Performance
- 2. OVERVIEW DO PEOPLE WORK BETTER ALONE OR WITH OTHERS? DO PEOPLE WORK AS HARD WHEN GROUPS AS THEY DO WHEN WORKING BY THEMSELVES WHY ARE GROUPS MORE SUCCESFULL WHEN WORKING ON SOME TASKS AND NOT ON OTHERS? WHAT STEPS CAN BE TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY IN GROUPS?
- 3. What is performance? Definition of performance 1 a: the execution of an action b: something accomplished 2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request 3 a: the action of representing a character in a play b: a public presentation or exhibitiona benefit performance 4 a: the ability to perform b: the manner in which a mechanism performs engine performance 5 : the manner of reacting to stimuli : BEHAVIOR
- 4. Social Facilitation The enhancement of an individual performance when working with other people rather than working alone. Improvement in task performance that occurs when people work in the presence of other people.
- 5. NORMAN TRIPPLET (1898) Riders achieved their best times when they competed or they were paced and they are slowest when racing alone.
- 6. Coaction, Audiences and Inconsistencies COACTION – people working in the presence of other people, but not necessarily interacting with one another. AUDIENCES – triggers social facilitation when other people watches them. INCONSISTENCY – other studies, did not confirm the “presence of people improves performance” (Floyd Allport, 1920).
- 7. ZAJONC’S RESOLUTION BY ROBERT ZAJONC (1965) States that behavior are easier to learn and perform than others. DOMINANT RESPONSES – dominate all potential responses. NONDOMINANT RESPONSES – less likely to performed. Zajonc’s insight was that the presence of others increases tendency to perform dominant responses and decreases the tendency to perform nondominant responses.
- 9. 4 General Explanation of Social Facilitation 1). DRIVE THEORY (ZAJONC 1965) Zajonc coined term word compresence – state of responding in the presence of others. This theory maintains that the presence of others evokes a generalized drive state characterized by increased readiness and arousal.
- 10. JAMES BLASCOVICH and his colleagues (1999) verified that an audience triggers increases in cardiac and vascular activity. CHALLENGE RESPONSE – appeared to be ready to respond to the challenge they faced. THREAT RESPONSE – appeared to be stress rather than ready for an effective action.
- 11. 4 General Explanation of Social Facilitation 2). EVALUATION APPREHENSION THEORY (COTTRELL, 1972) Cottrell suggested that evaluative pressure is one of the reasons why people tend to be more productive in the presence of others. This theory assumes that individuals learned through experience that other people are source of most of the rewards and punishments.
- 12. Self- Presentation Theory Group members actively control others impressions of themselves by displaying social behaviors that establish and maintain particular image or face
- 13. 4 General Explanation of Social Facilitation 3). Distraction- Conflict Theory (BARON, 1986 & SANDERS, 1981) Distractions have been shown to improve performance on certain tasks. This theory suggest that distraction interferes with the attention given to task, but that these distractions can be overcome with effort. STROOP TASK
- 14. 4 General Explanation of Social Facilitation 4). SOCIAL ORIENTATION THEORY (UZIEL, 2007) Suggest that people differ in orientation towards social situations, these differences predicts who will show facilitation in the presence of others and who will show impairment. POSITIVE ORIENTATION – self confident that they react positively to the challenge. NEGATIVE ORIENTATION – approach social situation apprehensively, for they feel inhibited and threated by people.
- 15. FOUR GENERALS EXPLAINATION OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
- 16. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS PREJUDICE AND SOCIAL FACILITATION presence of other people may lead individuals to express even more biased opinions when they are in public rather than private. The presence of others may work to facilitate prejudice rather that keep it in check ELECTRONIC PERFORMANCE MONITORING (EPM) The use of information technologies such as computer network, to track, analyze and report information about worker’s performance.
- 17. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS SOCIAL FACILITATION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS STUDY GROUP – self-organized and self-directive group formed by the students for the purpose of studying course material. “JOIN A STUDY GROUP” – advice often given to college students who are struggling in their classes.
