The Concept of Social Loafing - Research Paper Example

? The Phenomenon of Social Loafing BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE The Phenomenon of Social Loafing Introduction The domain of psychology recognizes the phenomenon of social loafing, the tendency of certain individuals to expel less productive effort when working within a group dynamic than when performing only as a singular individual. The concept of social loafing was originated by Max Ringelmann in 1913 who performed a study involving a group of men asked to pull on a rope. The study identified that more pulling effort was expended when pulling as an individual than when pulling collectively as a group (Ringelmann 1913). There are two respected theories associated with social loafing, the first being the free rider theory, which refers to a person that benefits from the resources and outcomes of the group without having to exert equal effort to others in the collective. The second theory, the sucker effect theory, which is the tendency of group members to avoid exerting high levels of effort toward the task as a means of avoiding taking on additional responsibilities or tasks for other low-performing group members (Krumm, 2000). Whatever theory might or might not be most appropriate to explain the phenomenon of social loafing, the premise is that individual productivity within a group, for some team members, maintains an asymmetrical relationship to the level of effort exhausted when compared to working merely as an individual. Synthesis of Published Literature Though the theory of social loafing was first proposed in 1913, offering a rather generic acknowledgement of the phenomenon without a rigorous examination of mitigating variables, more contemporary researchers have provided a basket of mixed findings associated with the catalysts that influence social loafing. Earley (1989) conducted a study to measure whether cultural characteristics disparate among certain social groups led to the prevalence of social loafing. The study involved a sample of 48 management trainees hailing from both China and the United States who were instructed to work collectively on two sets of tasks, one in which individual accountability and shared responsibility were low and another collective task where these factors were high. The findings indicated that social loafing, in both tasks, was only observable with American participants and not with Chinese group members (Earley, 1989). Earley’s study explained that social loafing is very much a culturally-driven attribute when working within a group dynamic. Chinese workers hail from collectivist nations, in which there is a much higher sense of duty toward maintaining loyalty toward other group members and where loss of face is considered a paramount social concern (Cheung, Cheung, Zhang, Leung, Leong & Yeh 2008). Hence, to not perform according to group expectations could lead to reputational problems for the individual within a Chinese group dynamic. It would be expected, with highly collectivist culture representatives, that maintaining equal work output for each member would improve social cohesiveness and build group loyalty. American culture, however, is very individualistic in which concerns for one’s own personal utility are foremost individual expectations. The study conducted by Early (1989) indicates that social loafing may actually be driven by inherent cultural attributes most prevalent in individualist nations. Early (1993) performed yet another study that continued to support the idea that collectivist orientations served as the catalyst for recurring social loafing within a group. In this study, a diverse sample of managers hailing from both collectivist and individualistic countries were instructed to work collectively with like and disparate individuals (those from opposite cultures). The study’s findings concluded that collectivist managers worked more productively when engaging with collectivist groups, but showed reduced performance when asked to work with individualistic group members. The study conducted by Earley (1993) was able to propose that social loafing essentially occurs as a product of culture clash within a group dynamic, explaining why even collectivist-oriented managers will illustrate incongruent productivity and performance depending on the cultural dynamics of the team. This is important for understanding what drives social loafing, as the free rider theory and the sucker effect theory indicate that this would be a static phenomenon without consideration of other variables influencing team cohesion and collective task functioning. Earley (1989) and Earley (1993) was able to prove that there are sometimes mitigating circumstances associated with culture that serve as direct catalysts for performance. Even though there might have been sentiment within the individualistic groups in both studies in which group members wanted to avoid pulling the weight of less-performing group members, this did not manifest itself without the presence of disparate cultural values between managers and other group members. It could then, perhaps, be that social loafing is most rampant with those who share individualistic values and would not be a common occurrence in nations where group affiliation and group member loyalty are important social considerations. Yet another study measured the impact of group size as a potential factor toward influencing the prevalence of social loafing. Chidambaram & Tung (2005) recruited a sample of 240 undergraduate students who were allocated to forty different work groups, some maintaining only four members and a variety sustaining eight group members. This study identified that social loafing was more common in the groups containing eight members than in the smaller groups. This study offered support for the theory known as the dilution effect, which suggests that because larger groups have more sources and specific outcome targets than smaller groups, social loafing will occur more frequently in larger groups. It is important to understand all of the influencing factors that could impact social loafing occurrences and the studies by Earley (1989), Earley (1993) and Chidambaram & Tung (2005) put forth support that social loafing is not a static phenomenon that occurs within a proverbial vacuum. Social loafing is influenced by group structure and social variables (in this case cultural catalysts), therefore it would be significantly difficult to predict whether social loafing would occur in all instances, in all collective work groups. This has implications for the business world and especially for academics, suggesting that if the intention of managers and educators are to reduce the frequency of social loafing, social and group size dynamics must be