Introduction
Over the recent times, several scholarly debates have been increasingly conducted regarding social loafing; its effect on group work, methods in which the phenomenon can be reduced and the current progress that has been made in regards to dealing with this issue.
On one hand, there are psychologists who are of the opinion that social loafing at any given workplace is inevitable and beyond control. On the other hand, however, some psychologists opine that, as much as social loafing is a reality when working on collective tasks, there are certain measures that can be taken to reduce or even stem out this issue. So, which side of this debate is true?
Well, in order for us to have an objective and clear bearing on social loafing and its effect on collective tasks at work places; it is inherently important that we delve on the issues that cause it. Once that is done, we will then be able to identify if there are any methods in which this social phenomenon can be reduced or ultimately avoided. But before doing all that, what really is social loafing?
In general, yet representatively inclusive terms, social loafing simply refers to a commonly observed social trend where people tend to exert less effort when working in a group in comparison to when these people work individually on the same given task. This, essentially, is the reason groups are sometimes viewed by some scholars as being ineffective when measured in terms of the overall strength of the group members.
Ever since the initial rope-pulling experiment on social loafing done by Max Ringelmann in 1913, many other scholars have been able to find new information and dynamics on this issue. It is upon these findings that the discussions below are conducted.
Reasons for Social Loafing when working on collective tasks
It is worth beginning by noting that collective tasks are jobs or work done cooperatively or communally by a given group of people. The completion and success of collective tasks, therefore, call for the input and efficiency of each member of the group.
In the instance that social loafing takes place during a collective task, the overall effectiveness of the group is limited. Some of the theory-based reasons that have been given to explain the occurrence of social loafing when working on collective tasks include (but are not limited to):
Lack of goals and goal setting: According to Guzzo and Dickson (314), having goals and setting goals in collective tasks greatly helps in keeping a group in focus.
In addition, these goals motivate members of the group to work towards a joint objective thus encouraging success. It is based on such reasons that the lack of goals and goal settings encourage social loafing since most of the group members lose focus and decide to exert less effort when working on a task.
Lack of Cohesiveness: Often, a group of people working on a given task is usually as good as the bond that holds them together (Guzzo and Dickson 310). When there is no unity or cohesion in the group, members of that group tend to only focus on their own success or their “friends” thus encouraging social loafing.
Poor Leadership: Leaders, in a group, usually play important roles such as motivating individuals, championing the group’s goals, guiding and correcting the members and offering a sense of direction. When these leaders are ineffective, group members are left to decide for themselves which, in most cases, leads to disjointed ideas and lack of consensus. In turn, social loafing is encouraged.
Types of Groups and Group Composition: As far as collective tasks are concerned, there are several types of groups. For example, there are task groups which are specifically formed to perform a particular task then are disbanded as soon as the task is completed.
Other groups, however, are formed to perform several different tasks. In most cases, the type of a group, and the composition that results thereof, hugely dictates the commitment and motivation of the members towards their tasks. Depending on the composition and type of the group, members can be easily swayed towards social loafing.
Motivation: As glimpsed by most of the reasons given above, motivation plays an irreplaceable role in the success or failure of a group. As an observed rule, highly motivated members of a group are less drawn towards social loafing when compared to those who are lowly motivated.
Negative competition: According to William and Karau (572-574), negative competition among members of a group and the need to be “equals” when conducting tasks often leads to social loafing.
This is based on the fact that when an individual does not perform as is expected of him/her, other group members tend to feel like doing the same since they do not see the need of doing well when others are doing the exact opposite.
Is social loafing inevitable or not?
If we are to answer the question of the inevitability of social loafing as a consequence of working on a collective task; a consideration of the reasons for social loafing (which have already been highlighted) is paramount.
Remarkably, some reasons such as group composition (especially in instances that the selection of the members is beyond our control) are largely inevitable.
Also, in instances that groups are unavoidably composed of so many people, social psychology theorists state that there is a high tendency of deindividuation; a situation in which personal accountability and individual motivation towards achievement is inescapably diminished.
However, to a large extent, most of the reasons for social loafing when working on a collective task can be greatly dealt with thus going against the argument of inevitability. Some of the scholarly methods that have successfully been used to reduce or eliminate social loafing in groups are given below.
To begin with, Williams and Karau (570) state that “social loafing can be reduced or eliminated by increasing the identifiability or evaluability of the individual members’ contributions.”
To support this point, the two scholars argue that when members of a group often evaluate the individual input of everyone in the group, members are usually encouraged towards being the best thus facilitating overall efficiency in collective tasks.
Also, Williams and Karau state that behavioral theorists often opine that people usually desire a positive evaluation (579). In order to facilitate success and discourage loafing, periodic evaluation can be very instrumental.
Closely related to the above method is the psychological theory of social compensation. In line with this theory, Williams and Karau (571) assert that most group members tend to feel compelled to contribute more to a task if they feel or expect that other members are inadequately contributing towards the task.
Another factor that has been repeatedly employed to discourage social loafing is enhancing personal involvement by motivation the group members through a reward or compensation scheme if the task at hand is successfully completed.
This argument is in accordance with the renowned expectancy value and self validation theories of psychology which state that, in most cases, individuals are usually willing to exert more effort in a task if they expect that their efforts will result into valuable outcomes (William and Karau 570-571).
According to Guzzo and Dickson (324-325), encouraging autonomy and self management of individuals in groups while intermittently having objective and skillful leaders can also be of invaluable importance in reducing or eliminating social loafing.
This, they say, is based on the fact that self management and good leadership are mutually coexisting factors that encourage responsibility by all group members which, in effect, discourages social loafing.
Other general factors that have been proposed to combat social loafing include:
- Establishing team boundaries: Guzzo and Dickson (332) argue that team boundaries help to prevent outside influence on the group thus limiting lack of focus which often leads to social loafing.
- Establishing clear-cut goals, agendas, performance standards and objectives which encourage group members towards a specific target.
- Encouraging open communication among members of the group. This will not only help in facilitating cohesion, but it will also go a long way in helping the group members to identify problems within the group and how to solve them.
Works Cited
Guzzo, Richard, and Dickson Marcus. “Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness.” Annu. Rev. Psychol 47 (1996): 307-338. Print.
Williams, Kipling, and Karau Steven. “Social Loafing and Social Compensation: The Effects of Expectations of Co-Worker Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61.4 (1991): 570-581. Print.