FREE ESSAY ON HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT : HOW GROUPS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY FROM INDIVIDUALS

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT : HOW GROUPS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY FROM INDIVIDUALS

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR AND ANALYSIS
COURSE ASSIGNMENT
QUESTION 2
IN WHAT WAYS DO GROUPS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY FROM INDIVIDUALS?
This essay will attempt to answer the above question by not only studying the conduct of
individuals and groups in a work context, but also by looking at the causes of behaviour.
Organisational behaviour theories, experiments and case studies will be used to
investigate the behaviour of first the individual and then the group in a work
environment. The term group for the purposes of this assignment as been defined as a
formal group which has been established by an organisation at a point in time in with the
purpose of achieving a specified goal. Although it is noted that many friendship and
informal groupings do develop.
When both the behaviour of the individual and the group have been assessed, a discussion
will be made as to how these behavioural patterns differ, why they differ and to what
extent they differ.
Individual Behaviour
There are many theories of human behaviour used for the purposes of management and these
are constantly being updated. Traditional management thinking focuses on the idea that in
order to understand how a person will act in a given set of circumstances, individuals
motives have to be assessed. A more modern approach looks at the individuals: abilities,
personality, personality traits, ethics and culture.
Traditional View
In earlier models it was first assumed that people were basically the same, that they had
the same wants and needs. Leavitt [1] suggested that there are certain generalisations,
which are useful in predicting human behaviour. In order to illustrate these
generalisations he asked this question, What are the fundamental, unexceptionally truths
of human behaviour? Some of the answers he found included: People are products of their
environment. People want security. All people want is bread and butter. People are
fundamentally lazy. People are fundamentally selfish. People want the chance to show what
they can do. Although many of the answers that were received were contradictory, Leavitt
believed that at another level the contradiction disappears and that there are three
basic assumptions that can be made about human behaviour. Firstly that human behaviour is
caused by outside influences this is termed as causality. Secondly is the idea of
directness, which assumes that a person's behaviour when caused is directed towards
something, i.e., it is goal orientated. Thirdly is the belief that underlying behaviour
there is always a motivation, a need or a want. By using these assumptions a model can be
developed for understanding an individual's conduct. It was thought that if motive
influences a behaviour, which allows an individual to arrive at a goal, when the goal is
reached the motive no longer exists and so a new motive is created. This has been
illustrated in the diagram below.
Basic Model of Behaviour
Stimulus Need Goal
Want 
Tension
Discomfort behaviour
Individual
Source Leavitt [1]
This idea is related to Maslow's hierarchy theory [2] were there are two basic premises.
Firstly that people have needs such as: security, social interaction and self esteem,
secondly that these needs are arranged in a hierarchical form. A person will attempt to
attain each need in order from the bottom (the most immediate) need to the top need.
Maslow's ideas were generally accepted in business, however they were solely based on
observations and never actually proved by empirical, statistical or experimental data.
Mangers thought the model to be true because it sounded logical. The Hierarchy Theory has
since been updated and improved most notably by Murry H A who suggested that needs are
not necessarily arranged in a hierarchical form, his model is more flexible in describing
people.
Contemporary View
Another way of studying behaviour is through individual differences, Steers [3] believes
that these differences are the main components that will affect the way a person behaves.
If we consider this from work perspective the main elements of behaviour are an
individual's distinct: abilities, personality, values and ethics and culture.
A worker's ability, refers to their capacity and desire to respond to any given situation
or problem. Capacity to respond include elements such as mental and physical skill,
perception capability and stress tolerance, while desire to respond refers to motivation.
It could be argued that the characteristic of ability refers more to performance than to
behaviour, this maybe true however performance effects behaviour.
A good definition of personality for the purposes of organisational behaviour is made by
Salvatore Maddi [4] who states that it is - a stable set of characteristics and
tendencies that determine those commonalties and differences in psychological behaviour
(thoughts, feelings and actions) of people that have continuity in time and that may not
be easily understood as the sole result of social and biological pressures of the moment.

How personality effects behaviour
Influences on Personality
Personality Differences
Development e.g.
Work-
- Physiology - Self esteem Related
- Culture - Locus of control 
- Family/Group - Introversion/ Behaviour
- Role Extroversion 
- Situation - Authoritarianism 
- Dogmatism 
- Dependability
Source Steers [3]
From the above chart it can be seen that there are a number of different elements, which
can effect an individual personality, these are called determinants and effect
personality differences. There are many personality differences, recent research has
found over 17,000; the most important ones in the context of work are shown above, these
are often referred to as traits. These traits when taken together can provide an insight
into how an individual will behave. Traits are identified as measurable and tend to
remain relatively stable over time. It is easy to make comparisons of individuals using
these tangible qualities. 
