Project loafing in Projects - Revision history

S220075: /* Annotated bibliography */

2022-03-17T15:59:22Z

Annotated bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 17 March 2022
Line 200:		Line 200:
	*Williams, Kipling D., Martin Bourgeois, Donal Carlston, Alice Eagly, Rebecca Henry, Janice Kelly, Norbert Kerr, Brian Mullen, Kristin Sommer, and Steven J. Karau. 1993. ''Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration''.		*Williams, Kipling D., Martin Bourgeois, Donal Carlston, Alice Eagly, Rebecca Henry, Janice Kelly, Norbert Kerr, Brian Mullen, Kristin Sommer, and Steven J. Karau. 1993. ''Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration''.
	This paper goes through the definition of Social Loafing and analyses all different experiments. The experiments were categorized and grouped according to the task type, complexity, methodology, Theory-relevant predictors. The Collective Effort Model (CEM) is the result of the meta-analysis of all the experiments. The CEM is a tool to generate predictions regarding the interaction of different triggers of Social Loafing.		This paper goes through the definition of Social Loafing and analyses all different experiments. The experiments were categorized and grouped according to the task type, complexity, methodology, Theory-relevant predictors. The Collective Effort Model (CEM) is the result of the meta-analysis of all the experiments. The CEM is a tool to generate predictions regarding the interaction of different triggers of Social Loafing.
			<br />
	<br />		<br />

S220075: /* Annotated bibliography */

2022-03-17T15:58:51Z

Annotated bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 17 March 2022
Line 201:		Line 201:
	This paper goes through the definition of Social Loafing and analyses all different experiments. The experiments were categorized and grouped according to the task type, complexity, methodology, Theory-relevant predictors. The Collective Effort Model (CEM) is the result of the meta-analysis of all the experiments. The CEM is a tool to generate predictions regarding the interaction of different triggers of Social Loafing.		This paper goes through the definition of Social Loafing and analyses all different experiments. The experiments were categorized and grouped according to the task type, complexity, methodology, Theory-relevant predictors. The Collective Effort Model (CEM) is the result of the meta-analysis of all the experiments. The CEM is a tool to generate predictions regarding the interaction of different triggers of Social Loafing.
	<br />		<br />
	~~<br />~~


	== References ==		== References ==

	<references/>		<references/>

S220075: /* Causes of Social loafing */

2022-03-17T15:44:30Z

Causes of Social loafing

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 17 March 2022
Line 135:		Line 135:
	*'''Stimulation Redunction''':		*'''Stimulation Redunction''':
	: In simple tasks, individuals tend to get a better outcome result when working alone, the opposite result was observed in complex tasks. In complex task, the overall performance increases when working in a group <ref NAME="save1">Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 822–832 (1979).</ref> <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref>.		: In simple tasks, individuals tend to get a better outcome result when working alone, the opposite result was observed in complex tasks. In complex task, the overall performance increases when working in a group <ref NAME="save1">Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 822–832 (1979).</ref> <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref>.
			<br />
	----		----

S220075: /* Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments */

2022-03-17T15:28:26Z

Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:28, 17 March 2022
Line 72:		Line 72:
	<br />		<br />

	<gallery mode=~~"traditional"~~>		<gallery mode=packed-hover widths=200px heights=150px>
	File:~~singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation~~.~~jpg~~\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		File:Singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.JPG\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	File:~~singlesxcoaction~~.~~jpg~~\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]		File:Singlesxcoaction.JPG\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]
	File:~~coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled~~.~~jpg~~\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		File:Coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.JPG\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	~~<br />~~


