Week 8-Leadership and Decision Making Flashcards
(36 cards)
Lewin et al. (1939) found that groups led by autocratic leaders were…
More aggressive and self-oriented
According to Janis an antecedent of groupthink is…
Cohesiveness
Group decisions are likely to be…
Polarized
Examples of group decision making
Brainstorming; focus-groups; parliament
Individual decisions vs group decisions
Early perspectives assumed that group decisions simply reflected the average of individual decisions. (Allport)
Individual decisions are more important.
Brainstorming impacting group decisions
People do not come up with new creative ideas when brainstorming within a group; some forms less ideas. More ideas/ creative on their own than in groups.
Define Brainstorming
The group generates a lot of ideas very quickly, with no inhibitions or concerns about quality.
Osbourne 1957- Brainstorming is the unhibited formation of as many unique ideas as possible in order to enhance group creativity.
Why is group brainstorming ineffective?
How to overcome these problems?
- Evaluation apprehension: Group members concerned about making a good impression
- Social loafing and free-riding: Motivation loss because of the collective nature of the task
- Production matching: Performance norm constructed based on average group performance
- Production blocking: Creativity and productivity blocked by interruptions, turn-taking, listening to others.
How to overcome these problems?
-Electronic brainstorming is effective
-Heterogeneous Group: Diverse knowledge
-
Group Memory:
Do groups remember more than individuals?
Group memory is Task Dependent:
Clark and Stephenson (1989) found in simple artificial tasks- groups remember more quickly than individuals, however on remembering complex tasks (e.g.a story) groups remember LESS may be due to process loss( not all available resources available).
Is group memory qualitatively different from individual memory?
Transactive Memory- different group members responsible for remembering different things. ( shared knowledge of who should bring what to the table)
Qualitative different mode of thinking.
Define groupthink.
Janis- foreign policy decisions with bad impact on society. Most disastrous decisions in US history (e.g., Bay of Pigs invasion, Vietnam War)
Groupthink is “a mode of thinking” that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” DESIRE FOR UNANIMOUS DECISION.
coherence seeking tendency → defective decision making
What are the different FACTORS that makeup groupthink?
Antecedents:
- High cohesiveness
- Structural factors
- Isolation
- Contextual factors
- Stress e.g. pressure; wartime
- Leadership
SYMPTOMS of Groupthink
- Over-estimation of group worth(more important than other groups)
- Closed-mindedness
- Pressures toward uniformity
Consequences of groupthink
- Limited attention to information
- Biased use of supporting facts
- Lack of alternative plans
Problems with Janis’ Groupthink Theory
- Theory based on observations made from historical accounts of group decision making
- Detailed analysis of the process (rather than outcome) of political decision-making shows these to be unremarkable/overstated (e.g., Kramer, 1998)
- Both good and bad decisions are characterised by elements of groupthink.
- Situations disposed to groupthink do not reliably produce bad decisions (Peterson et al., 1998).
Rethinking groupthink
Groups norms affect group thinking
- It may not be grouped per se that is the problem, but rather the norms of those groups that guide decision making
- Diversity and creative thinking: Some groups value consensus and agreement, but other groups value diversity and criticism
Different cultures should lead groups to engage in decision making very differently (Postmes, Spears, & Chiangir, 2001)
Groupthink and Risky Think
Stoner-risky shift
Decisions made in groups riskier than individual decisions.
Group Polarisation?
Evidence for risky think or group polarisation
Pulls people to different ends Extreme decisions
Fraser et al- One side of the midpoint-showed that when individual group members were disposed to caution, interaction made them more cautious. Group discussion was just more polarised than risky shift or caution.
The tendency for group discussion to produce more extreme group decisions than the mean of members’ pre-discussion opinion
Why do groups polarise? (3 factors)
1) Comparison/Cultural value- Adjust personal values/opinions to seek SOCIAL APPROVAL and try to avoid. Fitting in what group beliefs; people change less extreme positions. Normative influence. Pluralistic ignorance (people behave publicly in ways that do not reflect their internal beliefs. The are often ignorant of what others think)
2) Persuasion-Persuaded by the exchange of conversation, new ideas and arguments and change their minds with new information. Informational influence.
Problems: Dual Process Model (Deutsch & Gerard) 2 different paths.
3)Social Identity/Self-categorisation- Shared identity in group processes. Polarisation regular conformity phenomena. (ingroup distinct from outgroup). Shift to ingroup member view.
Polarisation
Polarisation is a typical outcome of group discussion
Not so much a product of the content of the discussion, but rather the context within which discussion occurs.
Most likely when people are thinking “as a group”
Assimilation to group norms
Differentiation from outgroups
What is LEADERSHIP?
Getting members to achieve their group roles.
- Leadership is… a characteristic that people do or do not possess?
- A process whereby an individual influences group members in a way that inspires them to achieve some group goal that he or she has identified as important.
Social Psychological Analysis of Leadership
Followers; Leaders; Situation
How do you become a leader; how do you attain group goals; hoe do you influence other people?
Personality Theory
Great leaders are born not made. Unique personality or characteristic. “Great man theory” Innate characteristics. E.g. Possess certain personality characteristics that set them apart Charisma; EQ; social intelligence. Tricky to qualify.
Stodghill systematic study Failed to find evidence for personality characteristics.
Intelligence; talkativeness; Big 5 (Extraversion more related to leadership).
Evaluation: Trait approach is a little simplistic, lacks consistent evidence, ignores the situational context.
Leader Behaviour
Lippet et al- Children in after school clubs trained to use different behavioural styles. Autocratic-no input from group members emphasise own authority; Democratic- encourage to make own decisions; Laissez-faire- relaxed approach.
Bales- Different leadership styles impact behaviour. Leaders most valued when 1)task-oriented and 2)socio-emotional specialist. Feelings for other members.