Self-esteem is defined, as one's own opinion or belief about yourself and your
self-worth. It is therefore a key variable in determining work behaviour. According to
Ellis and Taylor [5] people with high self esteem often find it easier to give and
receive affection, set higher goals for personal achievement and exert energy to try and
attain them. 
Locus of control refers to the tendency among individuals to attribute the events
affecting their lives to their own actions or external forces. People with an external
locus are said to attribute successes and failures to outside influences and internal
locus individuals attribute them to themselves. People with more of an internal locus are
said to have: greater work motivation, stronger expectations that effort will lead to
actual high job performance and perform better on tasks requiring problem solving or
learning. 
The personality trait, which defines introversion and extroversion, refers to the extent
to which a person maybe shy or socially out going. It is generally accepted that
extroverts perform better in first-line management jobs using superficial people skills
e.g. sales representatives. Introverts perform better in positions that require more
reflection, analysis and sensitivity, e.g. accounting, personnel or computing. 
Authoritarianism refers to an individual's orientation towards authority. A high
authoritarian believes that it is right and proper for there to be clear status and power
differences among people in the work place. Adorno T W [6] states that a high
authoritarian would typically: be directive to subordinates and submissive to
supervisors, intellectually rigid, fearful of change, highly judgmental and distrustful.

Dogmatism refers the extent to which a person maybe close minded and inflexible This
trait is highlighted in the decision making process. Taylor [7] found that dogmatic
mangers tend to make decisions quickly based on only limited information and with a high
degree of confidence in the correctness of their decisions. 
The last trait, dependability refers to the fact that people can be assessed with respect
to their behavioural consistency. An individual who is dependable is generally seen as
self-reliant, responsible and consistent.
Personal values and ethics are an important influence on behaviour they serve as:
standards of behaviour for determining the correct course of action, guidelines for
decision making and conflict resolution and influences on employee motivation. It is
interesting to note that many firms have now started to conduct integrity and honesty
tests. This is based on the idea that honest or dishonest behaviour is a direct result of
a person's underlying values. 
Culture refers to the norms and values, which have been installed into an individual by
the society in which they live. It generally affects how a person sees the world and can
virtually influence every aspect of behaviour. An example of this would be cultures such
as those of Japan and Korea; both of these nations value the importance of hard work. The
chart below highlights these differences.
Differences in work habits
Source [8] Steers 
In conclusion there are many different aspects which can effect how a person behaves, the
contemporary view looks at all of these main elements, and it also incorporates some of
the ideas put forward in the more traditional view. The ideas on motivations, wants and
needs can be examined by looking at an individual's ability, personality, values and
ethics and culture because these are the elements which influence them. Therefore from
this point on the contemporary view of individual behaviour shall be used to compare it
with group behaviour.
Group Behaviour
Since a group is made up of a number of individuals it seems logical that the behaviour
of a group would reflect the sum of its members. If this were true a group's actions
could be determined by using the same techniques described previously. Instead of
evaluating the importance culture has on an individuals work habits, we would assess the
importance it has on the group as a whole. (This would be easier if all the members of
the group came from the same background, with they did not we could simply sum the
estimated work ethic of each group member and then divide by the number of members.) To a
certain degree this may work, it seems reasonable that a group would be effected by it's
accumulated abilities, personality, values and ethics and culture. However there are
other processes which take place when people interact with one another. These processes
can effect the performance and behaviour of a group in a positive or negative way. In an
organisational behaviour context 2 + 2 does not always necessarily equal 4. 
There are two main reasons why a formal group maybe created. One is that it would be
physically impossible to complete a task without using different individual's skills or
effort. The second reason is that while an individual maybe able to perform a job alone,
by working in a group the results maybe improved. An example of this can be taken from
the Organisational Behaviour and Analysis class tutorial sessions. In this case each
student is given a case study to read and make an evaluation on before the tutorial takes
place. During the tutorial students discuss their findings and a group answer is decided
upon. In most cases the group answer is better than any one of the separate individual
students answer. The reason for this is quite simply that when groups talk things over,
the logical strengths and weaknesses of certain opinions become clearer to all concerned.
Another reason is that more information and knowledge is available from a group then from
an individual. When this process of a group being able to outperform it's best members
has taken place, it is referred to as synergy. This term is often illustrated by 2 + 2 =
5.
