Archives

Uncategorized — No Comments
06
Oct 21

Teamwork Makes the Dream Work… right?

When I was a high school freshman, my high school’s band program was known as one of the best programs in the city, if not the state. Not only did it perform incredibly well in state competitions, but it was also a great experience being a part of the band. Students from different sections got along great with one another, and for many of us, our sections felt like family. However, in the years that followed, I noticed that the band felt less cohesive than when I first joined. Students still viewed their own sections as a kind of “family”, but there were fewer interactions between different sections. Also, our performance at competitions slipped downwards, eventually to the point where we usually got eliminated out of finals. What happened? Some of these changes may have resulted from outside factors, like changes in the band directors and students. Nevertheless, a part of me wondered whether the drop in the band’s cohesion caused the drop in the performance. Would we have done better if the band was more unified?

The concept that a team’s cohesion affects their performance would seem to make sense logically. When cohesion is high, team members get along better with one another and are on the same page regarding their shared objectives. This line of reasoning would be consistent with research on sports teams discussed by Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts (2017), which show that cohesion strongly relates to individual performance, individual efforts, and team performance (pg. 137). Team members are more likely to exert more effort when the team gets along well, and they can coordinate well with one another when they are all on the same page. It is tempting to interpret these findings to mean that group cohesion greatly improves how well they get a task done. As they say, teamwork makes the dream work… right?

Unfortunately, improving team performance may not be as simple as getting people to get along. It is important to remember that correlations do not necessarily indicate that causation goes one way or the other. Although it may seem to make more sense for group cohesion to cause performance, it is possible that performance also causes group cohesion. Evidence for this possibility comes from Grieve, Whelan, & Meyers (2000), who found that cohesion has far less impact on performance than performance has on cohesion. A shared victory can be a great experience for people to bond over, while a defeat can leave people feeling bitter and distancing themselves from the team. Further research discussed by Gruman et al. (2017) regarding the cohesion-performance relationship found that cohesion can predict performance just as well as performance can predict cohesion. Regardless of which one causes the other more, the research shows that the relationship between team cohesion and team performance can go both ways, with both of them influencing each other.

So was it the drop in cohesion that doomed my band’s performances? While research shows a strong link between a team’s cohesion and performance, it also suggests the causality is bidirectional. My band’s performance may have suffered from a decrease in cohesion, but that drop in performance may have also caused cohesion to suffer as well. Thinking back, this would make sense, as I recall some of my band friends emotionally distancing themselves from the band program after we failed to make finals. The process may have repeated multiple times over my high school years, with decreased band cohesion leading to worse performances, and failures at state competitions leading to the band further falling apart. Perhaps my band would not have drifted apart as much if we had done well at performances. The band may have bonded better after a successful performance, which could boost future performances as well. It is true, on some level, that teamwork makes the dream work. However, based on the research, I would also argue that when the dream works, the team works.

 

References

Grieve, F. G., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2000). An Experimental Examination of the Cohesion-Performance Relationship in an Interactive Team Sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12(2), 219-235. doi:10.1080/10413200008404224

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
06
Oct 17

Team Dynamics in Survivor

While scrolling through channels on the TV one evening this week, I stumbled across one of my favorite shows, Survivor.  As I settled into watch, I realized how perfectly Survivor illustrates many of the concepts of teams and organizations.  We can see how the producers manipulate the group development process, how the fundamental attribution error influences players, and how group decision-making concepts effect how the game plays out.

I think one of the things that makes Survivor so interesting and drama-filled is the fact that, especially in the beginning, they force the tribes, or teams as I will call them here, to stay in the forming and storming stages of Tuckman’s developmental stages of groups.  According to Pennsylvania State University (2017), these are the stages where the teams get together and get to know one another politely and then begin to attempt to sort out their roles with much intragroup conflict, respectively.  As soon as the teams begin to enter the “norming” stage, where roles are figured out and groups are beginning to operate more efficiently, the producers of the show randomly switch up the groups and force the contestants to start all over.  I think the prevention of moving onward into the performing stage of Tuckman’s stages is part of what makes Survivor so interesting.  As viewers, we never get to see teams work seamlessly together, but we do get to see the repeated formation and conflicts that come with the initial stages of team development.  While not ideal for creating effective teams, this makes for wonderfully drama-filled team dynamics for us as viewers.

We also see a lot of examples of the fundamental attribution error in Survivor.  As the contestants on the show get to know one another and figure out who they want to form alliances with or work against, there are many instances where constants will attribute another person’s actions or attitudes to that person’s personal disposition.  Later, we viewers often see interviews with that person, who will explain their actions or attitudes as responses to a situation.  We often hear comments along the lines of “I’ve never been outside of my city before, so this is really different” or “I just lashed out because I’m so tired/hungry/stressed”.  As Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012) note, the fundamental attribution error involves people attributing another’s behavior or attitudes to their personal demeanor, rather than taking situational factors into account.  As we see in the case of Survivor, these fundamental attribution errors play a major role in how contestants view one another and select alliance members.  If contestants attributed behaviors appropriately, it is possible that alliances could be different and the entire game could proceed in an entirely new way.

