Journal of Business and Behavioral
Vol 22, No I; Fall 2010
Sciences
WHEN TWO HEADS ARE WORSE THAN ONE:
IMPACT OF GROUP STYLE AND INFORMATION
TYPE ON PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
Leonard Branson
Nathan L. Steele
Chung-Hsein Sung
University
of Illinois
at Springfield
ABSTRACT
Groups are a common decision making tool of the modern organization. Much of
the literature has suggested that groups are often prone to worse performance at
decision making than individuals, while some has suggested that they may
enhance decision quality over and above individuals. The quality of this
di fference is often thought to be underpinned by aspects of the group and its
decision process (e.g., leadership, affiliation of members, time constraints). The
current study investigates the role of group interaction style in the use of decision
making information and the representation of individual group members in the
group's decision as a consequence. Groups with an aggressive/defensive
style of
interaction, as measured by the GSI, were found to rely more heavily on
stereotype information when conducting a performance rating than individual
group members. Performance relevant outcome information had a diminishing
impact on the rating as groups become more Aggressive/Defensive.
INTRODUCTION
Groups are a staple of modern organizational life, from the long extant work
units of departments to committees, more contemporary self-managed teams to
quality circles. Groups are utilized for their presupposed benefits over individuals
executing the same tasks. However, the research literature on the performance of
groups in comparison
with individuals
is a mixed bag of support and
disconfirmation of these presuppositions.
Findings dating back to Shaw's (1932) original postulation
of the group
superiority effect support the belief that as group sizes increase, groups perform
better and better at decision making (Tuckman & Lorge, 1962). However, dating
back even to these seminal studies was a suspicion that Iittle of the benefit of
groups had to do with their process, rather that it was the increased number of
individuals' expertise within those groups that probabilistically
enhanced their
performance (i.e., the more members a group has, the more chances it has of
possessing the correct solution; Lorge & Solomon, 1955).
75
Branson, Steele and Sung
Contemporary research findings are no more cohesivc. Some findings suggest
that groups still hold the promise of collective wisdom (e.g., Mannes, 2009) and
that groups can make better decisions under certain conditions (Branson, Sung,
2004; Fraiden, 2004; Kerr, MacCoun, & Kramer, 1996a; Schulz-Hardt, Jochims,
Frey, 2002; Stasser, Vaughan, Stewart, 2000). Still many other findings suggest
that groups are rife with biases (Mojzisch, Grouneva, & Schulz-Hardt, In Press),
prone to ignore expertise (Stasser, 1988; Stasser & Davis, 1981; Stasser, Taylor,
& Hanna, 1989) and prone to quashing the dissenting opinions that might
otherwise improve their decisions (Janis, 1982). Even literature reviews of the
relevant findings are focused on parsing conditions that favor group decisions
and those that favor individual decisions rather than suggesting a unified
perspective (e.g., Kerr, MacCoun, & Kramer 1996b).
In the search for those factors that may enhance groups' performance in decision
making, group interaction style is an increasingly important factor of study
(Branson, Clausen, & Sung, 2008; Cooke & Szumal, 1994). A group's style of
decision making can promote discussion and sharing of information in the case of
groups that constructively
welcome dissenting
opinion to produce better
decisions (Shulz-Hardt, Jochims & Frey, 2002), or can deter such discussion in
the case of groups that defcnsively rcject such discussion and dissent (Janis,
1982). Cooke and Szumal (1994) have developed a scale to measure and
categorize differences in group interaction style relevant to decision making,
entitled the Group Style Inventory (GSI).
The GSI identifies group interaction styles based upon member perception and
categorizes them into three main styles: Constructive, Passive/Defensive,
and
Aggressive/Defensive.