However synergy does not always take place. In 1981 Meredith Beblin conducted a study to
determine the characteristics of effective groups. During management courses mangers had
to make an analysis of case studies. Beblin used tests to find the most intelligent
people and then arranged for them to be in the same group. Instead of out performing the
other groups the most intelligent group performed terribly. Beblin found that the mix of
individual personalities was to blame. He believed that in order for a group to perform
well individuals must have certain team roles. 
Another negative aspect of group behaviour is that certain group pressures can effect the
logical thinking of group members. When this happens groupthink is said to have occurred.
The term groupthink was first coined by Irving Janis [9] who refers to it as a mode of
thinking in which the pursuit of agreement or consensus among members becomes so dominant
that it overrides any realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Janis
discovered groupthink whilst studying the high level policy decisions made by the US
Government, most notably the Bay of Pigs Fiasco which occurred during the Kennedy
administration. Here he found the development of group norms.
Different psychologists have developed the idea of group norms over several years. They
can be defined as a standard set of rules that are shared by the individuals in a group;
these rules will effect the individual's behaviour. They may or may not be rules that
have been formal drawn up and written down. An example of normal rules of behaviour or
norms can be seen during a typical student group assignment. The students in the group
would expect group members to behave in a certain way for example: arrive to meetings on
time, provide an acceptable level of effort, and complete work on time. Group norms
therefore have the ability to change a person's behaviour. For example an individual may,
due to their personality traits and/or culture, put little emphasis on arriving to
student group assignment meetings on time. However if this student were to arrive late to
group meetings the other members of the group would exert pressure on them to stop. Group
norms exist to: facilitate group survival and performance, simplify expected behaviour,
help avoid embarrassing situations and express the group's identity and values.
People often comply with group norms when they may not necessarily be in the in their own
best interests. Situations can arise when an individual is swept along by the group in
ways that they would prefer not to. The classic study of this phenomenon was made Solomon
Asch. Asch proved that under the correct circumstances individuals would accept the
thinking of the group even when they knew it was wrong. In the experiment Asch asked an
individual which of the lines (drawn below) was the longest.
Asch Experiment
A B C D E
Source [10]
Amazingly 32% of people asked said that line A was the longest after group pressure was
exerted on them. Asch believed that an individual could either conform or comply with the
group. When an individual conformed in this incidence they actually believed that line A
was the longest, when an individual complied they suppressed their feelings of what they
thought was right. When an individual fails to conform or comply with the group, other
members will try to bring the deviant back into the acceptable group boundaries. 
An example of this from Janis's study of Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, is when Arthur
Schlesinger, an advisor to President Kennedy, expressed opposition to the plan at a
meeting, even though no one else expressed similar doubts. After listening to his
opposition for a while, Robert Kennedy took Schlesinger aside and told him, You may or
may not be right, but the President has made up his mind. Don't push it any further. Now
is the time for everyone to help as much as they can. This pressure that is applied to
anyone who deviates from the group norm can be applied explicitly, as shown in the case
above or implicitly. Implicit methods may include exclusion and ridicule. Hence this is
what causes groupthink. It should be noted that an individual doe not always necessarily
give into the group, compliance and conformity occurs to lesser degrees when an
individual's own personality has traits of high self esteem and low authoritarianism.
In a business context groupthink can have a seriously negative effect. It can cause the
group to: limit the search for alternative solutions, fail to consider all the evidence
available, fail to seek out new information, ignore expert advice, ignore ethical
principals, fail to make contingency plans and ignore the risks of a plan or project. An
interesting component of groupthink is the concept of polarisation. This was investigated
by a postgraduate student in Boston (Stoner, 1961) and refers to the idea that when
decisions are compared or discussed they become polarised. So risky decision would become
riskier and a cautious decision would become even more cautious.
In summary the main processes that would effect how a group will behave include team
roles, group norms, groupthink and polarisation.
The Differences
During this assignment I hope that it has been established that there are a number of
aspects which effect an individuals behaviour, and that when a group is formed certain
group processes can override an individuals personal behaviour patterns, thus creating an
entirely new group behaviour pattern.
To highlight how an individual may behave differently from a group we can consider the
case of Citibank [3]. Davis Edwards was a senior manager at Citibank. For over two years,
Edwards had gone to his bosses to tell them of tax evasion and currency-trading
violations within his department. He had discovered that his bank was making bogus
transfers of foreign deposits to shift bank profits to countries with low tax rates.
Edwards also uncovered kickback schemes associated with the illegal monetary transfers.
