# Managing Groups and Teams/Working in International Teams

, racial, and socioeconomic variety in situations, institutions, and
groups.\'\'^1^ \\[<File:Women.jpg%7Cthumb%7Cright%7CAppreciation> of
and Respect for Differ Cultural diversity can be found everywhere we
look, however this article focuses specifically on the impact of
cultural diversity in the business world. The business world is a
treacherous interpersonal landscape to navigate when dealing with people
of a similar culture to ourselves, but this pales in comparison to the
complexity of dealing with other cultures.

**Why is cultural diversity such a challenge?** The problem we face when
dealing with people of different cultures is that the false consensus
effect confuses us. The false consensus effect is the tendency to
believe that others see the world more like us than they actually do.^2^
People of different cultures see the world even more differently from us
than we are used to, yet the false consensus effects leads us to behave
as though people of other cultures see things just like we do. This
creates confusion, misinterpretations, poor decisions, ineffectiveness,
and is bad for business. The solution is cultural intelligence, which is
described later.^3^

**Cultural diversity is becoming more and more important.**

• White males occupy 5% fewer management jobs in 2006 than in 1998, and
every other racial/gender group occupy more management jobs.^4^

• The U.S. population of foreign born residents is 12.4%, an amount of
international diversity that the U.S. has not seen since 1920.^5^

• 90% of leading executives from 68 countries named cross cultural
leadership as the top management challenge of the next century.^6,7^

• The proportion of revenue coming from overseas markets is expected to
jump by an average of 30 to 50 percent over the next 3 to 5 years.^7^

**Today's corporations recognize the importance of cultural diversity.**
Many companies value diversity so strongly that they devote large
sections of their websites towards diversity. Companies share their
personnel statistics to illustrate their relatively progressive minority
staffing for jobs in lower management, upper management, and their board
of directors. Such companies want to show that they are meritocracies
where minorities will be treated equally, which leads to greater
diversity. Notably culturally diverse companies include Aetna, AT@T,
Booz Allen Hamilton, General Mills, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard,
IBM, Lucent Technologies, Nissan, Price Waterhouse Coppers, Toyota, and
Waster Management. These companies have received many awards that
recognize their pursuit of a more diverse workplace.^8^

## Advantages of Diversified Teams

**What are the advantages of diversified teams?** Many organizations
fall into the trap of creating a team, based on a need -- need of
completing a project, hitting a deadline or filling a role. They seldom
base the project on the need for different perspectives or ensuring that
the group brainstorm is effective. Thus, there are many advantages to
creating diversified teams that focus on a common goal and work towards
a universal solution. More and more companies and associations are
realizing the importance of diversity in teams in this modern society.
There are many advantages to different cultural backgrounds, diverse
experiences within team members and the benefits of individual
brainstorming. By creating diverse teams, with people of different
backgrounds and cultures, the group can help prevent groupthink.
Diversity provides a greater variety of perspectives and ideas, which
can lead to more creative solutions. "Workplace diversity now focuses on
inclusion and the impact on the bottom line. Leveraging workplace
diversity is increasingly seen as a vital strategic resource for
competitive advantage."^15^

\'\'\'Defining diversity is problematic diversity refers to the ways
that people in organizations differ. "That sounds simple, but defining
it more specifically is a challenge because people in organizations
differ in a great many ways - race, gender, ethnic group, age,
personality, cognitive style, tenure, organizational function, and more.
There is also the fact that diversity not only involves how people think
of others and how this affects their interaction but how they conceive
of themselves." ^13^ In When Teams Work Best, Cooke and Szumal
"discovered that across a variety of problem-solving groups,
constructive individual styles -- as opposed to aggressive and passive
styles -- are associated with higher quality solutions." ^12^ By
creating a diverse team, an organization is empowering individuals to
perform at a higher-level and to increase productivity.

![Working and Getting along even though we are
different

**There are still many people who view working in teams as an
ineffective practice.** There is the old adage that two heads are better
than one, but many do not see the relevance in meeting in teams to work
on projects. It may appear, especially to those that have had bad team
experiences in the past, the more people on a team, the more confusion
and wasted time in finding the end result. But this is not the case --
it only means that the team needs to be restructured. "Seeing
differences among people as the same, makes diversity a benign, almost
meaningless, concept." ^13^ It is essential for organizations to design
effective teams, including the team players that will manage and utilize
this arena for success. The "team process" has to be constantly managed
and diversified if necessary.

**Teams provide a setting where politics can be worked out and diverse
individuals can come together to share their cultures and backgrounds.**
It is important to rely on other team members to delegate the workload
and to learn from individual experiences. This is the key element to any
organization and needs to be the focus for any decision-making strategy.
In addition, it is important to understand that some teams do not work
well together. "Clearly, the attitudes, styles and interaction patterns
of team members have a direct impact on performance outcomes." ^12^
Management must understand that it is not the formation of a team that
is faulty, but the design of the team.

## Disadvantages of Diversified/International Teams

**SCOPE:**

The scope of the Disadvantages of Diversified Teams portion focuses on
challenges within the international team related to language, culture,
stereotypes, preconceptions, and differing value systems. These
challenges make it difficult for a team to develop team cohesiveness and
foster collaboration, which then leads to mistrust, miscommunication and
misunderstanding. Included are ways to overcome these difficulties when
working in an international team. Some of the disadvantages of
international teams are:

**Language-**

One of the first disadvantages of working in an international team can
be the impact of language. Even though we use might use the same words
does not mean that we use the same language. This is especially evident
when we compare American English and British English. Two people might
be using the same words, but understand one another on a completely
different level. Multi-International teams have individuals who will not
be able to converse in their native tongue. Undoubtedly, this will lead
to some form of misunderstanding when working together for at least one
member of the group. "When people speak with their team in a language
other than their native one, it often affects their ability to interact
with the group. It potentially affects spontaneity, clarity of
expression (vocabulary and pronunciation), and willingness to express
ideas. This is more challenging if your culture is indirect or your
personal style is more introverted." ^16^ Specific areas of
miscommunication can be found in the form of vocabulary, language style,
non verbal communication, and the unwillingness to express ideas.

• **Vocabulary-** The vocabulary that we and others use can sometimes be
confusing to others who do not speak the same native language, let alone
to those who do. Many miscommunications can arise if we are not aware of
the speech and vocabulary we use and how it is interpreted by the
receiving party.

• **Language Style-** Varying nationalities communicate differently.
When working in teams some individuals may be very direct and blunt,
while others may be indirect and vague in their communication. Each
person may interpret these language styles differently. It is important
to recognize the differing language styles and the common
misunderstandings that can come from it. Accents, pronunciation, slang
and the use of idioms can also cause fundamental misunderstandings.

• **Non Verbal Communication-** A majority of communication is done
through non verbal communication. Non verbal communication has an
enormous impact on intercultural communication because of the way in
which it can be misinterpreted from one culture to the next. Non verbal
communication can give off mixed signals if you are not aware of the
communication style of the person with whom you are working.

• **Unwillingness to express ideas-** The inferiority complex where team
members feel they cannot express themselves in the language that is
being used, so they do not express their ideas.