Constructive groups tend toward fuller discussion and
consensus decision making (Branson, Claussen, & Sung, 2008), a style of
decision making that has becn found to benefit the consideration of minority and
dissenting opinion resulting in morc accurate decisions (DeDreu, Nijstad & van
Knippenberg, 2008). On the other hand, those groups that arc Passive/Dcfcnsive
tend toward discussion that focuses on shared perceptions and agrcement
(Branson, Claussen, & Sung, 2008), features that are known to lead to poor group
decision outcomes (Janis, 1982; Shulz-Hardt, Jochims, and Frey, 2002; Stasser,
1988). Groups
that are Aggressive/Defensivc
tend toward competition,
interruptions, and overt criticism (Cooke & Lafferty, 2003), features on which
the literature is mixed in its expectation for group performance. Some researchers
suggest that dissent is highly beneficial to group decision making (Janis, 1982;
Shulz-Hardt, Jochims & Frey, 2002), and some suggest that this aggressive style
of intcraction by leadership in groups would likely reduce open revelation and
discussion of member dissent (Janis, 1982) thus eliminating its potential benefit.
CURRENT RESEARCH
Groups have been shown to use more outcome information
accounting data) in a performance cvaluation than individuals
76
(in the form of
(Branson, Bin &
Journal of Business and Behavioral
Sciences
Sung, 2004), a desirable outcome likely to produce more accurate evaluations
than other less objective sources of information. The current research examines
the effect of group interaction style, as measured by the GSI, on a performance
evaluation comparing the decision results and information
usage between
individuals and groups.
The current research is based on a course embedded case analysis in a senior
level Managerial Accounting class. Participants were asked to study the case,
which included a behavioral description,
a subjective stereotype, of eight
hypothetical managers. Accounting data on the financial performance of each
organizational
unit was also provided. Participants were asked to conduct a
performance evaluation of each of the eight hypothetical managers based on
whatever information they thought appropriate and then determine how much
bonus to give to each manager. Each participant was also assigned to a group,
wherein the collective assignment was to evaluate each manager as a group and
decide as a group how much bonus to allocate to each manager based on that
evaluation. Each participant documented their individual evaluation and allocated
bonus before they met as a team to make the group evaluations and bonus
allocations. After the group evaluations and bonus allocations were rendered,
participants completed the GSI in reference to their decision making group.
It is hypothesized that: I) Groups who demonstrate Constructive group style will
outperform individuals in that they will be less reliant upon subjective stereotype
information and incorporate more performance outcome
information in their
evaluations
and bonus allocations,
2) Passive/Defensive
style groups will
underperform
individuals in that they will be more reliant upon subjective
stereotype
information
and less reliant upon the performance
outcome
information
in
their
evaluation
and
bonus
allocations,
and
3)
Aggressive/Defensive
style groups will underperfonn
individuals
in that they
will be more reliant upon subjective stereotype information and less reliant upon
performance outcome information in their evaluations and bonus allocations.
This third hypothesis is based on the tendency of Aggressive/Defensive
group
style to promote conflict and confrontation, conditions that create a stressful and
distracting environment
(Cooke & Lafferty, 2003). Individuals under such
conditions of stress and cognitive distraction tend to fall back on heuristic cues
such as stereotype information in making decisions (Branson and Sung, 2004;
Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Gilbert, Pelham & Krull, 1989; Shiffrin and Schnieder,
1977).
DEMOGRAPHICS
OF PARTICIPANTS
Ninety-four
undergraduate
students (thirty groups) in an upper division
managerial
accounting
course in a small Midwestern
public university
participated in the present study. The mean age of participants was 29.5 years,
and their mean work experience was 10 years.
Sixty-two percent of the
77
Branson, Steele and Sung
participants were female. Of the 30 groups, 26 were comprised
and 4 were comprised 4 members.
of 3 members
RESULTS
In order to compare the individual and group decisions, a difference score was
calculated between each individual's allocated bonus and the bonus allocation
from their group. These difference scores were then put through separate
stepwise linear regressions using covariates of stereotype congruency with a
positive manager prototype (for which a separate pilot study was conducted;
Stereotype Fit), the accounting data comparing the managers' performance with
previous years' performance (Consistency), and accounting data aggregating the
managers' performance in multiple key business areas (Consensus).
