Stoner, 1961) -
Play the role of counsellor to imaginary people facing choice dilemmas
Desirable but risky course of action v less desirable but more cautious course of action
Made a private recommendation, then met in small groups to discuss each dilemma and reached a unanimous group recommendation
Results - groups tended to recommend the risky alternative more than did individuals
Group polarisation - Moscovici and Zavalloni, 1969 -
Later research documented that group recommendations could also be more cautious than those of individuals e.g. Fraser et al, 1971
Risky shift as part of a wider phenomenon of group polarisation
Tendency for a group discussion to produce more extreme group decisions than the mean of member's pre-discussion opinions, in the direction favoured by the mean
Why do groups polarise -
Persuasive arguments - Burnstein and Vinokur, 1977:
Focuses on the persuasiveness of novel arguments in changing opinions - people tend to rest their opinions on supportive arguments that they express publicly in a group
Group members who lean in a particular direction will hear not only familiar arguments but also novel ones that support their own position
Opinions become more entrenched and extreme
Social comparison / cultural values - Jellison and Arkin, 1977 -
Group discussion allows members to compare their opinions with those of others and reveals which views are socially desirable / culturally valued
Members shift in the direction of the group to seek social approval and avoid social censure
Normative influence
Two variations -
bandwagon effect - learn which attitude is socially desirable and members compete to appear to be the stronger advocates
Pluralistic ignorance - people behave publicly in ways that do not reflect what they actually think and thus can be ignorant of what everyone really thinks - group discussion reveals how extreme others' attitudes are
Social identity theory - Turner, 1985
Focuses on the social categorisation process
Treats polarisation as a regular conformity phenomenon
Group discussion constructs a representation of the group norm from the positions held by members
People who share the group membership would shift toward the normative group position
Leadership
What is leadership -
A process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilises the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal (Chemers, 2001)
Followers, leaders and situation intersect to make leadership
Good leadership - what is an effective / ineffective leader - effective leaders succeed in setting new goals and influences others to achieve them - objective evaluation
Good / bad leader - good leaders have attributes we applaud, use means we approve of, and set and achieve we goals we value - evaluation is largely subjective
What makes a great leader
Personality approach - Great person theory (Carlyle, 1907) - attributes effective leadership to innate or acquired individual characteristics
Be above average with respect to size and most reliability, intelligence (Mann, 1959) and talkativeness (Mullen et al, 1989)
Stodgill (1974) - leadership is not the mere possession of some combination of traits
-> Correlations among traits, and between traits and effective leadership are low (average r. = .30
But the personality belief has re-emerged in the guise of transformational leadership which emphasises charisma
Judge et al, 2002 - a meta analysis of data from 73 studies, using the Big Five dimensions to see if they are related to leadership effectiveness
R = .58
Extraversion, conscietiousness and openness to experience were the best predictors
Situational perspectives - anyone can lead effectively if the situation is right
Sherif et al - 1961 - summer camp study, leaders change when the situation changes
Leader behaviour - leader's actual behaviour, rather than personality, is a more reliable leadership attribute
Three leadership styles (Lippit and White, 1943) -
-> Autocratic - based on giving orders to followers
-> Democratic - based on consultation and obtaining agreement and consent from followers
-> Laissez-faire - based on disinterest in followers
Autocratic - low liking for leader, atmosphere of self orientation, dependence and aggression - high productivity when present, low when absent
Democratic - high liking for leader, atmosphere of task orientation, group centeredness and friendliness - high productivity always
Laissez-faire - low liking for leader, atmosphere of friendly, group centered and play oriented situations but very low productivity when present and low when absent
Two key leadership roles - Bales, 1950 -
task specialist - concentrates on reaching solutions and make suggestions and give directions
Socioemotional specialist - attends to group members' feelings
These attributes are inversely correlated
the roles often devolve into separate individuals
Task specialists are more likely to be the dominant leader
But, some researchers believe task oriented and socioemotional attributes are independent dimensions
Sorrentino and Field, 1986 - observed 12 problem solving groups over a 5 week period
members who were rated high on both dimensions were particularly effective and subsequently elected by groups to be their leaders
Cultural change - Smith et al, 1989 - performance and maintenance behaviour were universally valued, but what counted as each type of behaviour varied from culture to culture
Leaders assessing task performance is done by talking to workers in individualist cultures, whereas in East Asia this is inconsiderate, and one should speak to coworkers
Contingency theories - leadership effectiveness of leadership behaviours / styles is contingent on the leadership situation
Two key leadership styles (Fielder, 1964) -
-> Task-oriented - be authoritarian, value group success and derive self esteem from accomplishing a task
Relationship-oriented - be relaxed, friendly, non-directive and sociable and gain self esteem from happy and harmonious group relations
Effectiveness of two leadership styles is contingent on their match with the situation - the most important feature is degree of control
Situational control determined by position of leader, task difficulty and leader-member relation quality