Finally, viewers can definitely see both normative and informational influences at play in decision making in Survivor.  For example, alliances are an important part of the game of Survivor, with members of groups banding together to ensure their “survival” in the game.  Often, a majority of a group will decide to work against a certain individual and, even if others disagree, they do not want to go against this majority group and make themselves a future enemy.  This, according to Schneider et al. (2012), is an example of the pressure to conform influencing decision making, or the normative influence.  On the other hand, situations in Survivor often occur where an individual is certain they will vote a certain way but then discover information from other group members that changes their perception of the situation, often leading to a change in their vote.  This is a perfect example of informational influence, where information from others provides a person more information about a social situation (Schneider et al., 2012).  The work of both of these group decision-making factors makes for interesting dynamics in this game, as we watch contestants grapple with both informational and normative pressures.

It is fascinating to me to see how so many aspects of group and organizational social psychology can be seen in something as mindless as a reality TV gameshow.  After realizing this about Survivor, there are so many more identifiable layers to the game.  I thought I enjoyed watching it before, but after having a more complete understanding of social psychology, it makes watching it even more interesting!

 

References

Pennsylvania State University. (2017).  Organizational Life AND Teams. [Online Lecture].  Retrieved from http://cms.psu.edu.

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Uncategorized — 7 Comments
26
Feb 14

Organization + Intergroup Relations | For better or worse.

Organizations can range from a little as two people to millions as seen in the Department of Defense however, regardless of size there are key components any successful organization must have (The Economist, 2011). Marriage, for example, is a simple organization of two individuals that engage in many of the same behaviors that a major organization engages in such as communication and group decision making (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012). Just as communication is key to the success of a large organization so too is communication’s role in marriage. Schneider, Gruman and Coutts (2012) define communication as a social behavior of at least two people interacting and providing one another with information (p. 233). Furthermore, Schneider, Gruman and Coutts (2012) go on to discuss the actual model of communication which includes conveying a message by means of a medium (“channel”) that must be encoded, decoded and received by another individual (p. 233). Within a marriage, the same process takes place. For instance, take the simple chore of washing dishes – a wife (or husband) may verbally or nonverbally convey to their significant other that they would like help washing the dishes. In order to do this, the wife must form her thoughts into a message to communicate to her husband. Typically this message, once formed, is likely to be conveyed through a face-to-face medium. Once the wife has transmitted her message the husband then receives and decodes the message (and hopefully agrees to help do the dishes!). This process can go back and forth and can be very clear or can result in a disagreement due to lack of clarity.

Penley, Alexander, Jernigan and Henwood (1991) uncovered that managers of corporations with effective communication skills outperform others and this is also the case for effective communicators within a marriage. In order for managers to be effective and efficient communicators they must be able to provide clear objectives and accurate feedback (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012). In order for a married couple to communicate efficiently they too must be clear and accurate in their requests, concerns, desires etc. Now this does not always occur within organizations nor does it always occur within a marriage and when it does not follow this communication model, problems may arise whether it be the wrong person getting laid off or a big argument over who left the toilet seat up.

Krone, Jablin and Putnam (1987) described that within the psychological perspective a major influencing factor of how something is received or communicated is an individual’s “conceptual filter” (p. 234). A conceptual filter incorporates an individual’s cognitions, attitudes and perceptions (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012). Therefore, it is essential to take into consideration in an organization when communicating with another individual as they will have a different conceptual filter. This is the same in a marriage, just because two people fall in love and have many of the same attitudes and opinions does not mean that their conceptual filter is the same. In order to be an effective communicator in both an organization and a marriage, one must consider how their message may be influenced by another’s conceptual filter.

Modern organizations have begun to place more emphasis on teams in order to divide up and assign specific tasks to specialized individuals (Pennsylvania State University, 2014). A team, or group, can be defined as “two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person” (Pennsylvania State University, 2014; Shaw, 1981). A marriage then, can also be seen as a team of two individuals who influence and are influenced by one another. Additionally, teams are divided up based on specialization and within a marriage this can be seen by having the husband and wife both take on different roles. Perhaps the husband takes on the “team role” of investing in the stock market and mowing the lawn while the wife assumes the role of providing a nice dinner and paying the bills. Whatever the roles may be, it often takes a team effort to achieve and maintain a functioning household.

References
House, R.J., Shuler, R.S., & Levaroni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68. 334-337. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.334
Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1).  1-21. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90009-6.
Krone, K., Jablin, F., Putnam, L. (1987). Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penley, L., Alexander, E., Jernigan, I., & Henwood, C. (1991). Communication abilities of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal of Management, 17(1), 57-76. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700105.
Pennsylvania State University. (2014). Organizational Life and Teams. [Online Lecture]. Retrieved from http://cms.psu.edu.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15. 150-163. doi: 10.2307/2391486.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Semin, G. (2007). Grounding communication. In A.W. Kruglanski & E.T. Higgins (Eds). Social Psychology Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Shaw, M. (1981). Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
The Economist. (2011). Who are the world’s biggest employers? Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/employment?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/defending.

Skip to toolbar