Introduction
Human beings are social and interact with others in different social arrangements. Many times the associations take place in group settings that require individuals to work jointly to meet set goals. At the work place, groups are commonly formulated to complete tasks meant to grow an organization.
With the advancement in technology experienced globally, the concept of work teams has been taken to an even higher level. It is therefore common to come by virtual teams that are constituted by individuals who may or may not be geographically dispersed. With the help of tools such as wikis and blogs, virtual teams are able to carry out activities with very minimal face to face encounters.
As stated by Griffin and Moorhead (2011), individuals influence groups as much as groups also influence the individuals. Within a group, an individual with a strong character can easily determine the others act while the use of very strict group norms can compel members to conform either willingly or against their will.
According to Mowday (1993) one is able to understand organizational behavior by studying the link between individuals, groups and the organizational culture. These three are interrelated and determine how far an organization can go in offering services to the public.
This paper presents a critical evaluation of research that has been done by different authors on the subject of individual conformity to group pressure.
Groups and Social Norms
According to Bendor and Swistak (2001), a group norm is defined as a rule or behaviour that triggers punishment if violated by an individual who is a part of the group. Norms exist to provide stability to a group so as to ensure that the group is able to accomplish stipulated tasks as planned.
In a study by Brown (2009), organizations have for many years been encouraged to build strong cultures that can help in the achievement of goals.
Organizations that are keen to realize greater performance have a culture of creating and reinforcing strong group norms to ensure that groups are used to benefit the organization. Further claims indicate that the presence of a strong organizational culture will inspire works teams to execute tasks as required and complete them within the stated time period (Brown, 2009).
Durlauf and Blume (2008) observed that the main purpose of social norms is to govern the interactions within groups and to successfully coordinate the varying expectations of the individual team members. The group norms are particularly valuable when a group is made up of people with diverse backgrounds.
Durlauf and Blume (2008) further argued that once a group has created the norms, all its members required to conform and act in accordance with stipulated rules. Even though there is a general belief that group norms greatly enhance the performance of a group, good management is, however, critical for success to be realized.
Durlauf and Blume (2008) described three different approaches to do this. These include coordination, threats of a member being punished by the group if he or she deviates from what has been agreed and specifying an agreed code of conduct.
Although norms may not formally appear anywhere or even be discussed quite often in the context of a working group, they are a very powerful tool in guiding the behaviour of a group and ensuring that goals are met.
McMahan & Kacmar (1991) argued that the concept of group norms is extremely essential for an organizational consultant and although it they have indicated that it may not be easy to identify all the key requirements in forming or strengthening group norms, they agree that strict control measures must be adhered to if a work team is to work effectively. Subsequently, they have identified four reasons why group norms must be enforced.
These include the need to ensure those work teams survive, managing the behaviour of a group, dealing with interaction problems that could cause embarrassment to group members and making sure that the group lives up to its intentions (McMahan & Kacmar, 1991).
According to a study by Bettenhausen and Murnighan (1985), social norms tend to be invisible even though they play an incredible role in helping organizations control the ultimate behaviour of work teams.
Brief and Weiss (2002) argued that effectiveness of a work team is to some extent affected by the personality traits of the individual members team. While some team members may be willing to abide by the group norms, others may be uncooperative.
Nadler & Tushman (1980) also observed that the whole process of creating and managing groups is quite complex and the fact that it is never easy to really understand the individual members in a group makes it even more difficult.
Development of Norms
Bettenhausen and Murnighan (1985) claimed that while organizations do appreciate the fundamental role played by group norms to guarantee the success of groups, they pay little attention to the process involved in developing these norms. Using nineteen different groups, they did experiments to try and establish how group norms develop.
Even though organizations may accomplish tasks using informal and loosely structured teams with no strict guidelines, results often end up being pathetic. Where unstructured work teams are created, they will be made up of people with no prior history of interacting with one another and this can generate problems incase no policies are in place to support the work of the group.
Characteristically, these work teams spend so much time getting to know each other so as to agree on the way forward rather than embarking on the stipulated tasks right away (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). A similar argument is presented by Mowday (1993) who also observed that unless interpersonal relationships are fully dealt with, groups will not be able to function well and it will difficult to get the expected output.
The continued use of such an approach will lead an organization to a consistent state of poor group performance. This being the case, Bettenhausen and Murnighan suggested that it is important for organizations to take time and develop scripts that will govern group operations as they are formed.
Although these scripts may need to be adjusted based on the unique requirements of individual groups, a common script must be made available for team members to reference. Availability of a common script to be used by all the members of a team has the effect of boosting the confidence level of the individuals in the team.
It also makes it possible for members to trust one another and response time is reduced as work teams will be able to act quickly (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Research has also demonstrated that informal norms can be very detrimental to the productivity of an individual and must be avoided at all costs.