Task oriented most effective when situational control is low or high, relationship oriented more effective when situational control is moderate
Fielder - theoretical attention on the leader only - but leaders need followers, and group processes that are responsible for rise and fall of leaders should be included
Leadership effectiveness is contingent on the leadership situation - some leadership styles are more helpful in some situations compared to others
Fielder’s contingency theory - situational control, task and relationship orientation
-> Task (authoritarian) and relationship oriented leaders (relaxed) -> Measured using the least-preferred co-worker scale - respondents rated those they least preferred as a co worker on a number of dimensions and the resultant LPC scores were used to differentiate between two different leadership styles
-> High LPC - relationship oriented style as it was favorability Low
-> LPC - task oriented as it was performance based
Three situations:
The quality of leader-member relations
The clarity of the structure of the task
The intrinsic power and authority the leader has by virtue of his or her position as leader
Good leader-member relations, in conjunction with a clear task and substantial position power, furnished minimal situational control
Situational control (1-8) - Dichotimised under the three factors as good or bad
Can be used to predict leadership effectiveness
-> Task oriented most effective when situational control is low (needed to make a task get done) and when it is high (group is fine, no need to worry about morale)
-> Relationship oriented is more effective when situational control is moderate
.1. High leader-member relations + high task structure + high position power = high situational control (I)
High leader-member relations + high task structure + low position power = situational power at a II
High leader-member relations + low task structure + high position power = situational control III
High leader-member relations + low task structure + low position power = situational control IV
Low leader-member relations + high task structure + high position power = situational control V
Low leader-member relations + high task structure + low position power = situational power VI
Low leader-member relations + low task structure + high position power = situational power VII
Low leader-member relations + low task structure + low position power = situational power VIII
When situational control is high or low, contingency theory predicts negative correlations between LPC scores and quality of group performance
A group performs poorly for a relationship-oriented leader (high LPC) but well for a task-oriented leader (low LPC)
When control is intermediate, there is a positive correlation - relationship-orientation is more effective
This theory is inconsistent with contemporary perspectives on personality being able to vary
Incorrect to assume with a priori assumption that leader-member relations are more important than task structure, position power in the assessment of situational control
Transactional leadership theories - focus on transaction of resources between leader and followers
Idiosyncrasy credit (Hollander, 1958) - leaders gain this through loyalty, and they provide leeway for leaders to be innovative
Leader-member exchange theory - effective leadership rests on the ability of the leader to develop good quality personalised exchange relationships with individual members
High LMX - leader is supportive and encourages participation - increased commitment
Low LMX - leader does not favour members and fewer resources are offered - dissastisfaction - work to rule etc
Transformational leadership approach - leaders transform group goals and actions, mainly through exercise of charisma
What factors lead to this -
-> leaders inspire followers to adopt a vision that involves more than individual self-interest, against transactional which appeals to self interest
Followers attribute the leader as having a special personality trait
Followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect
Positive effects of this leadership style -
Increased organisational commitment (Barling et al, 1996)
Perceived leader effectiveness from followers (Avolio and Bass, 1995)
Increased organisational citizenship (Podsakoff et al, 1996)
Inspire followers to adopt a vision, not just exchange in self interest
Three key components -
Individualised consideration - attention to needs, abilities and aspirations to raise them
Intellectual stimulation
Charismatic / inspiring leadership which provides the energy, reasoning and sense of urgency that transforms followers
Charisma can be involved in bad and good leadership - only those who use their charisma for good can be considered transformational leaders
Third type of leadership between transactional and transformational is laissez faire
Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ - Bass and Avolio, 1990) was designed to measure this and is culturally applicable
One challenge for this research - fill in the black box of the thought processes behind transformational followers that allows them to transform thoughts and behaviours to align with leaders
-> Strong identification is associated with internalisation of group norms
Charismatic leadership is a product of personal charisma and the reaction of followers to the leader’s charisma in a particular situation
Linked to openness, extraversion and agreeableness
Visionary leaders are a type of charismatic leader that can identify desirable future goals and objectives for a group and mobilise followers to internalise these as their own
Charismatic leaders can also be constructed by followers to enhance the presence of their leader
Social identity theory (Hogg, 2001) - in salient groups, more prototypical leaders are more effective
Leadership has an identity function - people look to their leaders to express and epitomise their identity, to clarify and focus their identity, to forge and transform their identity and to consolidate, stabilise and anchor their identity
People who identify more strongly with a group focus more on the group prototype and to who is more on the group prototype and to who is more prototypical
Hains et al, 1997 -
Participants explicitly categorised (high group membership salience) v merely aggregated (low salience) as a group
