Group process gains and losses

Nunamaker et. al. [1991] distinguish five factors that lead to group process gains and fifteen sources of group process losses.

Group process gains

• More information. A group as a whole has more information than any one member.
• Synergy. A group member uses information in a way that the original holder did not because that member has different information or skills.
• More objective evaluation. Groups are better at catching errors than are the individuals who proposed ideas.
• Simulation. Working as part of a group may stimulate and encourage individuals to perform better.
• Learning. Group members may learn from and imitate more skilled members to improve performance.

Group process losses

• Air time fragmentation. The group must partition available speaking time among members.
• Attenuation blocking. Occurs when group members who are prevented from contributing comments as they are occur, forget or suppress them later in the meeting, because they seem less original, relevant, or important.
• Concentration blocking. Fewer comments are made because group members concentrate on remembering comments (rather than thinking of new ones) until they can contribute them.
• Attention blocking. New comments are not generated because group members must constantly listen to others speak and cannot pause to think.
• Failure to remember. Group members lack focus on communication, missing or forgetting the contributions of others.
• Conformance pressure. Group members are reluctant to criticise the comments of others due to politeness or fear of reprisals.
• Evaluation Apprehension. Fear of negative evaluation causes group members to withhold ideas and comments.
• Free riding. A group member notices that his colleagues contribute more than satisfactory and therefore decides not to participate.

Often associated with the free rider problem, is the assurance dilemma. A group member may have problems regarding the contributions of the others: do they take on their fair share? When this is not guaranteed, he may decide not to participate any further. Particularly in large groups, these effects may occur yet remain unnoticed.

• Cognitive inertia. Discussion moves along one train of thought without deviating because group members refrain from contributing comments that are not directly related to the current discussion.
• Socialising. Nontask discussion reduces task performance, although some socialising is usually necessary for effective functioning.
• Domination. Some group member(s) exercise undue influence or monopolise the group's time in an unproductive manner.
• Information overload. Information is presented faster than it can be processed.
• Coordination problems. Difficulty integrating group members' contributions because the group does not have an appropriate strategy, which can lead to disfunctional cycling or incomplete discussions resulting in premature decisions.
• Incomplete use of information. Incomplete access to and use of information necessary for successful task completion.
• Incomplete task analysis. Incomplete analysis and understanding of the task resulting in superficial discussions.

The mentioned forms of blocking, attenuation blocking, concentration blocking, and attention blocking, are subelements of production blocking.

Group decisions

Besides factors that occur on an individual level, Meijer [1994] identifies three processes which influence all group members at the same time.

Groupthink

Deficiencies in group decision making appear as a consequence of a process called groupthink, a distorted manner of thinking that makes it hard for group members to make rational decisions. Groupthink is likely to occur in unanimous, cohesive groups. Other antecedent conditions for groupthink include structural faults of the organisation (e.g., the group is insulated or all members share the same social background and ideology), as well as a provocative situational context.

Symptoms of groupthink include:

• Overestimation of the group, including an illusion of invulnerability as well as a firm belief in the inherent morality of the group.
• Narrow mindedness, which manifests itself in collective rationalisations and stereotypes of out-groups.
• Pressures toward uniformity. This finds expression in self-censorship, an illusion of unanimity, and direct pressure on dissenters.

Group polarisation

Apparently, groups make more extreme decisions than individuals. They express either very risky or extremely risk-averse behaviour. This phenomenon is called group polarisation. The group polarisation effect is illustrated in the following figure.

When the pregroup attitude of the individuals that are to form a group inclines toward risk-seeking, the postgroup reaction will express more extreme risk-seeking as a consequence of the risky shift. On the other hand, when the group members' pregroup attitude reflects risk-aversion, the postgroup reaction will be extremely risk- aversive due to the cautious shift.

De-individuation

The third process is de-individuation, which is defined by Lea and Spears [1991] as:

the process whereby submergence in a group produces anonymity and a loss of identity, and a consequent weakening of social norms and constraints.

However, de-individuation is undesirable in a working situation. Therefore groups engaged in cooperative work should be kept small in order to identify the actions undertaken by individual members. Moreover, all group members should be treated as unique individuals and be aware of their own responsibilities.