Best fit
models were calculated for each GSI classification, as well as separated by
median split of GSI scores for that classification (e.g., "+" for the Constructive
classification indicates groups that exhibited Constructive group interaction style,
"-" indicates groups that did not exhibit Constructive style). The best fit models
separated by median splits were then compared in slope by sum-of-squared
deviations to models fit across collapsed levels of that GSI classification. In this
way, the differential effects of a group exhibiting more (positively) or less
(negatively) of each type of group interaction style was indicated by greater F
scores, suggesting that the different slope functions were underpinned
by
di fferent processes.
As can be seen in Table I (below), the only significant effect was found for
Stereotype Fit information in the Aggressive/Defensive
category. This confirms
part 3 of our hypothesis that groups exhibiting an Aggressive/Defensive
style of
interaction were prone to use the subjective stereotype information more heavi Iy
in their ratings than the individuals in that group, as can be easily seen in Figure
I. This suggests that a difference generated by group process altered individual
rating decisions to be more responsive to Stereotype Fit when the group rendered
its decision.
Table I, Fit of Group vs. Individual Bonus Allocation
Covariate
Stereotype Fit
by Data and Group Style
Factor
F Statistics
P-Value
Constructive
0.78
0.3779
Passive
1.33
0.2491
Aggressive
4.02
0.0452*
Consistency
Constructive
1.43
0.2319
Passive
3.79
0.0518
Aggressive
0.01
0.9362
Consensus
Constructive
0.00
0.9697
Passive
0.04
0.8471
Aggressive
0.30
0.5871
Dependent Variable: Difference = Team Bonus - Individual Bonus
78
Journal of Business and Oehavioral
Sciences
Figure I, Aggressive/Defensive
and Non-Aggressive/Defensive
Compared on Bonus Allocation by Stereotype Fit
Groups
Difference
1500
1000
...•
,.~
...... ,
.........
500
....
~
0
-500
.•.......•.
"',
-1000
---- -- Aggressive='+'
.. ..•.
'
-
-1500
- - Aggressive='-'
.........
-2000
0
10
20
Stereotype
30
40
Fit
n.b. Stereotype fit is a mismatch score based upon a prototype of a good manager
averaged from pretesting (i.e., lower scores indicate closer stereotype fit of the
manager being rated, higher scores indicate less stereotype fit of the manager)
Groups with more Aggressive/Defensive
interaction style were more influenced
in their bonus allocations (ratings) by the Stereotype Fit than individual members
of that group. Groups low in Aggressive/Defensive
style exhibited flat response
to this covariate of Stereotype Fit, indicating no difference in stereotype fit
information for their ratings compared to the individuals that comprised them. In
other words, individuals'
decisions were changed in Aggressive/Defensive
groups to more heavily rely on the Stereotype Fit information than when they
made individual ratings alone.
Constructive
and Passive/Defensive
interaction style groups did not differ
significantly from their constituency in the use of different kinds of decision
making information, nor the decisions rendered in bonus allocation.
79
50
Branson, Steele and Sung
CONCLUSIONS
The finding that Aggressive/Defensive
groups tend to rely more heavily upon
stereotype
relevant information
fits well with findings from the social
psychological
literature on stereotyping, that individuals will use stereotypes
under circumstances
of cognitive distraction
or lack of motivation
as a
simplifying heuristic or even automatic process (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Bargh,
1990; Bargh, 1992).
Although it is inadvisable to conclude the positive from a lack of evidence for the
negative, it is heartening that it seems both highly constructive and member
oriented groups (Constructive) as well as those that are more concerned with
protecting group members'
affiliation with one another (Passive/Defensive;
Cooke & Lafferty, 2003) produce decisions that do not significantly differ on
average from their constituent members. It is possible that the fixation on
agreement presumed to exist in such groups is not as onerous as is sometimes
thought (e.g., Janis, 1982) at least in the context of performance evaluations and
ratings with multiple forms of information.