	:: The results showed that when evaluated, the participants tend to have a better performance in both single and coaction conditions. According to the analysis made by Harkins (1987), the participants in the coaction/pooled output condition felt that their individual performance could not be measured (evaluated), therefore had almost the same result as the coaction/no evaluation condition <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.		:: The results showed that when evaluated, the participants tend to have a better performance in both single and coaction conditions. According to the analysis made by Harkins (1987), the participants in the coaction/pooled output condition felt that their individual performance could not be measured (evaluated), therefore had almost the same result as the coaction/no evaluation condition <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
Line 85:		Line 82:
	:: '''Second experiment - Vigilance (optimizing results):'''		:: '''Second experiment - Vigilance (optimizing results):'''
	:: To investigate different criteria of performance, the participants were asked to perform a task involving optimizing the results. The participants were also divided into individual and pairs (coaction), and the task was to report when random signals occurred on a TV screen. Some were told that a computer will track their performance, while others were told that the computer is not working properly, simulating the scenario of evaluation and no evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.		:: To investigate different criteria of performance, the participants were asked to perform a task involving optimizing the results. The participants were also divided into individual and pairs (coaction), and the task was to report when random signals occurred on a TV screen. Some were told that a computer will track their performance, while others were told that the computer is not working properly, simulating the scenario of evaluation and no evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
	:: The results showed that in both experiments evaluation has a great impact on the performance of the participants. On the brainstorming task, they suggested more uses for the given object, and on the vigilance task, they made fewer mistakes. Harkins discusses in the journal about Social Loafing and Social Facilitation, that a plausible reason why coaction (pairs) performance outcome the single’s performance is that working together gave the participants a possibility of self-evaluation, by comparing their performance with his partner <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
			<gallery mode=packed-hover widths=200px heights=150px>
			File:Resultsevaluationxnoevaluation.JPG\|Results Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
			File:Resultscoactionxsingleperformance.JPG\|Results Coaction X Single performance <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
			</gallery>

			:: The results showed that in both experiments evaluation has a great impact on the performance of the participants. On the brainstorming task, they suggested more uses for the given object, and on the vigilance task, they made fewer mistakes. Harkins discusses in the journal about Social Loafing and Social Facilitation, that a plausible reason why coaction (pairs) performance outcome the single’s performance is that working together gave the participants a possibility of self-evaluation, by comparing their performance with his partner <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />
	;:'''''D) Integrative Model of individual Effort on Collective Tasks (CEM)'''''		;:'''''D) Integrative Model of individual Effort on Collective Tasks (CEM)'''''
	: In 1993, Karau and Williams proposed a method that could predict what key attributes are more valuable in a group, and what would motivate more the individuals in this group. The CEM analyzed and crossed different experiments involving social loafing <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref>.		: In 1993, Karau and Williams proposed a method that could predict what key attributes are more valuable in a group, and what would motivate more the individuals in this group. The CEM analyzed and crossed different experiments involving social loafing <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref>.
	<br />		<br />
	:'''Conclusions of CEM''' <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref>:		:'''Conclusions of CEM''' <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref>:
Line 96:		Line 99:
	*The individual’s gender, culture, and preferences are very relevant to the group outcome.		*The individual’s gender, culture, and preferences are very relevant to the group outcome.
	*When individual behaviors are dispensable to the outcome of the project, it is less likely to have a high level of effort.		*When individual behaviors are dispensable to the outcome of the project, it is less likely to have a high level of effort.
	*Good communication within the group members showed to be positive to collective effort when showing the importance of the task, but negative talk has the opposite effect.		*Good communication within the group members showed to be positive to collective effort when showing the importance of the task, but negative talk has the opposite effect
	*Group structure and members’ roles are important to the group effort. Being seen as important in the group, contribute to enhancing the effort made.		*Group structure and members’ roles are important to the group effort. Being seen as important in the group, contribute to enhancing the effort made.
	<br />		<br />

S220075: /* Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments */

2022-03-17T15:02:46Z

Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 17 March 2022
Line 73:		Line 73:

	<gallery mode="traditional">		<gallery mode="traditional">
	File: singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg \|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		File:singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	File: singlesxcoaction.jpg \|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		File:singlesxcoaction.jpg\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]
	File: coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg \|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		File:coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	</gallery>		</gallery>

S220075: /* Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments */

2022-03-17T14:58:29Z

Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 17 March 2022
Line 73:		Line 73:

	<gallery mode="traditional">		<gallery mode="traditional">
	[[File: singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]		File: singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg \|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	[[File: singlesxcoaction.jpg\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]		File: singlesxcoaction.jpg \|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	[[File: coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]		File: coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg \|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
	</gallery>		</gallery>