**Culture-**

*Culture is everything we see around us.* It is how we act, what we
think, and what we believe. It is the words we use, the food we eat, and
the clothes we wear. However, beyond these things mentioned underlies
invisible values and beliefs that make up behaviors that are unique to
each society. We may be able to see the obvious outward signs that make
up ones culture, but oftentimes we fail to understand the invisible
culture. "The only way to deal successfully with people from a different
country is to be aware of what's going on beneath the surface and use
that knowledge to shape your own behavior and expectations. If you don't
understand that what's below the surface is far more powerful and
potentially dangerous than what you can see, you run the risk of hitting
the invisible part of the iceberg." ^17^ Because there are so many
cultures and each one has its unique set of beliefs, below are listed a
couple of cultural pitfalls to take into consideration.

• **Attitudes toward time-**The difficulty in dealing with international
teams is that each culture has a different attitude toward time. This
can cause problems when prioritizing tasks and completing tasks within
certain deadlines.

• **Different Value Systems-** "Peoples' values are expressed through
what they say and what they do. Therefore people working together from
different cultural backgrounds may find that they approach and execute
tasks differently because of differences in their cultural values.
Understanding differences in value systems helps us to understand how
and why individuals may behave differently to ourselves. This can help
us work more effectively together and make the most of the benefits that
those differences offer." ^18^

**Preconceptions & Stereotypes-**

Stereotypes are the tendency we have to simplify the world by putting
people into a category, and then fitting the individual into the
stereotype of that category. If you interact with a team member from a
particular country, you may have the tendency to put another a future
team member in the same category as the first team member with whom you
interacted.

## Ways to overcome difficulties when working in an international team

**Language-**

Open and effective communication is paramount in any team, international
or not. Therefore, any miscommunications that can be mitigated
beforehand will only accentuate the success of the team. "Establish
conversational rules from the beginning. Acknowledge differences in
accents and encourage team members to be mindful of them. Remind team
members to refrain from using words with multiple meanings, idioms, or
slang." ^19^

**Non verbal communication-**

• "Even if you don't speak the language, it's a good idea to allow
versed in a culture's nonverbal expressions, such as touching or bowing,
personal gestures, and the display of emotions." ^20^

• Keep in mind that "There exists no body movement, no facial
expression, no gesture which could arouse the same reaction all over the
world. A smile expresses friendliness in one society, in another
embarrassment, in yet another it can include an enemy's warning that
attack is imminent if tension is not released." ^21^

• "Limit hand gestures and maintain a moderate body posture." ^22^

• "Silence can mean agreement, disagreement, or contemplation. Be
careful not to make assumptions and express the overt message whenever
possible." ^23^

• "Do not interpret the absence of disagreement as agreement" ^24^

• "Nonverbal communication is powerful. Learn about the ways in which
members express negative concepts. Silence is often one way to do this,
but it also may show respect and allow contemplation of another person's
comment." ^25^

!The importance of finding a way to work with people from different
cultures

**Culture-**

In order to overcome some of the difficulties of working in
international teams, the book Managing Across Cultures suggests that we
have a global mindset. A global mindset is "the ability to recognize and
adapt to cultural signals so that you intuitively see global
opportunities and are effective in dealing with people from different
backgrounds around the world." ^26^

The book also suggests three ways to mitigate any cultural problems
before they become a problem. They are:

• "Increase each individual team member's knowledge of his or her own
cultural values. This can be accomplished through suggested readings and
online resources." ^27^

• "Increase the team's collective knowledge of the range of cultural
differences in the group. It is important for people to review details
of the cultures present in their team and think about where they might
face challenges." ^28^

• "Encourage people to assess their own personal cultural styles and how
those styles may affect the group" ^29^

Other suggestions are:

• Do not assume things about a particular group or individual.

• Take time to get to know others.

• Learn about others' cultures and customs in order to build and sustain
relationships within your international team.

• Be sure to treat everyone in the group equally, regardless of their
nationality.

• Learn about each other's strengths and weaknesses.

• Do not put your own culture and way of doing things above others.

• "Try to see tasks from the other person's point of view before you
judge their contribution or performance." ^30^

**Stereotypes & Preconceptions-**

Do not give into preconceptions and stereotypes. Know that they exist
and realize there are ways to prevent them. Encourage face-to-face
interactions so team members can diminish any stereotypes that may
exist. "Trust often develops when members establish credibility by
demonstrating their abilities and competence. Give team members the
opportunity early on to engage in tasks that demonstrate their skills or
introduce team members to each other by highlighting their past
experiences and current expertise with the matters at hand."

## Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

*"Cultural Intelligence is the outsider's ability to interpret someone's
unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures the way that person's compatriots
would "*

*First there was IQ, then came EQ, and now there is CQ*

We are culturally groomed to think and behave in a certain ways from the
time we were babies.Every country and company has different cultural
programming that result in varied sets of strengths and weaknesses.^10^
Every company and department has culture, some more distinct than
others. Every country or region exhibits some cultural differences that
distinguish them from one another and are fully understood only by the
people from within. There are people that have the ability to seemingly
fit-in and mingle within virtually any environment or group and there
are others that find the cultural boundaries impossible to cross. What
if these differences and boundaries are present and around daily in the
team someone is a part of for eight to ten hours a day? How do people
with huge mentality and understanding gaps fit in and become an
effective team? International and highly diversified teams are becoming
more and more common as the world becomes more flat, but people still
carry their learned behaviors and mentality. These differences may
present a communication wall and prevent team from functioning.

The bad news is that very few people are gifted with high cultural
intelligence, but the good news is that people can change that. Cultural
Intelligence is related to Emotional Intelligence (EI) and one thing
that they share in common is the "propensity to suspend judgment and
think before acting". Take as an example international team that
consists of people from US and India. It is very difficult to determine
what features are natural and could be attributed to the individual and
what are related to the place of birth. If people on the team have low
CQ they much more likely to label the team-members from the other
country, become less interested in the individuals and thus hinder the
team's cohesiveness. Increasing team members CQ could help in overcoming
some of the disadvantages of working on international/distributed teams
by removing cultural boundaries and increasing personal trust and
connection.

Most managers fit within one of six established profiles. ^9^

• **The provincial:** Effective when working with people of similar
background, but lacks the ability to work with people from other
cultures

• **The analyst:** Tries to methodically analyzes other cultures and
tries to apply learned strategies

• **The natural:** Relies entirely on his own natural intuition and
avoids learning more or improving based on established techniques

• **The ambassador:** Likes differences and welcomes them, does not know
much about the culture, but he is confident he can handle it.

• **The mimic:** Has a high degree of confidence in his actions. Easily
communicates and fits in.

• **The chameleon:** Possesses high degree of CQ and could be even
mistaken for native in certain situations.

CQ is a relatively new notion and term but some countries are already
establishing structures to advance this skill in the general population.
Singapore has created a center devoted to CQ at a major university,
which offers training, consulting, and other resources for this
subject.http://www.cci.ntu.edu.sg/

Companies also benefit from increased CQ. Besides increased revenues,
companies that worked to enhance their leaders\' CQs expanded
internationally faster and became more successful at attracting and
retaining top talent.

There are many different tests that could help people get a better
understanding of their personal strengths and weaknesses and frameworks
that could help build up CI. It takes commitment, learning and patience
acquiring the necessary skills and thus increasing the Cultural
Intelligence level, however this skill could prove to be invaluable in a
world that is growing closer together each day.