The difference between groups that are and are not Aggressive/Defensive
might
be due to the cognitively distracting nature of an angry group and the social
process inherent in one, as would align with literature on automatic processes
(e.g., Gilbert, Pelham & Krull, 1988). Another possible explanation is the
tendency of decision makers to fall back onto heuristic or simplified decision
processes when confronted with short timeframes for decision making or high
pressure decision situations (Chaiken, 1980; Epstein, 2003; Petty & Wegner,
1999; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). It is not unimaginable that individuals in an
Aggressive/Defensive
group would be prone to seek exit from that group, and
that if exit was contingent upon rendering a decision they might look for
expedient ways to make that decision. More investigation into these possible
underpinnings could provide methods to alleviate this deleterious function of
Aggressive/Defensive
groups'
reliance
upon stereotype
information
in
performance
evaluation.
Prior research indicates that the purpose of the
evaluation
has a systematic
impact on the rating. Ratings for retention,
promotion, or bonus allocation systematically
differ based on the type of
evaluation (Feldman, 1981; Heneman, Wexley, & Moore, 1987), holding other
factors constant. In the present research, the performance rating was the bonus
allocated to each manager, so ratings for promotion or retention may have
di fferent results.
Even without a finer understanding of the mechanisms that lead groups to favor
less accurate information in a performance evaluation decision, we can see the
important implication of this finding for decision making groups of all kin. If a
decision making group is leaning toward aggressive or competitive discussion of
ideas, it is more likely to misrepresent the underlying interests of group members
80
Journal of Business and Behavioral
Sciences
and arrive at a poorer decision by comparison. Much of the extant literature on
groups'
foibles in decision making suggest methods by which leaders,
facilitators, or even group members may improve the quality of group decisions
by actively guiding the group process to consider different kinds of information
(Henningsen
& Henningsen, 2007; Schulz-Hardt,
Jochim, Frey, 2002). The
findings of the current research would suggest that leaders and group members
maintain an awareness that Aggressive/Defensive
interaction processes may lead
to poor decisions, and attempt to steer groups toward more Constructive
interaction styles, under which circumstance groups did not differ significantly
from their constituent individual members in the decisions they made nor the
evidence they considered.
Groups are a consistent element of modern organizational
life and decision
making, and they do not appear to be going away anytime soon. They have been
shown to be both blessings and curses in their ability or inability to render
accurate decisions that represent their memberships. The more we take an active
eye and hand in attending to and guiding groups' interaction processes toward
those styles and practices that are known to result in higher quality decisions, the
better off we wi 11all be.
REFERENCES
Bargh, J. A. (1990). "Auto-Motives: Preconscious Determinants of Social
Interaction." In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 93-130). New York: Guilford
Press.
Bargh, J. A. (1992). "The Ecology Of Automaticity: Toward Establishing
Conditions Needed To Produce Automatic Processing Effects."
American Journal of Psychology, Volume 105, 181-199.
The
Branson, L., & Sung, C. (2004). "An Empirical Investigation of the Role of
Accounting Outcome Information and Group Decision Making In
Mitigating the Affect of Stereotyping On Performance Appraisal."
Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral
Sciences, Volume IINumber 1),187-199.
Branson, L., Bin, L., & Sung, C. H. (2008). "Investment Performance
Differences Between Virtual and Face-To-Face Teams and Between
Teams With Different Group Styles." Proceedings of American Society
of Business and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 15, Numberl, 617-627.
Branson, L., Claussen, T., & Sung, C. H. (2008). "Group Style Differences
Between Virtual and F2fTeams." American Journal of Business,
Volume 23, Number 1,65-70.
81
Uranson, Steele and Sung
Chaiken, S. (1980). "Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and
The Use Of Source Versus Message Cues In Persuasion." Journal of
Personality and Social pjychology, Volume 39.752-766.