Since the regulations were ambiguous in this area the bank officers involved in the
scheme failed to see either the ethical, legal or public relations consequences of the
practise. Groupthink was in practise and it was believed that the bank was right and that
Edwards was wrong. Edwards noted that it was, ...bad for business, We risk being thrown
out of these countries. When the bank regulators finally investigated, Citibank received
heavy fines for back taxes in several European countries and the bank's reputation was
damaged and hence it lost business.
Edwards who has not a part of the group involved in the shady practice, saw the problems
it would create. He as an individual behaved differently from the group. Edwards' own
individual traits effected how he behaved in the situation. He had the ability to see
there was a problem and that it could be bad for business, he had the personality traits
which gave him the confidence to raise the issue with his superiors and he also had the
honesty which made him believe that the practise was wrong. 
Does this mean that Edward was morally superior and more intelligent or more aware of the
risks then every other single person in top management who was involved? This is
extremely unlikely. The main reason why he as an individual behaved differently from the
group was because he was not a part of it; hence the group processes did not affect him.
Perhaps if he had been a part of the group when the decisions were being made and
discussed he would have behaved differently. It is interesting to note that after the
investigation the bank changed its behaviour but Edwards was still sacked.
It should be remembered that, although most organisational behaviour literature focus on
group behaviour from a decision making perspective, there are other general behavioural
patterns which are important. If we take for example The Southwestern Company [11], a US
direct sales company. It recruits college and university students to sell educational
books door to door in North America and Europe. The student receives a week of sales
training and then works independently in a specified sales area on a commission basis
during the summer break. By the early 1980's average sales per student had been falling
since the 1960's. The company's sales manger Dan Moore decided that in order to increase
sales levels each students work habits needed to be improved; they needed to work longer
hours and at a greater intensity. In order to increase the number of hours worked and the
number of sales demonstrations made, groups were constructed. These groups were generally
made up of students from the same universities. Rewards were given for groups with the
highest total sales and average sales per student. Therefore within the groups norms
began to form for acceptable levels of work, for example; a minimum of 70 hours of work a
week and 30 sales demonstrations a day. Individuals who met these targets received
recognition and were accepted by the group. Anyone, who did not reach these targets,
while not formally punished, was subjected to sarcasm and ridicule. Also a sense of
loyalty and identity developed which in turn increased motivation. Although other factors
may have also contributed to the dramatic rise in average sales figures, it was generally
believed that the formation of formal groups, was the fundamental reason for the increase
in work habits and hence the rise in sales.
In this example we can see a clear indication that when a group is formed it can behave
very differentially than it's separate individuals. In many cases a student's own
individual traits; ability, personality, values and ethics and culture, the elements
which would normally govern their work behaviour have been cancelled out by the group
process of norms. In the Southwestern example - before the introduction of sales teams,
there was a large variance in output. After group pressures effected behaviour, the
majority of students conformed to the new level of work habits and conduct, and the
variance in sales levels decreased and the average sales levels increased.
Hopefully this essay has now highlighted that groups can behave differently from
individuals, showed the ways in which the behaviour can vary and the reasons for this.
However one aspect that has not yet been mentioned is to what extent the behaviour
differs. This is very subjective and difficult to assess. Can you put an actual figure on
the benefits or disadvantages of working in a group? This is maybe an area for future
research.
Bibliography
Bibliography
Brewer M and Miller N (1996) Intergroup Relations
Fincham and Rhodes (1999) Principals of Organisational Behaviour
Huczynski and Buchanan (1991) Organisational Behaviour
Hunt J (1992) Managing People at Work
Leavitt H (1972) Managerial Psychology
Makin P, Cooper C, Cox C (1989) Managing People at Work
McCaskey M (1992) A Framework for Analysing Work Groups
Steers R (1992) An Introduction to Organisational Behaviour
Wilson and Rosenfeld (1991) Managing Organisations
Source References
[1] Leavitt H (1972) Managerial Psychology
[2] Maslow (1961) Motivation and Personality
[3] Steers R (1992) An Introduction to Organisational Behaviour
[4] Salvatore Maddi - Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis
[5] Ellis and Taylor (Journal of Applied Psychology) - Role of Self Esteem
[6] Adorno T W - The Authoritarian Personality
[7] Taylor (Journal of Applied Psychology) - Influence of Dogmatism
[8] Steers R (1989) Korea's New Industrial Might
[9] Janis Irving (1972) Victims of Groupthink
[10] Wilson and Rosenfeld (1991) Managing Organisations
[11] Dan Moore (1997) Sales Conference / Notes and Personal Experience