A good start to improving CI level is testing it:
<http://www.cq-portal.com/>

## Conclusion

**Improving CQ, verbal and non-verbal communication will improve teams
and managers.** Once people understand and improve their CQ, they will
be better equipped to work within and lead diverse workgroups. Managers
of tomorrow will need to unite team members from various backgrounds and
cultures; more importantly, the different cultures and norms of the team
members will need to be deciphered and used for the greater good of the
team. Similar to the collaborative multinational peace efforts carried
out by the United Nations, or the global manufacture and sales practices
of Honda, companies can achieve more if team members and management
understand and build off of each other's strengths, culture, and norms.
Diverse teams will only succeed if dissimilar team members work together
and CQ is the solution.

## References

1\. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cultural+diversity>

2\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect>

3\. David Livermore, Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The New Secret
to Success, AMACOM, 2010, page 13.

4\. Ruth Ellen Wasem, \"Immigration Reform: Brief Synthesis of Issue,\"
CRS Report For Congress (August 23, 2007). Available at
<http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/91856.pdf>.

5\. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's raw data.

6\. Economist Intelligence Unit, "CEO Briefing: Corporate Priorities for
2006 and Beyond" in The Economist: Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) at
<http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/ceo_Briefing_UKTI_wp.pdf> or
<http://www.eiu.com/CorporatePriorities2006>

7\. David Livermore, Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The New Secret
to Success, AMACOM, 2010, page 15.

8\. <http://www.ethnicmajority.com/corporate_diversity.htm>

9\. Cultural Intelligence by P. Christopher Earley and Elaine Mosakowski

10\. Cultural Intelligence A guide to working with people from other
countries from Brooks Peterson
<http://books.google.com/books?id=-84MKmO-xi0C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Cultural+intelligence+test&source=bl&ots=z2T9omxLQ1&sig=_QIe9O7vQI50eUQ8_ZCNjSCKGlY&hl=en&ei=PLKBS9cahuCxA7e8nY0E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Cultural%20intelligence%20test&f=false>

11\. Cox, Taylor, Creating the Multicultural Organization: A Strategy
for Capturing the Power of Diversity, Cornell University Library
Holdings,
<https://catalog.library.cornell.edu/cgibin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&Search_Arg=When+generations+collide+%3A+traditionalists%2C+baby+boomers%2C+generation+xers%2C+millennials+%3A+who+they+ar&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=50&HIST=1>,
Jossey-Bass, 2001.

12\. LaFasto, Frank, Larson, Carl, When Teams Work Best, Sage
Publications, 2001

13\.
<http://www.diversityworking.com/employerZone/diversityManagement/?id=5>

14\.
<http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/subjectguides/workplacediversity.html>

15\. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_6_50/ai_n14702678/>

16\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (pp.156-157)

17\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.36)

18\. <http://www.cochrane.org/docs/crossculturalteamwork.doc> page 6

19\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.252)

20\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.147)

21\. Erlenkamp, Marco (2005). Managing International Teams and Workforce
Diversity. (p.15)

22\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.157)

23\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.157)

24\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.157)

25\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.157)

26\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.37)

27\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.252)

28\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.252)

29\. Solomon, Charlene M., Schell, Michael S.(2009). Managing across
cultures (1st Edition). (p.252)

30\. http//:www.cochrane.org/docs/crossculturalteamwork.doc page 10


# Managing Groups and Teams/Social Loafing

# Definition of Social Loafing

![](1904_tug_of_war.jpg "1904_tug_of_war.jpg"){width="300"}

Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals
exert less effort when working as a group than when working
independently. Research indicates that there is some degree of social
loafing within every group, whether high-functioning or dysfunctional.

In 1913, a French agricultural engineer, Max Ringlemann, identified this
social phenomenon. He recognized a collective group performance required
less effort by individuals compared to the sum of their individual
efforts (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). The effect he noted has been termed
the Ringlemann Effect. In this experiment, participants pulled on a rope
attached to a strain gauge. Ringlemann noted that two individuals
pulling the rope only exerted 93% of their individual efforts. A group
of three individuals exerted 85% and groups of eight exerted 49% of
their combined individual effort. As more individuals pulled on the
rope, each individual exerted themselves less. From these observations,
Ringlemann determined that individuals perform below their potential
when working in a group (LaFasto & Larson, 2001, p. 77).

Since Ringlemann's observation, social loafing has been identified in
numerous studies. Social loafing has several causes and effects that
will be discussed in this document, as well as methods for dealing with
social loafing to promote more effective group work.

\'Ringleman\'s brainchild of social loafing has now been used within a
diverse variety of studies, ranging from its impact on sports teams to
the affects on groups within huge conglomerates.' (Dr Karen Virendra
Patel, 2002; pg 124)\'\'\'\'\'

## Causes of Social Loafing

Many theories explain why social loafing occurs., below are several
explanations of social loafing causes:

**Equitable contribution**: Team members believe that others are not
putting forth as much effort as themselves. Since they feel that the
others in the group are slacking, they lessen their efforts too. This
causes a downward cycle that ends at the point where only the minimum
amount of work is performed.

**Submaximal goal setting**: Team members may perceive that with a
well-defined goal and with several people working towards it, they can
work less for it. The task then becomes optimizing rather than
maximizing.

**Lessened contingency between input and outcome**: Team members may
feel they can hide in the crowd and avoid the consequences of not
contributing. Or, a team member may feel lost in the crowd and unable to
gain recognition for their contributions (Latane, 1998). This
description is characteristic of people driven by their uniqueness and
individuality. In a group, they lose this individuality and the
recognition that comes with their contributions. Therefore, these group
members lose motivation to offer their full ability since it will not be
acknowledged (Charbonnier et al., 1998). Additionally, large group sizes
can cause individuals to feel lost in the crowd. With so many
individuals contributing, some may feel that their efforts are not
needed or will not be recognized (Kerr, 1989).

**Lack of evaluation**: Loafing begins or is strengthened in the absence
of an individual evaluation structure imposed by the environment (Price
& Harrison, 2006). This occurs because working in the group environment
results in less self-awareness (Mullen, 1983). For example, a member of
a sales team will loaf when sales of the group are measured rather than
individual sales efforts.

**Unequal distribution of compensation**: In the workplace, compensation
comes in monetary forms and promotions and in academics it is in the
form of grades or positive feedback. If an individual believes
compensation has not been allotted equally amongst group members, he
will withdraw his individual efforts (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005).

**Non-cohesive group**: A group functions effectively when members have
bonded and created high-quality relationships. If the group is not
cohesive, members are more prone to social loafing since they are not
concerned about letting down their teammates (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005).

## Effects of Social Loafing

Social loafing engenders negative consequences that affect both the
group as a whole as well as the individual.

### Effects on Groups

As explained in the Ringlemann Effect, output decreases with increased
group membership, due to social loafing. This effect is demonstrated in
another study by Latane, et al. In this experiment subjects were asked
to yell or clap as loudly as possible. As in Ringlemann's study, the
overall loudness increased while individual output decreased. People
averaged 3.7 dynes/sq cm individually, 2.6 in pairs, 1.8 in a group of
four, and 1.5 in a group of six. In this study there was no block effect
(indicating tiredness or lack of practice). Due to social loafing,
average output for each individual decreases due to the perception that
others in the group are not putting forth as much effort as the
individual.