By clearly understanding how norms are developed and thereafter transferred to the work team, an organization can address the challenges of poor group performance. The understanding will also empower group members to later be able to deal with group pressure more positively (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985).
According to Feldman (1984), group norms are essential for two main reasons. They determine the productivity of a group and can also be used by the management to shape the behaviour of the group as well as that of individuals. Groups can also influence the culture within an organization and in cases where group members have a past history of interacting with one another better results are feasible (Mowday, 1993).
Boonstra (2004) found out that the behavior of an individual is strongly rooted in groups and as such, groups are a very useful means of changing the behavior of individuals.
To change the way an individual responds to situations, one only needs to focus on altering the behavior of the group to which the individual happens to belong. When effectively used, groups will also help in transferring knowledge to members within a work team (Argote & Ingram, 2000).
Enforcement of Group Norms
Feldman (1984) pointed out that groups aim at operating in a manner that will amplify success while minimizing failure and argued that a group will only create and enforce norms that are regarded as being relevant to the activities of the group.
As stated elsewhere in this paper, one of the motivations for enforcing norms is to eliminate any possibilities of interpersonal embarrassment and hence, groups will therefore be very enthusiastic about ensuring that members are always comfortable. (Feldman, 1984).
Conformity and Resistance
Goldman, Haberlein and Feder (1965), studied the response of individuals to group pressure by classifying them into two main groups. While one group was considered as being made up of conformists or people who follow without showing any resistance, the other one included those seen as resisters. The categorization was based on how individuals reacted to group pressure.
Conformers would very easily go with the flow of the group while resisters would resist any pressure from the group and instead, choose to act differently to the disappointment of the group.
Goldman et al (1985) argued that when one easily conforms to group pressure he or she is very likely to perform in a stressful manner and this would get worse if an individual refused to conform to the demands of the group as there is fear of being admonished by the rest of the group if one does not abide by the rules.
Apparently, there is a high chance of a conformer doubting his or her own intelligence in making sound decisions. In comparison to resisters, conformers will take a much lesser time to perform a given task.
This is true considering that characteristically, resisters will take time to come to an agreement before finally embarking on an activity. Smooth communication in a resister group is also ruined by the existence of competitiveness and hostilities among the group members (Goldman et al., 1965).
Although it might actually appear that conformers would be able to solve a problem much faster than resisters, this may not be necessarily the case as in some situations where individuals happen to have differing answers to the same problem, a resister group could arrive at an answer much faster.
According to Mills, Mills, Bratton and Forshaw (2006), group norms should be democratic enough to encourage individual members of a group to conform. Any attempts to make rules that are unfavorable will only result in resentment and poor group performance.
Attraction to the Group and Conformity to Group Norms
Kiesler (1963) observed that the willingness of any individual to cooperate with a particular group is directly related to the level of attraction the individual has to the group. This makes sense especially because people will want to be associated with what they really like. If it so happens that all the members of a group like to be associated with it, then chances of the group succeeding will be quite high.
The opposite is true as men and women will tend to be less devoted to a group they are not really interested in. This is a good tip for the managers to keep in mind when forming groups. As much as possible, groups should be made up of individuals who have interest in the subject matter. Realistically, however, creating such groups may be a challenge and hence, some compromise may be necessary.
Kiesler also stated that, there are instances where people with a lesser attraction to a group conformed to the group’s norms more than those with a slightly higher level of attraction. Nevertheless, some attraction is desirable for the members of a work team to conform. Where there is negative attraction to a group, conformity to its norms will be in jeopardy and group progression may be hindered (Kiesler, 1963).
Although attraction could be induced, individuals conforming because of some promised benefit will easily resist when their expectations are not met. Attraction can also be nurtured by accepting members in a group.
When individuals feel accepted in a group, it becomes easy for them to conform to the norms of the group (Kiesler, 1963). Although helpful in getting members to conform to the requirements of a work team, rewards and benefits could have some negative effects in some cases and must therefore be used sparingly (Rousseau, 1997).
Conditions that Lead to Conformance or Defiance
Hornsey, Majkut, Terry and McKimmie (2003) described some conditions that could lead to either conformity or resistance to group pressure. Individuals would either be consumed by what the society expects of them or based on an individual’s own judgment it is possible to figure out what other people would probably do in similar situations; whether or not they would share his or her opinion (Hornsey et al., 2003).
When people act under the influence of other people, this is referred to as informational influence as they get to do things based on the information they have. On the other hand, normative influence happens when societal norms only influence people to some degree that makes them desire to fit in a group.
It is the influence that leads one to want to act in a way that will help him or her be accepted by a group of people (Hornsey et al., 2003). Unlike informational influence which is genuine and leads to real change of attitude, the outcome of normative influence is an attitude that is not genuine and often, individuals simply make efforts to fit in a group (Hornsey et al., 2003).