Rated leadership effectiveness of a randomly appointed leader who has prototypical v non-prototypical
It is a process in salient groups where prototypical leaders are more effective than less prototypical leaders
Social identity processes that make prototypical leaders more influential in salient groups
-> Embody group attributes and are seen as the source rather than the target of conformity processes
-> Prototypical members are liked - popular leaders
-> Prototypical leaders are more central and important to self definition and therefore identify more strongly with it - more investment in group
-> As the prototype is central to group life, information related to the prototype attracts attention - engage in correspondence bias; a general attribution bias in which people have an inflated tendency to see behaviour as reflecting underlying personality attributes
Leaders who are prototypical succeed because they are able to manage the prototype when being a good leader
Use identity entrepreneurship and social identity framing to reinforce this - used a lot by political leaders
Leader categorisation theory (implicit leadership theory) - Lord and Brown, 2004
Assumes our perception of leadership plays a key role in the decisions we make about selecting and endorsing leaders - schemas of leaders have an impact
Influences their power bases, and thus their ability to influence others and lead effectively
Use leadership prototypes to assess individual’s suitability - can be general context-independent properties of effective leaders of specific properties for specific situations
LCT predicts the match between characteristics and the leadership schema
Categorises people in their ability to lead in relation to the schema we assign to that role
Expectation states and status characteristics -
Influence is attributed to specific status characteristics - characteristics that match what the group actually does
Also come from diffuse status characteristics - stereotypical characteristics of high status groups in society
Effective leaders need to have characteristics that equip them for effective task performance and characteristics that categorise them as members of high status socio-demographic categories
Additive function of group task competence and perceived social status
Women and leadership + other factors in leadership
Glass ceiling (Eagly and Karau, 1991) - an invisible barrier that prevents women, and minorities in general, attaining top leadership positions
Glass cliff (Ryan and Haslam, 2007) - tendency for women, rather than men, to be appointed to precarious leadership positions associated with high probability of failure and criticism
Women are usually rated as effective leaders as men (Eagly et al, 2002) - so what is the cause of the gender gap -
-> Role congruity theory (Eagly, 2003) - social stereotypes of women are inconsistent with schemas of effective leadership
-> Social identity theory - male or female leaders are effective if the group norms are consistent with the gender stereotypes
-> Barriers to women claiming authority (Bowles and McGinn, 2005) - role incongruity, lack of critical management experience and family responsibility
Trust and leadership -
Important to leadership - people are more likely to smoothly bring attitudes and behaviours in line with a leader that they trust
Justice and fairness -
Group value model (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and relational model of authority in groups - perceptions of fairness and justice are critical to group life
Leaders make decisions with important consequences for followers and followers are concerned with fairness
In judging fairness, followers evaluate a leader in distributive and procedural justice - fairness of outcomes and methods to get to a decision
Social dilemmas -
Crisis of trust - leaders can solve this through strong intergroup relations
Intergroup - leaders can effectively lead their group against others by emphasising differences and bridging ingroup differences to create integrative visions and identity and do not threaten subgroup identity distinctiveness
What is involved in leadership
Enable groups to function as productive and coordinated wholes
Jacobs and Singell (1993) - studied the performance of American baseball teams over a 20 year period and found that successful teams had managers who exercised superior tactical skills or who were skilled in improving the performance of individual team members
Effective leaders help others to achieve group goalsIncompetent leadership is a great concern along with leadership for bad ideals (Kellerman, 2004)
Hogan and Kaiser (2006) - good leaders have attributes of integrity, decisiveness, competence and vision, bad leaders devalue others, are indifferent to suffering, intolerant of criticism and suppress dissent and have a sense of entitlement
Patterns of bad leadership - failure to build effective team, poor interpersonal skills, insensitivity and lack of care about others and inability to adjust to being promoted above one’s skills or qualifications (Leslie and Van Velsor, 1996)
Also have the dark triad of personality - narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Paulhus and Williams, 2002)
Dictatorial demagogues are harmful as they surround themselves with a ruling elite that they cajole ideologically through rewards and punishment - control through fear and the exercise of raw power rather than by providing leadership (Moghaddam, 2013)
The ruling elites are more instrumental in toppling dictators
Machiavellian and narcissistic leaders also employ power based on fear and will do anything to maintain their status and position of power and consumed with grandiosity, self-importance, envy, arrogance, haughtiness and lack of empathy
A process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilises the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal
Requires an individual or clique who influence the behaviour of another individual or group of individuals
Linked to obedience processes - agentic states and legitimacy of authority
Exercise of power is not automatically leadership even if power is a consequence of effective leadership
Define collective goals and community norms