considered. Another important study conducted by Murphy & Domicone (2009) surveyed a sampling of 100 American and Austrian students to determine the potential relationship between group member trustworthiness and intention to social loaf. The survey utilized in this study measured trustworthiness under three specific variables: benevolence, integrity and perceived ability of team members. The study identified that cultural variables disparate between American and Austrian study participants maintained a direct relationship with intention to social loaf. This is due to the fact that the study found that how benevolence and integrity were defined by Austrian versus American students impacted their intention to provide superior work outputs in a group dynamic. Again, this study supports that there are going to be variables (especially cultural) that will determine the likelihood to engage in social loafing and that it is not a static phenomenon with ease of predictability of its prevalence. Personal Application of Theory When working with students that share different cultural backgrounds in academic group projects, I have found that social loafing is a common problem. It was not until examination of existing literature that reflection on previous group-working experiences brought to light the free rider theory and the sucker effect became apparent associated with historical group functioning. In a previous academic year, students were assigned to five person groups. My group maintained two Asian students as well as three American-borne group members. During the course of attempting to allocate workload and responsibilities, the Asian students seemed to be less productive than the American students. This would be properly aligned with the study conducted by Earley (1993) that indicated when there is attitude related cultural disparity between group members, productivity declines in both the collectivists and the individualists. The Asian students, upon reflection, also seemed to work together more productively when not engaging with the American students, but when forming their own short-term work clique. This also supports the findings of Earley (1989) indicating that cultural characteristics in collectivist cultures can improve productive working in the group since there is loyalty present with members of the same culture. My personal experiences with student group work using the same Asian versus American student example also supports the findings of Murphy and Domicone (2009) indicating that it may be how the group members in collectivist cultures perceive benevolence and integrity as being motivators for more productive work output and participation in the group tasks. During this particular academic example, the American students were very empathic and generous in their socialization which was not embraced by the more standoffish Asian students who preferred to work as a subgroup of only two. If the American students had been more attuned to the methods by which Asian students embrace concepts of benevolence, they might have been able to gain more participation and trust. Furthermore, the work of Chidambaram & Tung (2005) illustrated that smaller groups seem to have less prevalence of social loafing due to the dynamics of the group and more complex outcome targets. In reflection, in the professional workplace, this has held very true to personal experience. Professionally, I was involved in a ten person workgroup designed to map new processes that would be aligned with installation of a new business software program. The team maintained a set of rewards that were contingent on group effort where accountability was not individualized. The team was supposed to coordinate internal processes so that an appropriate technology architecture map could be drawn to show the flow of activities along the company value chain. This group had many instances of the free rider affect in which some team members were harboring animosity that they were picking up the slack of non-performing work groups. When the team was reduced to only a few tacit knowledge holders, performance increased and deadlines were met appropriately. Conclusion This paper showed that the free rider effect and the sucker effect theories are quite valid, but not the only explanation for why social loafing occurs. Clearly, there is a cultural connection serving as a catalyst for social loafing, however even the group size and inherent perceptions of trust will likely influence the level of participation by certain group members. If educators and businesspersons recognize these factors, they might be able to develop more productive team systems and structure group activities to guarantee more predictable and productive group outcomes. The studies provided in this paper help contemporary business leaders and academic researchers understand how to better coordinate team functioning and structure to improve performance and individual versus group member work output. Personal experience justified many of the concepts provided by the study literature provided by this paper, giving even more clout to the notion that social loafing maintains an asymmetrical relationship to the output of individual productivity when working in groups than when working as an individual. References Cheung, F.M., Cheung, S.F., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F. & Yeh, K.H. (2008). Relevance for Openness as a Personality Dimension in Chinese Culture, Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp.81-108. Chidambaram, Laku & Tung, Lai L. (2005). Is out of Sight, out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups, Information Systems Research, 16(2), p.149-168. Retrieved May 7, 2013 from http://www.nearshops.com/student/Is%20out%20of%20sight%20out%20of%20mind%20 Chidambaram%202005.pdf Earley, P.C. (1989). Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, pp.565-580. Earley, P.C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further Explorations of Collectivistic versus Individualistic Work Groups, Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp.319-347. Krumm, Dianne. (2000). Psychology at Work: An Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology. USA: MacMillan. Murphy, Susan M. & Domicone, Harry. (2009). Trustworthiness and Social Loafing: An Examination of Austrian and American Students, Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies. Retrieved May 7, 2013 from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09252.pdf Ringelmann, Max. (1913). Research on Animate Sources of Power: The Work of Man, cited in Mark Marotto, Johan Roos & Bart Victor (2007) Collective Virtuosity in Organizations: A Study of Peak Performance in an Orchestra, Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), pp. 388-413. Read More