S220075: /* Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments */

2022-03-17T14:57:29Z

Investigating social loafing: examples of experiments

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 17 March 2022
Line 71:		Line 71:
	:: In this experiment performed by Harkins (1987), the participants were divided into singles and pairs. They were instructed to brainstorm as many different uses they could find for a given object (maximizing). Some participants were told that their performances could be evaluated, that everyone had the same object, and others were told that their performances could not be evaluated since it was given a unique object <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.		:: In this experiment performed by Harkins (1987), the participants were divided into singles and pairs. They were instructed to brainstorm as many different uses they could find for a given object (maximizing). Some participants were told that their performances could be evaluated, that everyone had the same object, and others were told that their performances could not be evaluated since it was given a unique object <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
	<br />		<br />

	<gallery mode="traditional">		<gallery mode="traditional">
	File: singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		[[File: singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]
	File: singlesxcoaction.jpg\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		[[File: singlesxcoaction.jpg\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]
	File: coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>		[[File: coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>]]
	</gallery>		</gallery>

	<br />		<br />

S220075 at 14:55, 17 March 2022

2022-03-17T14:55:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 17 March 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />
	The article will go through some of the experiments made to investigate social loafing, such as the simple rope-pulling task made by Ringelmann in 1913, to a more complex task that requires concentration from the participants; ~~probable~~ causes why individuals don’t give their best when working in a group; and to conclude, some measurements and actions to prevent social loafing to occur. Avoiding social loafing has ~~considerable~~ importance to project management because this tendency can be detrimental to a project’s success.		The article will go through some of the experiments made to investigate social loafing, such as the simple rope-pulling task made by Ringelmann in 1913, to a more complex task that requires concentration from the participants; potential causes why individuals don’t give their best when working in a group; and to conclude, some measurements and actions to prevent social loafing to occur. Avoiding social loafing has immense importance to project management because this tendency can be detrimental to a project’s success.
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />
Line 16:		Line 16:
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />
	Our society is based on group work: governments, organizations, sports, etc. And the success of the tasks performed by a group depends on many different factors. A project is usually composed of multiple people with different expertise, therefore good group and project management are crucial, and identifying ~~possible~~ problems, such as social loafing, is extremely important.		Our society is based on group work: governments, organizations, sports, etc. And the success of the tasks performed by a group depends on many different factors. A project is usually composed of multiple people with different expertise, therefore good group and project management are crucial, and identifying potential problems, such as social loafing, is extremely important.
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />
Line 70:		Line 70:
	:: '''First experiment - Brainstorming (maximizing results):'''		:: '''First experiment - Brainstorming (maximizing results):'''
	:: In this experiment performed by Harkins (1987), the participants were divided into singles and pairs. They were instructed to brainstorm as many different uses they could find for a given object (maximizing). Some participants were told that their performances could be evaluated, that everyone had the same object, and others were told that their performances could not be evaluated since it was given a unique object <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.		:: In this experiment performed by Harkins (1987), the participants were divided into singles and pairs. They were instructed to brainstorm as many different uses they could find for a given object (maximizing). Some participants were told that their performances could be evaluated, that everyone had the same object, and others were told that their performances could not be evaluated since it was given a unique object <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
			<br />
			<gallery mode="traditional">
			File: singlesevaluataionxnoevaluation.jpg\|Results SINGLES: Evaluation X No Evaluation <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
			File: singlesxcoaction.jpg\|Results Coaction X Singles <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
			File: coactionevaluatedxnoevaluationxpooled.jpg\|Results COACTION: Evaluated X No Evaluated X Pooled output <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>
			</gallery>
			<br />


	:: The results showed that when evaluated, the participants tend to have a better performance in both single and coaction conditions. According to the analysis made by Harkins (1987), the participants in the coaction/pooled output condition felt that their individual performance could not be measured (evaluated), therefore had almost the same result as the coaction/no evaluation condition <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.		:: The results showed that when evaluated, the participants tend to have a better performance in both single and coaction conditions. According to the analysis made by Harkins (1987), the participants in the coaction/pooled output condition felt that their individual performance could not be measured (evaluated), therefore had almost the same result as the coaction/no evaluation condition <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref>.
	<br />		<br />