Normative influence is a behaviour that organizations must watch out for as it can easily lead to the creation of groups with members who are not fully committed. In the end, a highly motivated group could get demoralized by the less motivated individuals and sadly, the performance of the group will receive a severe blow.
According to Brief and Motowidlo (1986), it is possible to use pro-social behaviors to boost the performance of work teams. Pro-social acts are undertaken to support the well being of others and include behaviors such as cooperating, sharing ideas or material things, giving donations to worthy courses and volunteering for the good of others.
The pro-social acts are meant to directly benefit a beneficiary who could be a colleague, or a client. It may involve helping a workmate to accomplish an assigned job task or even deal with personal matters. One may also volunteer to take on additional responsibilities at no extra pay (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
Conformity as a Means of Defense
An experiment undertaken by Hoffman (1957) showed that conformity can be used as a good defense mechanism by individuals who actually find it difficult to conform to pressure from a group. People who are unwilling to go by the demands of a group have been found to resist genuine group influence by simply conforming and taking a low profile.
It therefore follows that although an individual may seem to go with the flow and do or agree with what the group wants or says, it does not necessarily imply that his or her conformance is backed by good intentions (Hoffman, 1957).
Thinking about the effect of this to an organization, it is important to note that despite the fact that determining whether or not an individual is truly conforming is such a difficult task, an organization must make an effort to establish to what extent an individual is genuinely conforming to a work team (Hoffman, 1957).
Conclusion
Organizations can greatly benefit from work teams when groups are created based on well formulated group norms. As has been demonstrated in this paper, group norms play a very key role in ensuring that work teams get to succeed and deliver as they should. However, it is helpful when organizations take interest in developing and enforcing group norms.
Although a number of options are available to assist organization with the enforcement of group norms, choices must be made in a way that will ensure that work team performance is not affected. Poor choice of tactics may lead to the failure of work teams and consequently, poor delivery. According to Zhou (2011), groups can have both negative and positive effects.
It is therefore necessary for organizations to ensure that the groups are well planned. Placing an individual in a group that does not correspond to his or her job responsibilities, for example, would lead to discouragement (Zhou, 2011).
In spite of all the challenges encountered, there are great benefits that can be realized when work teams are formed and managed in the right way. It is therefore important for organizations to spend a considerable amount of time studying out the process of creating and strengthening group norms which are essential to the success of a group.
Reference List
Argote, L. & Ingram, P., 2000. Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1) 150 –169.
Bendor, J. & Swistak, Piotr., 2001. The Evolution of Norms. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106, No. 6 (May 2001), pp. 1493-1545. Web.
Bettenhausen, K. & Murnighan, J. K., 1985. The Emergence of Norms in Competitive Decision-Making Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1985): 350 – 372.
Boonstra, J.J., 2004. Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J., 1986. Prosocial Organizational Behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11 (4) 710 – 725.
Brief, A. P. & Weiss, H. M., 2002. Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53:279–307.
Brown, M., 2009. The Cultural Work of Corporations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Durlauf, N. & Blume, L. E., 2008. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Feldman, D. C., 1984. The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms. The Academy of Management Review, 9 (1) 47 – 53.
Goldman, M.., Haberlein, B. J., Feder, G. J., 1965. Conformity and Resistance to Group Pressure. Sociometry, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1965), pp. 220 – 226. Web.
Griffin, R. W. & Moorhead, G., 2011. Organizational Behavior. Stamford, Connecticut, U.S: Cengage Learning.
Hoffman, M. L., 1957. Conformity as a Defense Mechanism and a Form of Resistance to Genuine Group Influence. Journal of Personality, 25 (4) 412–424.
Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J. & McKimmie, B. M., 2003. On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. The British Journal of Social Psychology, Sep 2003; 42, 319 – 335.
Kiesler, C. A. 1963. Attraction to the Group and Conformity to Group Norms. Journal of Personality, 31(4) 559 – 569.
McMahan, G. C. & Kacmar, K. M. 1991. The Diagnosis of Work Group Norms: Practical Implications for Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4 (4) 24 – 33.
Mills, A. J., Mills, J. C. H., Bratton, J. & Forshaw, C., 2006. Organizational Behaviour in a Global Context. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mowday, R. T., 1993. Organizational Behavior: Linking Individuals and Groups to Organizational Contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 195 – 229.
Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M. L., 1980. A Model for Organizing Organizational Behavior. New York: AMACOM. Web.
Rousseau, D. M., 1997. Organizational Behavior in the New Organizational Era. Annual Review of Psychology, 48: 515 – 46.
Zhou, Mark., 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Hong Kong: Springer.