Cooke, R. & J. C. Lafferty (2003). "Group Style InvenfOIy. " Chicago: Human
Synergistics, Inc.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1994). "The Impact of Group Interaction Styles
on Problem-Solving Effectiveness." Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Volume 30, 415-437.
DeDreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., van Knippenberg, D. (2008). "Motivated
Information Processing In Group Judgment And Decision Making."
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Volume 12, Number 1, 2249.
Epstein, S. (2003). "Cognitive-Experiential
Self-Theory of Personality."
In Millon, T., &Lerner, M. J. (Eds), Comprehensive Handbook of
Psychology, Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 159184). Hoboken, NJ: Wi ley & Sons.
Feldman, J. M. (1981). "Beyond Attribution Theory: Cognitive Processes In
Performance Appraisal." Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 66,
127-148.
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. M. (2007). "Do Groups Know What They
Don't Know: Dealing With Missing Information In Decision Making
Groups." Communication Research, Volume 34, Number 5, 507-525.
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). "The Trouble of Thinking: Activation and
Application of Stereotypic Beliefs." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Volume 60, 509-517.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). "On Cognitive Busyness:
When Person Perceivers Meet Persons Perceived." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 54, 733-740.
Heneman, R. L., Wexley, K. N., & Moore, M. L. (1987). "Performance-Rating
Accuracy: A Critical Review." Journal of Business Research, Volume
15, Number 5, 431-448.
Janis, I. L. (1982). "Groupthink" (2nd Ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
82
Journal of Business and Behavioral
Sciences
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (l996b). "When Are N Heads
Better (or Worse) Than One? Biased Judgment in Individuals vs.
Groups." In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group
behavior (Vol. 1): Consensual action by small groups (pp. 105-136).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kerr, N., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. (I996a). "Bias in Judgment: Comparing
Individuals and Groups." Psychological Review, Volume 103,687-719.
Lorge, I, & Solomon, H. (1955). "Two Models of Group Behavior in the Solution
of Eureka-Type Problems." Psychometrika, Vol ume 20, I39-148.
Mojzisch, A., Grouneva, L., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (In Press). "Biased Evaluation of
Information During Discussion: Disentangling The Effects Of Preference
Consistency, Social Validation, And Ownership Of Information."
European Journal of Social Psychology.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). 'The Elaboration Likelihood Model:
Current Status and Controversies." In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (eds.),
Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 41-72). New York:
Guilford Press.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). "Productive Conflict In Group
Decision Making: Genuine And Contrived Dissent As Strategies To
Counteract Biased Information Seeking." Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Volume 88, 563-586.
Shaw, M. E. (1932). "Comparison of Individuals and Small Groups in the
Rational Solution of Complex Problems." American Journal of
Psychology, Volume 44,491-504.
Shriffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). "Controlled and Automatic Human
Information Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending
and a General Theory." Psychological Review, Volume 24,127-190.
Stasser, G. (1988). "Computer Simulation As A Research Tool: The Discuss
Model Of Group Decision Making." Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Volume 24, 393-422.
Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1981). "Group Decision Making And Social
Influence: A Social Interaction Sequence Model." Psychological Review,
Volume 88, 523-551.
Stasser, G, Taylor, L. A, & Hanna, C. (1989)." Information Sampling In
Structured And Unstructured Discussions Of Three- And Six-Person
83
uranson,
::>lCCICanu ::>ung
Groups." Journal of Personality and Social P~ychology, Volume 57, 6778.
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). "Pooling Of Unshared
Information: The Benefits Of Knowing How Access To Information Is
Distributed Among Group Members." Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Volume 83, 102-116.
Tuckman, J. & Lorge,!. (1962). "Individual Ability As A Determinant
Superiority." Human Relations, Volume 15, Numberl, 45-51.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment Under Uncertainty:
And Biases." Science, Volume 185, 1124-113 I.
84
Of Group
Heuristics