In considering this first experiment, some individuals suggested that
results might be invalid due to acoustics (i.e. voices canceling each
other out or voices not synchronized). To disprove this theory, another
experiment was performed. For this study, participants were placed in
individual rooms and wore headphones. In repeated trials, these
participants were told they were either shouting alone or as part of a
group. The results demonstrated the same trend as in the first
experiment\--individual performance decreased as a group size increased
(Latane, 1979).

In reality, there are not many groups with the objective of yelling
loud, however the example above illustrates a principle that is common
in business, family, education, and in social gatherings that harms the
overall integrity and performance of a team by reducing the level of
output, one individual at a time. The negative social cues involved with
social loafing produce decreased group performance (Schnake, 1991, p.
51). Reasonable consequences of social loafing also include
dissatisfaction with group members who fail to contribute equally and
the creation of in groups and out groups. Additionally, groups will lack
the talents that could be offered by those who choose to not contribute.
All of these factors result in less productivity.

### Effects on Individuals

The preceding section identifies the effect of social loafing on a group
which is arguably the most prominent consequence of the group behavior.
However, social loafing also has an impact on the individuals that
comprise the group. There are various side effects that individuals may
experience.

One potential side effect is the lack of satisfaction that a member of
the group might experience, thereby becoming disappointed or depressed
at the end of project. When a member of a group becomes a social loafer,
the member reduces any opportunity he might have had to grow in his
ability and knowledge. Today, many college level classes focus on group
projects. The ability for an individual to participate in social loafing
increases at the group increases in number. However, if these groups
remain small the individual will not have the opportunity to become
invisible to the group and their lack of input will be readily evident.
The lack of identifiably in a group is a psychological production that
has been documented in several studies. (Carron, Burke & Prapavessis,
2004)

Social loafing can also negatively impact individuals in the group who
perform the bulk of the work. For example, in schoolwork teams are often
comprised of children of varying capacities. Without individual
accountability, often only one or a few group members will do most of
the work to make up for what the other students lack. Cheri Yecke,
Minnesota's commissioner of education, explains that in these instances
group work can be detrimental to the student(s) who feel resentment and
frustration from carrying the weight of the work. Yecke recounted an
experience of one child who felt she had to "slow down the pace of her
learning and that she could not challenge the group, or she would be
punished" with a lower grade than desired. Especially in situations
where members of the group of differing abilities, social loafing
negatively affects group members who carry the weight of the group.

## Variation in Social Loafing

### Culture

Social loafing is more likely to occur in societies where the focus is
on the individual rather than the group. This phenomenon was observed in
a study comparing American managers (individualistic values) to Chinese
managers (collectivistic values). Researchers found that social loafing
occurred with the American managers while there was no such occurrence
with the Chinese managers. The researchers explained this through a
comparison between collectivistic and individualistic orientations.

A collectivistic orientation places group goals and collective action
ahead of self-interests. This reinforces the participants\' desires to
pursue group goals in order to benefit the group. People from this
orientation view their individual actions as an important contribution
to the group\'s well-being. They also gain satisfaction and feelings of
accomplishment from group outcomes. Further, collectivists anticipate
that other group members will contribute to the groups\' performance and
so they choose to do the same in return. They view their contributions
to group accomplishments as important and role-defined (Earley, 1989).

In contrast, an individualist\'s motive is focused on self-interest.
Actions by these individuals emphasize personal gain and rewards based
on their particular accomplishments. An individualist anticipates
rewards contingent on individual performance. Contribution toward
achieving collective goals is inconsistent with the self-interest motive
unless differential awards are made by the group. Individuals whose
contributions to group output go unnoticed have little incentive to
contribute, since they can \"loaf\" without fear of consequences. As a
result, an individualist can maximize personal gain without putting
forth as much effort as had he/she done the work individually. The
self-interest motive stresses individual outcomes and gain over the
collective good (Earley, 1989).

### Gender

![](Hutterer-Frauen_bei_der_Arbeit.jpg "Hutterer-Frauen_bei_der_Arbeit.jpg"){width="200"}
Research indicates that women are more inclined to sustain group
cohesion where men are more interested in task achievement. As a result,
women, who deem collective tasks more significant than individual tasks,
are less likely to engage in social loafing than men. This phenomenon is
demonstrated in a study conducted by Naoki Kugihara. To determine the
social loafing effect on men versus women, he had 18 Japanese men and 18
Japanese women pull on a rope, similar to the Ringlemann experiment. On
the questionnaire, several participants indicated their perception that
they pulled with their full strength. However, Kugihara observed the men
did decrease their effort once involved in collective rope pulling.
Conversely, the women did not show a change in effort once involved
collectively.

In the paper reporting the results of this study, Kugihara explains some
reasoning behind this different reaction between men and women. In
observing Japanese junior high students, Tachibana and Koyasu found that
boys engaged more earnestly in the task when they were told that
achievement was being measured. When they were told they could relax and
enjoy the task, the boys did not put forth as much effort. However, with
the girls they did not notice any change in effort between the
achievement and relaxation tasks. These results indicate that men are
more likely to engage in social loafing in a group setting because they
will not be driven by achievement motivation since their efforts will
not be as visible. However, women tend to not be affected by achievement
motivation and therefore are less likely to engage in social loafing
(1999).

## Confronting the Social Loafer

![](Two_koreans_in_discussion.jpg){width="200"}

No one ever likes to be confronted or told what to do. So in a group
setting, what is the best way to make the most out of each individual's
contributions? Especially in groups where there is no designated leader,
it is difficult for one group member to confront another. However, Dan
Rothwell offers advice for handling these situations.

**Private confrontation**: The team leader or a selected team member
should confront the social loafer individually. This individual should
solicit the reasons for the lackluster effort. Additionally, the loafer
should be encouraged to participate and understand the importance of his
contributions.

**Group confrontation**: The entire group can address the problem to the
dissenting team member and specifically address the problem(s) they have
observed. They should attempt to resolve the problem and refrain from
deleterious attacks on the slacking individual.

**Superior assistance**: After trying to address the problem with the
individual both privately and as a group, group members should seek the
advice of a superior, whether it be a teacher, boss or other authority
figure. Where possible, group members should provide documented evidence
of the loafing engaged by the individual (De Vita, 2001). The person in
authority can directly address the problem with the lackluster team
member.

**Exclusion**: The loafer should only be booted out of the group as a
last resort. However, this option may not be feasible in some instances.

**Circumvention**: If all the above steps have been attempted without
result, then the group can reorganize tasks and responsibilities. This
should be done in a manner that will result in a desirable outcome
whether or not the loafer contributes.

(Rothwell, 2004)

## Preventing Social Loafing

![](Traitdunion_02-2002_Ostia-Talk_LR.jpg "Traitdunion_02-2002_Ostia-Talk_LR.jpg"){width="300"}

In order to prevent or limit the effects of social loafing, there are a
number of guidelines a team leader might initiate to manage team
members' efforts toward team goals. Though some do depend upon the
nature of the team and the type of team, most of these guidelines can be
adapted to provide a positive benefit to all teams.

**Develop rules of conduct**: Setting rules at the beginning will help
all team members achieve the team objectives and performance goals.
Establishing ground rules can help to prevent social loafing and
free-riding behaviors by providing assurances that free-riding attempts
will be dealt with (Cox, 2007).

**Create appropriate group sizes**: Do not create or allow a team to
undertake a two-man job. For example, municipal maintenance crews often
have crew members standing around watching one or two individuals work.
Does that job really require that many crew members?