- 18. Reduction in performance effectiveness or efficiency caused by actions, operations, or dynamics that prevent the group from reaching its full potential, including reduced effort, faulty group processes, coordination problems, and ineffective leadership. process loss PROCESS LOSSES IN GROUPS
- 19. The tendency, first documented by Max Ringelmann, for people to become less productive when they work with others; this loss of efficiency increases as group size increases, but at a gradually decreasing rate. Max Ringelmann (1913), a 19th-century French agricultural engineer, was one of the first researchers to study the relationship between process loss and group productivity. Ringelmann effect Double Tap to Edit Title
- 20. decline in productivity was caused by motivation losses: people may not work so hard when they are in groups coordination losses, caused by “the lack of simultaneity of their efforts” Ringelmann identified two key sources of process losses when people worked together. Double Tap to Edit Title
- 21. Ringelmann documented what others had noticed: People sometimes do not work as hard as they could when they are part of a group social loafing The reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared to when they work alone. People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks— including brainstorming, evaluating employees, monitoring equipment, interpreting instructions, and formulating causal judgments—have been shown to exert less effort when they combine their efforts in a group situation Motivation Loss: Social Loafing
- 22. When people feel as though their level of effort cannot be ascertained because the task is a collective one, then social loafing becomes likely. But when people feel that they are being evaluated, they tend to exert more effort, and their productivity increases. Increase Identifiability Causes and Cures for Social Loafing
- 23. If the task is an individualistic one, and is easy, the presence of other people increases evaluation apprehension, so social facilitation occurs. But when group members are anonymous, and their contributions are unidentifiable, the presence of others reduces evaluation apprehension, and social loafing becomes more likely Double Tap to Edit Title
- 24. free riding Contributing less to a collective task when one believes that other group members will compensate for this lack of effort. if they feel that the group does not need them or their contribution, they will be tempted to free- ride. Minimize Free Riding
- 25. When group members think that they are an indispensable part of the group— perhaps because their contribution is unique or essential for the group’s success—they work harder They also free-ride less in smaller groups, because each person plays a larger role in determining the group’s outcomes Double Tap to Edit Title
- 26. sucker effect The tendency for individuals to contribute less to a group endeavor when they expect that others will think negatively of someone who works too hard or contributes too much (considering them to be a “sucker”). Double Tap to Edit Title
- 27. Groups that set clear, challenging goals outperform groups whose members have lost sight of their objectives. members were more productive when they had a clear standard by which to evaluate the quality of their own work and the group’s work The group’s goals should also be challenging rather than too easily attained. Set Goals Double Tap to Edit Title
- 28. Loafing is less likely when people are involved in their work. Those who enjoy working with other people in groups, because they value both the group experience and the results they achieve, are less likely to loaf compared to less group- and achievement-oriented individuals Challenging, difficult tasks reduce loafing, but so do ones that will determine group members’ personal outcomes— either by reward or by punishment Increase Involvement Double Tap to Edit Title
- 29. Social loafing is also reduced when rewards for successful performance are group-based rather than individually based—so long as the group is not too large in size and the reward is divided nearly equally among all the group members Double Tap to Edit Title
- 30. social compensation The tendency for group members to expend greater effort on important collective tasks to offset the anticipated insufficiencies in the efforts and abilities of their co-members. Double Tap to Edit Title
- 31. Social identity theory also suggests a way to reduce loafing: increase the extent to which group members identify with their group Social identity theory suggests that the difference between a hard-working group and a loafing group is the match between the group’s tasks and its members’ self-definitions. Increase Identification with the Group Double Tap to Edit Title
- 32. “This task is important to me,” but they are likely to work even harder when they think, “This task is important to us” then social loafing is replaced by social laboring Double Tap to Edit Title
- 33. A theoretical explanation of group productivity developed by Steven Karau and Kipling Williams that traces losses of productivity in groups to diminished expectations about successful goal attainment and the diminished value of group goals. the Collective Effort Model Double Tap to Edit Title
- 34. comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the causes and cures of social loafing. two factors determine group members’ level of motivation: - their expectations about reaching a goal - the value of that goal. Double Tap to Edit Title
- 35. Motivation is greatest when people think that the goal is within their reach (expectations are high) and they consider the goal to be valuable. Motivation diminishes if expectations are low or individuals do not value the goal. Double Tap to Edit Title
- 37. Task Demand The effect that a problem or task’s features, including it’s divisibility and difficulty, have on the procedures the group can use to complete the task.
- 38. Divisible Task The task has sub-components that can be identified and assigned to specific members.
- 39. Unitary Task The task does not have sub-components
- 40. Maximizing Task (Quantity):The more produced the better the performance Optimizing Task (Quality): High-quality , correct solution
- 42. Additive Task When all group members perform the same job and group performance is a sum of individual performance.
- 43. Compensatory Task Average their individual judgements or solutions together to yield the groups outcome.
- 44. Disjunctive Task The group performance is dependent upon the abilities of the best member.
- 45. Conjunctive Task Group Performance is dependent on the weakest member.
- 46. Intellective Task A project, problem, or other type of task with results that can be evaluated objectively and judged as right or wrong. Judgmental Task A project, problem, or other type of task with results that cannot be evaluated objectively because there are no clear criteria to judge them against.
- 47. Discretionary Task A relatively unstructured task that can be completed by using a variety of social combination procedure, thus leaving the methods used in its completion to the discretion of the group or group leader.
- 48. Process gains in group According to Steiner’s theory argued that group success depends, ultimately on the resources that the group members contribute and the processes that determine how their inputs are combined coordinate. People work in a groups, they sometimes gain new solutions, energy, and insights into old problems that they would never have achieved as individuals.
- 49. Brainstorming A group problem-solving technique that involves the spontaneous contribution of idea from all members of the group
- 50. Four basic rules of brainstorming: Be expressive Postpone evaluation Seek quantity Piggyback ideas
- 52. Alternative Brainstorming Capable of generating fresh ideas and new insights into old preoblems
- 53. Electronic Brainstorming Allows members to communicate via the internet rather than face- to-face.