Leadership is a group process
Evaluate them in terms of character and the nature of the group goals they create
Can be good but not effective, and effective but not good
Great person theory - attributes leadership to personality in terms of how people construct an understanding of their world - as leaders stand out against the background of the group and are therefore the focus of our attention, strengthening the perception of correspondence between traits and behaviour
-> Transformational leadership - role of charisma in leadership, and focus on Big Five personality dimensions - being open to experience, extraversion and conscientiousness are linked to leadership
Jury verdicts:
Groups of laypeople - characteristics of the defendant can impact decisions, and the interaction of the characteristics of the jury and defendants can impact the perception of in groups and outgroups and thus their decisions
-> Physical attractiveness - likely to be acquitted
-> Black people - more likely to receive prison sentences in the US
Harsh laws with stiff penalties can discourage conviction due to the consequences
Recency effect - lots of information received by inexperienced jurors, and this means the last evidence presented impacts the decisions the most
Foreman is more likely to be seen as a leader, and they are more likely to be of high socio-economic status, someone with previous experience or someone who sits at the head of the table first - influence decisions
Large juries are also more likely to represent minority opinions - due to social support, dissident opinions are more likely to prevail in 12 person juries vs 6 person juries as there are more dissenters
Leadership theories
Normative decision theory - type of subordinate input - Types of decision making you can choose:
Autocratic - subordinate input not sought
Consultative - subordinate input is sought, but the leader retains the authority to make the final decision
Group decision making - leader and subordinate are equal
Dependent on the quality of leader-subordinate relations and on task clarity and structure (influences subordinate input)In decision making contexts, autocratic leadership is fast and effective is subordinate commitment and support are high and the task is clear and structured
When it is less clear, more input is needed, and consultative is best
When subordinates are not very committed or supportive, group decision making is needed to increase participation and commitment
However, there is a tendency for subordinates to prefer group decision making even if it isn’t effective
Path-goal theory - structuring v consideration:
House 1996 - transactional leadership theory
Assumption that the main function of a leader is to motivate followers by clarifying the paths that will help them reach their goals (behaviour and actions)
Distinguishes between structuring and consideration leaders
Structuring is effective when followers are unclear about their goals and how to reach them
When tasks are well understood, structuring can be seen as meddling and micro management - consideration is most effective when tasks are boring, but when people are already motivated it is not as helpful
Transactional leadership - approach to leadership that focuses on the transaction of resources between leader and followers - also a style of leadership
-> Mutual benefits are exchanged (transacted) between leaders and followers against a background of contingent rewards and punishments that shape cooperation and trust
-> Leader-member transactions may also have an equity dimension - because effective leaders play a greater role in steering groups to their goals than followers, followers may reinstate equity by rewarding the leader with social approval, praise, prestige, status and power
Idiosyncrasy credit -
Hollander (1958) - leaders need followers to allow them to be innovative in experimenting with new ideas and directions - to be idiosyncratic
The way to be build up idiosyncrasy credit -
-> Initially conforming closely to established group norms
-> Ensuring that the group feels that is has democratically elected you as leader
-> Making sure that you are seen to have competence to fulfil the group’s objectives
-> Being seen to identify with the group, its ideals and aspirations
Good credit ratings give the leader legitimacy in the eyes of the followers to exert influence over the group and to deviate from norms - idiosyncratic, creative and innovative
Merei (1949) - older children who had shown leadership potential split into small groups of younger children in a nursery, with the most successful leaders being those who initially complied with existing group practices and who only gradually introduced minor variations
Hollander and Julian (1970) - democratic election gave more credit also
Also innovation credit is beneficial to establishing leadership due to social identity theory of leadership
Key factor in getting group members to be innovative is based on the perception the leader is one of ‘us’ - prototypical and trustworthy group member who identifies with the group and so won’t harm it
Leader-member exchange theories -
Quality of exchange relationships between leaders and followers can vary - having good quality makes good leadership
Vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model - leaders develop dyadic exchange relationships with different specific subordinates In these dyadic relationships, the subordinate can be treated either as a close and valued ingroup member with the leader, or in a more remote manner as an outgroup member who is separate from the leader
High quality LMX - mutual trust, respect and obligation
-> Subordinates favoured by the leader and receive valued resources
-> Motivates subordinates to internalise the group’s and leader’s goals
-> Effective leadership hinges on the development of high quality LMX relationships
Low quality LMX - based on a formal contract between leader and subordinate - mechanical not organic
-> Subordinates disfavoured by leader and receive fewer resources
-> Subordinates comply with internalising Have to select subordinates to invest in - role taking, role making and role routinisation are involved in selection
-> Similar attitudes are needed to reinforce LMX connections