**Establish individual accountability**: This is critical for initial
assignments that set the stage for the rest of the task (Team Based).
Tasks that require pre-work and input from all group members produce a
set of dynamics that largely prevent social loafing from happening in
the first place. If this expectation is set early, individuals will
avoid the consequences of being held accountable for poor work.

**Encourage group loyalty**: Not all cultures experience social loafing.
In China, social striving, the opposite of social loafing, occurs. In
these cases, individual performance is enhanced by being in a group
(Davies, 2006). The individuals care more about the success of the group
than their own success. They have a clear view of the group's objective
and what leads to its fulfillment. This sense of group loyalty is
created by individual awareness of the team's position in reaching the
goal. If production plant employees know the goal, know how far they
need to go, and where the competition is, they are more inclined to work
towards the goal than if they did not have that knowledge.

**Implement peer evaluation**: In academic cultures, college instructors
use peer evaluations to instill accountability for individual
contributions in group products. These evaluations are given early in
the term and are more effective in deterring social loafing than peer
evaluations given later in the term (Brooks & Ammons, 2003).

**Write a team contract**: Confusion and miscommunication can cause
social loafing. Although it may seem formal, writing a team contract is
a good first step in setting group rules and preventing social loafing.
This contract should include several important pieces of information
such as group expectations, individual responsibilities, forms of group
communication, and methods of discipline. If each group member has a
measurable responsibility that they alone are accountable for, he is not
able to rely on the group for his portion of responsibility.

**Choose complementary team members**: When possible, carefully choose
individuals to join a team. Make sure they have strengths and
personalities that will complement other group members rather than deter
from reaching the group goal.

**Minimize group size**: Whenever possible, minimize the number of
people within a group. The fewer people available to diffuse
responsibility to, the less likely social loafing will occur.

**Establish ground rules**: Discuss what the team's goals and objectives
are and then develop a process to meet them. Agree to perform by team
roles discussed in the initial meeting of a project. Also discuss
consequences of not following rules and the process to call an
individual on their negative behavior.

**Specifically define the task**: Clarify the importance of the task to
the team and assign members to do particular assignments. Establish
expectations through specific measurable and observable outcomes, such
as due dates. At the end of each meeting, refresh everyone's memories as
to who is required to do what by when and offer clarification on
required duties.

**Create personal relationships**: Provide opportunities for members to
socialize and establish trusting relationships. Dedicated relationships
cause people to fulfill their duties more efficiently.

**Highlight achievement**: Invite members of management to attend team
sessions. Allow team accomplishments to shine through to superiors.
Close meetings by summarizing their group's successes. Pat them on the
back and remind them of their upcoming duties.

**Establish task importance**: Allow team members the opportunity to
demonstrate their willingness to do their work in a timely fashion.

**Evaluate progress**: Meet individually with team members to assess
their successes and areas of improvement. Discuss ways in which the team
leader may provide additional support so the task may be completed. When
possible, develop an evaluation based on an individual contribution.
This can be accomplished through individual group members' evaluations
of others on team.

**Manage discussions**: Ensure that all team members have the
opportunity to speak. Make every individual feel they have a valuable
role on the team and their input is important to group success.

**Engage individuals**: When intrinsic involvement in the task is high,
workers may feel that their efforts are very important for the success
of the group and thus may be unlikely to engage in social loafing even
if the task visibility is low.

## References

Brooks, C. & Ammons, J. (2003). Free Riding in Group Projects and the
Effects of Timing, Frequency and Specificity of Criteria in Peer
Assessment. *Journal of Education for Business*, May-June

Carron, A., Burke, S. & Prapavessis, H. (2004). *Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology*, Vol. 16, 41-58

Charbonnier, E., Huguet, P., Brauer, M., Monteil, J. (1998). Social
loafing and self-beliefs: People\'s collective effort depends on the
extent to which they distinguish themselves as better than others.
*Social Behavior and Personality*.

Cox, Pamela L. and Brobrowski, Paula E. The team charter assignment:
Improving the effectiveness of classroom teams. Cazenovia College, State
University of New York, *Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management*.
2000, Vol.1(1), Page 92. 9 July 2007.
\<<http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol1/article_6.htm>\>.

Davies, Jamie and Holah, Mark. Social Loafing. Learn Psychology.net.
2006, Slapes Design & Hosting. 8 July 2007. \<
<http://www.learnpsychology.net/g/448>\>.

De Vita, Glauco (2001, Winter). The use of group work in large and
diverse business management classes: Some critical issues. *The
International Journal of Management Education*, 1(3), 26-34.

Earley, P.C (1989). Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the
United States and the People\'s Republic of China. *Administrative
Science Quarterly in Business*, Vol. 34, 565-581.

Faris, A. & Brown, J. (2003). Addressing Group Dynamics in a Brief
Motivational Intervention for College Student Drinkers. *Journal of Drug
Education*, Vol. 33 (3), 289-306

Hardy, C.J. & Crace, R.K. (1991). The Effects of Task Structure and
Teammate Competence on Social Loafing. *Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology*, Vol. 13, 372-381

Kerr, N.L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on
perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. *Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology* , 25, 287-313.

Kravitz, D.A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The
original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(5),
936-941.

Kugihara, Noaki (1999). Gender and Social Loafing in Japan. *Journal of
Social Psychology*. pp 516-526.

LaFasto, F. & Larson C. (2001). When teams work best. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many Hands Make Light
The Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. *Journal of
Personal Sociology and Psychology*, Vol. (37), 822-832.

Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the
individual: A self-attention perspective. *Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology* , 19, 295-322.

Piezon, S.L. & Donaldson, R.L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing:
Understanding student-group interactions. *Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration*, 8(4). Retrieved online July 7, 2007 at
<http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm>

Plaks, J.E. & Higgins, E.T. (2000). Pragmatic Use of Stereotyping in
Teamwork: Social Loafing and compensation as a function of Inferred
Partner-Situation Fit. *Journal of Persocal Sociology and Psychology*,
Vol. 79 (6), 962-974

Price, K.H. & Harrison, D.A. (2006). Withholding inputs in team context:
Member composition, interaction process, evaluation structure, and
social loafing. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, Vol. 91(6).

Rothwell, Dan (2004). *In Mixed Company*. California: Thomson Wadsworth.

Schnake, M.E.(1991, March). Equity in Effort: The \'sucker effect\' in
co-acting groups. *Journal of Management*, 17(1), 41-56.

Team Based Learning: Alternative to Lecturing in Large Class Settings.
Faculty of Applied Science, University of British Columbia.
\<ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca/wiki/images/e/e8/Group_Activities_condensed_v5.doc\>.

Yecke, C.P. (2004, January 18). Cooperative learning can backfire. *The
Star Tribune*


# Managing Groups and Teams/Process Losses

## Subject

How do our unconscious biases affect the way we manage and interact with
teams?

Years of experience and research has taught us that the biases held by
managers, as well as team members, have a tremendous effect on team and
individual performance in the workplace. As managers, these biases
dictate the way we recruit our workforce, assign job duties, evaluate
staff performance, and determine promotions. Most managers assume that
they are fair individuals and claim to be non-biased in their decision
making processes when in fact this may not be the case. The problem is
that we do not take the time to reflect on the process by which we make
certain decisions and the unconscious biases that affect those
decisions. Consequently, these decisions may prove to be detrimental to
the success of a business. Recognizing our potential to succumb to
unconscious biases in the workplace can help to prevent us from making
bad decisions.