S220075: /* Social Loafing remedies */

2022-03-17T11:59:45Z

Social Loafing remedies

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 17 March 2022
Line 127:		Line 127:
	Most organizations have teams running their projects, and it is a challenge for project managers to build up a good team with high performance. Social loafing in projects is not something unavoidable, but there are some measures and actions that could help diminish it.		Most organizations have teams running their projects, and it is a challenge for project managers to build up a good team with high performance. Social loafing in projects is not something unavoidable, but there are some measures and actions that could help diminish it.
	<br />		<br />
	The leaders have a big role in a project’s success. They can influence their team to work more efficiently by organizing the settings of the operations, setting goals and expectations about the individual and group accomplishments <~~Ref~~>Gil, F. Social Loafing. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 3, 411–419 (2004).</ref>.		The leaders have a big role in a project’s success. They can influence their team to work more efficiently by organizing the settings of the operations, setting goals and expectations about the individual and group accomplishments <ref NAME="save6">Gil, F. Social Loafing. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 3, 411–419 (2004).</ref>.
	<br />		<br />
	When building and maintaining a team for a project, some factors can be more influential to avoiding social loafing than others. The following list summarizes those factors <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref> <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref> <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref> <ref NAME="save4">Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A. & Bennett, N. Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management 30, 285–304 (2004).</ref>.		When building and maintaining a team for a project, some factors can be more influential to avoiding social loafing than others. The following list summarizes those factors <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref> <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref> <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref> <ref NAME="save4">Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A. & Bennett, N. Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management 30, 285–304 (2004).</ref> <ref NAME="save6">Gil, F. Social Loafing. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 3, 411–419 (2004).</ref>.
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />

S220075: /* Causes of Social loafing */

2022-03-17T11:59:13Z

Causes of Social loafing

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 17 March 2022
Line 100:		Line 100:
	*'''Evaluation potential''':		*'''Evaluation potential''':
	: Individuals tend to loaf less when they believe their performance could be evaluated by superiors. This could also be described as "hiding in the crowd" <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref> <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref> <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref>		: Individuals tend to loaf less when they believe their performance could be evaluated by superiors. This could also be described as "hiding in the crowd" <Ref NAME="save2">Harkins, S. G. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23, (1987).</ref> <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref> <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref>
			<br />
	*'''Task uniqueness''':		*'''Task uniqueness''':
	: Individuals seem more motivated when working on unique tasks and have a bigger tendency to loaf in redundant tasks <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref>.		: Individuals seem more motivated when working on unique tasks and have a bigger tendency to loaf in redundant tasks <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref>.
Line 110:		Line 111:
	<br />		<br />
	*'''Perceived performance''':		*'''Perceived performance''':
	: Individuals tend to loaf less and engage more in the project when they believe that their partners are not contributing enough due to a lack of abilities <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref>. On the other hand, if the individual perceived that their colleagues are engaging in loafing, it is more likely that the individual will also engage in social loafing <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref> <ref NAME="save4">Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A. & Bennett, N. Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management 30, 285–304 (2004).</ref> .		: Individuals tend to loaf less and engage more in the project when they believe that their partners are not contributing enough due to a lack of abilities <ref NAME="save5">Rutte, C. G. Social Loafing in Teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working 361–378 (2008) doi:10.1002/9780470696712.CH17.</ref>. On the other hand, if the individual perceived that their colleagues are engaging in loafing, it is more likely that the individual will also engage in social loafing <ref NAME="SAVE3">Williams, K. D. et al. Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. (1993).</ref> <ref NAME="save4">Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A. & Bennett, N. Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management 30, 285–304 (2004).</ref>.
			<br />
	*'''Group cohesiveness''':		*'''Group cohesiveness''':
	: Groups where members respect each other and have a certain degree of relationship, have a lower chance to engage in social loafing <ref NAME="save4">Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A. & Bennett, N. Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management 30, 285–304 (2004).</ref>. Strong group identity is beneficial to diminishing social loafing <ref NAME="save6">Gil, F. Social Loafing. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 3, 411–419 (2004).</ref>.		: Groups where members respect each other and have a certain degree of relationship, have a lower chance to engage in social loafing <ref NAME="save4">Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A. & Bennett, N. Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management 30, 285–304 (2004).</ref>. Strong group identity is beneficial to diminishing social loafing <ref NAME="save6">Gil, F. Social Loafing. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 3, 411–419 (2004).</ref>.