## Examples

Examples and anecdotes are essential in understanding the negative
effects that these biases have in the workplace. As we discuss theories
and ideas surrounding the subject matter, we will integrate our personal
and professional experiences into this project to better illustrate our
points. The following are examples of risky decisions that may be
infected by biased decision making.

## Halo Effect

#### Description

This type of bias exists when a person allows one characteristic of
another person to affect the evaluation of other characteristics. When
one attribute is more relevant or apparent, one tends to extend the
understanding or interpretation of that trait to all other attributes.
One simple example of this bias is if one assumes that because John is a
good singer, he must, therefore, also be a good dancer, a good cook and
a good husband.

#### This bias seen in a team environment

*Peter is a manager over a team of 8 employees. He treats his employees
fairly and trusts their ability to get the job accomplished. Susan, a
team member who is an excellent cook, has been one of Peter's favorite
employees. Peter has recently put Susan in charge of organizing the
company's recipe book, a large project that requires not only cooking
skills, but also organization, design and printing skills. Also, because
of the way Peter views Susan's cooking skills, he asked her if she could
lead the team in a cost saving project that requires expertise in
finance and accounting. Susan has no expertise in that area and managing
these two projects will be a daunting task.*

#### Effects in the workplace

As seen in the example above, the halo effect can be very detrimental
not only to team members individually, but also to the team
collectively. A team leader can very easily assume that a team member is
capable of other tasks simply because of one specific characteristic
that was observed previously. This bias directly affects a team leader's
decision making process. Here are some very common consequences of this
bias: - Over or under trusting an employee or a team member - Offering
unfair advantage or disadvantage to a team member - Assigning too much
or too little to a specific team member - Misjudgment of character

#### How to remedy this bias

The first step to avoid or remedy the halo effect bias is to gather
information. This can be done through simple performance reviews,
surveys and observations. This step is crucial in eliminating this bias
because it allows the observer to view the person from different angles,
understanding their stories from their perspective. This step also
allows for a diminished level of interpersonal conflict. When
information is readily available, people tend to gravitate to the
central issues rather than personal biases.[^1] The second step is to
interpret the information gathered. As data is gathered, the team leader
can understand the specific strengths and weaknesses more objectively.
Misunderstandings and misconceptions can be eliminated in this step of
the process. The final step is to draw conclusions. As the observer
analyzes the information gathered, he/she can more accurately understand
other team members' qualities and avoid extending those qualities to
other attributes. The conclusions that are drawn in this step form a
more correct image of the person being observed in the team leader's
mind.

## Stereotyping

#### Description

Stereotyping is probably the most commonly known type of bias and
undoubtedly one of the most commonly present in the workplace, social
environments and the media. This bias can be described as the tendency
people have to simplify their perception of the world around them by
allocating people in separate groups or clusters. By putting people into
those groups, one allows him/herself to believe that all the members of
that group act, behave and think the same way. This bias completely
disregards people's individual characteristics, skills and
personalities. Although this bias is normally negative, attracting
unrealistic assumptions and conclusions, sometimes this bias can
actually present positive aspects. The most common types of stereotyping
are related to race, gender, education, nationality and political
backgrounds. One common example of stereotyping can be often seen in
television shows and movies. One classic example of stereotyping in the
media can be seen in the show "The Simpsons", represented by several
different characters. Apu, for example, is an Indian sales clerk that is
show as a "stereotypical" person born in India. Several different traits
seen in the Indian culture are represented by Apu, as if he had all
those characteristics seen in several different people from that
country.:Image: Cultural bias is the most common
type of stereotyping, whether associated with nationality, origin,
language or race. Stereotypes based on cultural characteristics can be
very dangerous in the workplace, not only because of ethical issues, but
also because several laws protect employees against this type of bias.
Very often this type of bias can lead to more severe prejudices such as
racism. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the
main US Agency responsible for "enforcing federal laws that make it
illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because
of the person\'s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy),
national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information."
[^2]

#### This bias seen in a team environment

Kelly Chao has been hired as the new business consultant at a medium
sized accounting firm, Smith and Partners. Kelly's parents are from
China, but she was born in California. She has a degree in Marketing
from the University of Washington with an emphasis in entrepreneurship.
Kelly's main role at Smith and Partners is to help the company find new
opportunities for expansion into new markets. Kelly's experience and
background has been very much focused on customer relations and sales.
She has strong analytical skills and interpersonal skills, but a very
limited knowledge of math and statistics. Her new boss, Steven Thorpe,
has been very excited to have Kelly in the team and immediately assigned
her very challenging tasks, all of which required high level
mathematical knowledge and statistics background. Because of Kelly's
Chinese background, Steven automatically assumed that she was an innate
mathematician, and assigned her tasks that were completely outside of
her skill set.

#### Effects in the workplace

Stereotyping can not only destroy confidence in teams, but can also be
very dangerous. As explained above, certain groups of people are
protected by law. Any actions based on stereotypes, if judged as unfair,
can go from unethical to illegal very quickly. Many human resources
offices constantly train their employees to help avoid such pitfalls.
This bias can, if seen in teams, can hinder the synergy in teams and
create animosity, disdain and lack of trust. As seen in "When Teams Work
Best", many employees feel slighted or that they are treated unfairly by
their leaders. Sometimes this perception is seen because of biases such
as stereotypes.

#### How to remedy this bias

As we mentioned previously in this chapter, although stereotyping can
sometimes be positive in rare team situations, we recommend avoiding
this type of bias as often as possible. Because of the nature of this
bias and the potential legal consequences associated with it, we
recommend taking certain steps to repair this problem. Data collection
should always be a priority in cases of stereotyping. In this step of
the process, one must gather information from different sources to
better understand the group that he/she is stereotyping. The more
information that is available, the better one comes to understand the
actual traits of individuals in the team being stereotyped. When
information is gathered, the team leader should compare the team
member's traits with actual stereotype traits. This process allows one
to eliminate misconceptions and misunderstandings about the team member.
Another important step is to change the group environment. Group
exercises are very helpful to bring down stereotype barriers that may be
damaging the team. These group exercises must be carefully planned to
avoid individuals to feel prejudiced against.

## Recency Bias

Managers carry the challenging responsibility of evaluating employees'
performance on an ongoing basis. They are expected to do so objectively
-- without bias -- and with the best interest of their organization in
mind. Embedded within this responsibility is the ability to maintain
employee morale and to ensure that employees remain dedicated to the
organization's mission. In doing so, managers strive to throw aside
their biases and may full-heartedly believe that they are ethically
efficient when, in fact, this may not be the case^4^.

A common problem that people encounter when processing information is
that they tend to recall recent events more clearly than those which
took place earlier and, therefore, weigh that information more
heavily^3^. This recency effect is a natural psychological condition
that has the ability to skew reality. As a result, an employee receiving
an annual performance evaluation may face unmerited positive or negative
consequences, such as a promotion or termination of employment. The
following example is one in which a dedicated employee was passed up for
promotion due to the fact that she was taking a lot of time off of work
during the end of the annual performance period:

*Rachel was a dedicated employee at her institution for the past four
years. She consistently met or exceeded target performance milestones
and was up for a promotion within the next year. Unfortunately, her
father had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and, as the only
daughter, she began taking more time off of work to help with her
father's medical care. In doing so, Rachel worked from home and on the
weekends as much as possible to make sure that her work projects
received attention. Rachel's father passed away within a matter of
months and, through her own grief, she managed the funeral arrangements
and briskly returned back to full-time work. Her manager, Scott, who had
originally recommended Rachel for the promotion, called her in for an
annual review. Rachel was astonished to find that, due to the fact that
Rachel had taken more time off than usual and temporarily had to move
some job responsibilities to other employees, she was not going to be
promoted and was also not going to receive an annual increase. Instead,
she was put on a six-month probationary review to determine her future
with the company.*

In the situation described above, although Rachel continued to meet her
performance goals, what stood out in Scott's mind was the fact that she
was taking work off and calling in more frequently over a short period
of time. He was a victim of his unconscious recency bias and failed to
consider the fact that her overall performance merited both an increase
and a promotion.

When a manager's responsibility to provide accurate feedback to
employees is poorly executed, they run the risk of losing talented
employees, reducing employee morale, and providing a negative perception
of the organization in the eyes of their employees. In order to combat
this issue, human resource representatives recommend the following:

1\. "Provide evaluations more frequently throughout the year. It is best
to do so at least quarterly to alleviate the effects of recency bias."

2\. Keep a log which lists the attributes of each employee. Each time
that you evaluate noticeable positive or negative performance actions,
update the file with notes to be used at the year-end evaluation.

3\. Gather information from various sources (internal and external
customers) who have worked with the individual throughout the year.

These suggestions are not aimed at correcting the existence of recency
bias. However, they can be helpful in combating its effects on a
manger's decision-making process.

## Curse of Knowledge

Do you assume that others are incompetent simply on the basis that you
perceive a task to be simple when others find it to be difficult? Do you
find yourself completing tasks on your own rather than delegating due to
the fact that you assume others are less capable? If you answered yes to
either of these questions, you may be suffering from the curse of
knowledge.

Managers are expected to be the expert in the workplace and, in most
circumstances, are more educated than their subordinates. It is the
manager's responsibility to ensure that his/her employees are capable of
performing assigned tasks based on their skill/education level. For
instance, if you hired someone for a job that requires an Associates
degree with two years of experience, it is unrealistic to expect them to
complete the same level of work as an employee with a Masters degree and
ten years of experience. This type of situation gives managers the
potential to influence growth in their employees while providing them
with the tools necessary to develop professionally. Lesser education
does not translate to incompetence. Rather, it is the lack of experience
that creates opportunity. The following example is one in which a
talented employee left the organization after only a few months due to
the fact that she received too little training and guidance from her
manager:

*After a rigorous 8-month search, Janice finally hired Alice as a
financial accountant for 7 of the 24 divisions within the organization.
Alice was a recent accounting undergraduate who had graduated at the top
of her class. She did not have much work experience and was elated when
she was hired into a prestigious position so soon after graduation. On
her first day, Alice received brief instructions regarding her many job
duties. She received a warm welcome from her other team members and
anticipated that the training would be ongoing. However, when she began
asking for more guidance from Janice, she was met with a frustrated
response: \"You have an accounting degree - you should be able to figure
it out on your own.\" Alice spent the next few weeks working 10- to
12-hour days educating herself on the organizational processes and
trying to build rapport with her division managers. Unfortunately, she
couldn\'t keep up with her assignments and the division managers shared
their frustration with Janice. Janice decided to demote Alice\'s
responsibilities with the disappointment that Alice wasn\'t as
intelligent as she appeared to be. Alice submitted her resignation
notice the following morning.*

In the example above, Janice was a manager with a Masters in Accountancy
and 15 years of high level accounting experience. She felt that the job
tasks for which she hired Alice were \"simple\" in terms of difficulty,
thus, they should be simple for anyone to grasp. Janice had spent the
past 8 months performing these tasks along with her own and did not want
to waste any more of her time. Unfortunately, Alice\'s resignation
forced her to start over once again with the hiring process.

It takes a great deal of resources to recruit and train a new employee
into an organization. Losing skilled employees with great potential can
be detrimental to the organization. As a manager, Janice is responsible
for ensuring that her employees have the tools necessary to carry out
their job duties effectively. These tools are not just tangible items
such as a computer and a desk. Rather, the most important tools can be
those which are intangible, such as knowledge. An education provides the
backbone for the skills we need in the workplace. However, on-the-job
training is essential for understanding the organization\'s structure
and building skills to fit within that structure. This is not to say
that managers should continuously spend the bulk of their time training
employees. Nonetheless, they should not neglect the idea simply because
they suffer from a knowledge bias. In order to combat the negative
effect of the curse of knowledge, we offer the following suggestions:

1\. Meet regularly with employees to assess their needs and discuss
professional development goals.

2\. Research developmental opportunities and allow for time to attend
trainings.

3\. Create a sign-up sheet and encourage employees to share their
expertise with their teammates during monthly meetings. Concurrently,
ask employees to list areas in which you could provide training to them
as a group.

4\. Ask your employees to complete an assessment of your strengths and
weaknesses as a manager. Some employees are more likely to be truthful
if this is done in an anonymous fashion. They may otherwise never feel
comfortable addressing issues for fear of reprimand or termination.

These suggestions are aimed at encouraging interaction among managers
and their teams. If managers fail to execute their responsibility to
their teams, they can reduce team morale, restrict opportunities for
growth, and impact team (and manager) productivity.

## Anchoring and adjustment

Anchoring and adjustment heuristic is such a powerful phenomenon which
unknowingly affects people in organizations. This could happen to people
of all walks of life. It can happen to anyone unknowingly even for one
who thinks he/she is a rational thinker. The anchoring and adjustment
heuristic was first theorized by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. In
one of their first studies, the two showed that when asked to guess the
percentage of African nations which are members of the United Nations,
people who were first asked \"Was it more or less than 45%?\" guessed
lower values than those who had been asked if it was more or less than
65%.(1). It has shown in researches that a question asked initially can
have an effect to the answer of a related or unrelated second question.

Anchoring and adjustments is a process where the mind takes short cut to
arrive to a conclusion based on the recent experience of thought
process. The mind anchors to some initial information and unknowingly
uses that information to influence the decision of the next issue. Carl
is a project manager in the IT department, who is responsible for
several software development projects. For every project he works, he is
expected to give time estimates for the entire duration of the project
to the upper management. Many times, he does not have sufficient
information at that point of time to estimate the duration. There are no
technical resources assigned, architecture not defined and he is not
sure about the availability of systems due to conflicting projects. Yet,
when he learns about the expected completion date of the stake holders
of the project, he not only decides on the duration of the project, but
also is able to provide the work breakdown of the entire project. While
the expectation of the stake holders has nothing to do with the man
hours it will take to complete a job, the anchoring effect fixes his
decision to the expected date and adjusts the estimated date from there.
The human mind works more easily with relative thinking than with
absolute thinking.

Many people get tripped up by trying to adopt a short cut rather than
thoroughly analyzing a situation. People tend to rely on false intuition
or gut feeling based on a previous experience which could open up
opportunity for this bias to show up. The primacy effect is related to
Anchoring. Primacy effect is the tendency to bases judgments on
subsequent things bases upon the very first thing. The first situation
gets sometimes gets anchored to the judgments on the subsequent things.
During an interview process, the HR manager who interviews a candidate
grades him one way if that candidate is the only person being
interviewed. The grading gets different if the candidate is not the only
one on the interview date and is being interviewed after a few people
who have been interviewed already. This could happen when the HR manager
anchors to the performance of the first candidate and evaluates the
subsequent candidates by comparing them with the first one. Anchoring
and adjustment heuristic is not always a bad thing and need not be
perceived as a defect. It is a technique humans used to make decisions
in uncertain situations. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are used
to simplify otherwise difficult problems or tasks (Epley, 2004). It can
be a good tool to estimate certain requirements or come to conclusions
based on the only given initial information.

## False consensus

It is a phenomenon which occurs due to the overconfidence on one's
beliefs and thoughts. People make decisions and judgments under the
assumption that the ideas they have are obviously the popular ones among
the majority. There are instances where this effect leads to poor
communication and poor judgments in office environment. There is a
tendency that people present build ideas under some underlying
assumption that believe that their assumptions will be acceptable to
anyone and is not required for any discussion for approval. One could
end up making wrong decisions by falling into the trap of this bias.
Researchers say that the reason for the effect is a possible cause of
another effect called Availability Heuristic. Since people have tendency
to have a circle of friends having a similar thinking process as
themselves, they tend to believe that the rest of the world must be also
like this.

There are instances in companies where projects have failed due to the
fact that the underlying assumptions were wrong and were never brought
up for discussion or approval by an individual with this bias. Errol is
a software developer who writes programs in C language for his health
care company. There is a regulation in the company that during the
initial phase of software application development, the developers are
required to write up a document on possible exposure of personal health
information date without the patients consent. In spite of the clear
direction, Errol decided that some of the data coming from the secure
servers are still not private data. He ignored subsequent reminders and
assumed that what the decision he made with his analysis is correct and
there is no reason others need to dispute his decision. This action of
not bringing up the security violation in a timely manner caused the
project to be suspended from implementation. This had a serious impact
on Errol's focal review for that year.

## False uniqueness

False Uniqueness is the exact opposite effect of False Consensus. While
False Consensus bias make one to falsely think that their idea is the
most rational one and must be accepted by most of them, False Uniqueness
bias makes one to believe themselves that they think and make better
decisions when compared to other. This is a common effect on humans who
tend to be overconfident when making decisions.

Barbara is a business analyst in a health care company. She works in the
IT department and is part of a group which decides the requirements of
new products for customers. During the initial design discussions of the
product where each analyst puts talks about possible features to add to
the product which will be useful for the customer, Barbara proposed some
very different features which she believed that were very creative and
the most useful things for the customer. When the majority of the other
members did not show interest, Barbara believed that her proposal was
still the best which will benefit the customer and others doesn't have
seem to see the customers perspective and are rejecting valuable
features. She thought by including her ideas in the design and sending
it to the developers, he thought that when the product comes out
including her feature, it will be appreciated by customers and other
will see he value at that point. In contrary to her belief, the product
got a negative feedback because the customers did not like just like the
rest of the analysts thought about it during the initial design
meetings. This false uniqueness bias may cause one to ignore deeper
analysis and the over confidence on their judgments can possibly cause
to take wrong decisions.

## Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy is positive or negative expectation about
circumstances, people, or events that may affect a person\'s behavior
toward them in a manner that they unknowingly create situations in which
those expectations are fulfilled. An example is an employer that expects
his employees to be disloyal and lazy. He will be likely to treat them
in a way that will extract from the employees the very response he
expects. Self-fulfilling prophecy can be someone worrying about a very
important day and when that day comes their actions ruin the day because
they are expecting the day to be bad. A good example of this is prom.
Some girls think that their prom day is going to be a horrible event and
they are not going to have fun at and everything is going to be bad.
When prom day comes they are in such a bad mood that they are going to
have a bad prom that they end up ruining their own prom.

A self-fulfilling prophecy can also be a positive bias when it is used
in the right scenarios. Professional athletes can often become a self
fulfilling prophesy. They are told by their coaches when they are young
to dream big, to imagine in their minds the day they start in the
professional league. To imagine themselves walking out on to the field
and hear the crowds cheering, to picture themselves making big plays and
winning a championship. This allows them to place in their mind a goal
and a dream, once that is in place the athlete begins to work toward
that goal and make decisions in their life, consciously and
subconsciously, that will bring them to that goal of being a
professional athlete.

Self-fulfilling prophecy can lead a person to great success but I can
also hinder a person's progression. In order to avoid this there should
be precautions taken to help realize that a negative self-fulfilling
prophecy is present and something should be done to change it. They can
usually be identified by peers through meaningful communication. It is
best to talk with people that you work with often or that know you
really well that have your best interests in mind. Although
self-fulfilling prophecies can be a positive bias to have and can take
you to levels that you would not reach without them, it is important to
be aware of negative self-fulfilling prophecies and try to avoid them.

## Self Serving Bias

A self-serving bias is a bias in which people tend to enhance their
self-confidence through a variety of processes to make them feel better
about their situation. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for
people to evaluate indefinite information in a way that is beneficial to
their personal interests. Self-serving bias can also be associated with
the better-than-average effect, where the individual believes that he or
she typically performs better than the average person in areas important
to their self esteem. Self Serving bias can happen in plenty of
situations. It can be found when people rate their own driving skill,
leadership ability and kissing ability. People tend to think that their
personal ability is better than average person.

Self-serving bias can often be used to describe a history of causal
assumptions, in which praise or fault is given depending on whether
success or failure was achieved. For example, a student who gets a great
grade on a test might think, \"I got an A because I am smart and I
studied hard!\" whereas a student who did bad on an exam might say,
\"The teacher gave me a D because she does not like me!\" When someone
deliberately tries to blame external causes for their poor performance
so that they will subsequently have a means to avoid blaming themselves
for failure), it may be labeled self-handicapping. Self serving biases
can be good but the can also be harmful to a person. Sometime a self
serving bias can help you out perform what you would normally do on a
regular day. If you tell yourself that you are very good-looking today
you are more apt to be outgoing and are not a shy to talk to people. A
major pitfall of a self serving bias is that you can tend to place blame
on other people and not take personal responsibility for your own
actions. An employee that doesn't work hard at his job might think that
he will never be promoted because his boss doesn't like him, where in
actuality his boss doesn't have anything against him just wishes he
would work harder and earn the promotion.

Avoiding self-serving biases can be difficult and hard to recognize and
over come. Some self- serving biases can be good but other can be
detrimental to growth. The first step to reduce self-serving biases is
to become aware. You need to look for areas where self-serving biases
can exists and what they could potentially be. Another way of finding
out if you have a self-serving bias is to question people around you and
hold a discussion about potential self-serving biases that you may have.
Talk to people that you trust and that will give you their honest
feedback. Self Serving biases are a good way of people to achieve the
unachievable but more often than not they can lead people live in a
false reality. Self-serving biases should be watched for and limited.

## References

```{=html}
<references/>
```
3\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_effect>, March 7, 2010.

4\. <http://users.edinboro.edu/warburton/COMM710/How(un)Ethical.pdf>, ,
February 14, 2010.

5\. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.

6\. Nicholas Epley1 and Thomas Gilovich2 - 1University of Chicago and
2Cornell University

[^1]: How management teams can have a good fight. Kathleen M.
    Eisenhardt, Jean L, Kahwajy, and LJ. Bourgeois III

[^2]: USEEOC <http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm>