Buddy, better watch your back.

Parks (Washington State U) and Stone (Desert Research Institute) set out to study the tolerance of group members to those who abuse a “public good.” Perversely, what they found in their four controlled experiments is that unselfish group members — those who gave much toward the public good but took very little — were in fact quite unpopular. So unpopular that others wanted to kick them out of the group.

“Our data are pointing to an emerging notion that group members temper their desire for productivity with an equally strong, perhaps stronger, desire for equality of participation,” they write in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Why would removal of performance differences be so important that group members are willing to sacrifice collective output for it?

A couple of reasons. One, people feel driven to outdo the group member who is setting the standard. In this setting, Parks and Stone note, “the standard being set by the benevolent other is to give up a considerable amount of personal resources and receive only a small payoff in return. To compete with such a person means that one would need to give even more and take even less, not a very desirable prospect.”

And two, that generous dude is unwittingly breaking the social rules of the group. The norm within the group is to take in proportion to what you give, but our friend is giving way more than she is taking. A rule is a rule.

Moral of the story: Don’t mess with groupthink.

The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members From the Group, by Craig D. Parks and Asako B. Stone; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2010, Vol. 99, No. 2, 303–310)

Post from: LEADING THOUGHTS

Unselfish and Unwanted

Leach and his team surveyed 958 people in the U.S., UK, and Australia, trying to determine what makes people perceive a meeting to be effective. He focused on five meeting design characteristics: using an agenda, keeping minutes, starting and ending on time, meeting in an appropriate facility, and having a chairperson.

The results of the first phase of the study: the use of an agenda, punctuality, and meeting facilities rose to the top.

Respondents were then asked to consider more specifically the effectiveness of the last meeting on the day of their survey (to get around “recall bias”). The results this time: agenda completion, facilities, and the chairperson were the most important meeting design elements.

These perceptions held true for various types of meetings, such as those dealing with routine issues, information sharing, or addressing special problems. As well, neither the size of the meeting nor its duration seemed to effect peoples’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness, except when the meeting agenda was not completed.

If you really want to score points for your meeting prowess, do a good job involving attendees. The researchers found that higher levels of involvement predict greater perceptions of effectiveness.

“Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics,” by Desmond J. Leach, Steven G. Rogelberg, Peter B. Warr, and Jennifer L. Burnfield; Journal of Business Psychology (2009, 24:65-76)

photo credit: Wildstar Beaumont

Post from: LEADING THOUGHTS

How to Win Points for Your Meetings

Research by Kimberly K. Merriman of Pennsylvania State University casts some doubt on that logic. She has found that team incentives are often counterproductive to motivating teamwork because of perceived inequities.

Merriman studied 49 project teams comprising graduate students within a U.S. business school. The team reward was grades. Collectively, the team members in her study strongly preferred rewards based on individual contribution to the team (equitable team member rewards) as opposed to rewards based on collective team performance (equal rewards for each team member). Not surprisingly, those who viewed their teams as less trustworthy in terms of ability or honesty expressed stronger preference for equity than more trusting members.

The question is, how do individual team members perceive “fair” team reward? In a follow-up study, Merriman identified four ways that organizations fail to make team rewards appear equitable.

Consistency across the team: The value of team rewards is undercut when certain team members are overlooked, perhaps because they are from a different department or lower on the hierarchy. “It seems that many managers are under the mistaken impression that team members do not compare rewards,” Merriman writes.

Consistency over time: It is better for long-term team member motivation to maintain a no-reward policy than to provide a one-time reward that skews expectations.

High or low performers recognized differently than other team members: “It seems if at least extreme differences in performance are acknowledged—providing greater rewards to top performers and penalizing very low performers—employees may feel equity has been served.” Easier said than done: a good way to identify high and low performers is to ask for confidential feedback from team members themselves.

Tolerance for pay risk: “Whereas an employee may be content to risk a meaningful portion of their pay on their own performance, the same amount of pay tied to the collective performance of team members is often seen as too risky.”

In her paper, Merriman also offers a short case study of one manufacturer’s approach to the issue.

On the Folly of Rewarding Team Performance, While Hoping for Teamwork; by Kimberly K. Merriman; Compensation & Benefits Review (Jan-Feb 2009, 61-66)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: fisserman

Post from: LEADING THOUGHTS

When Are “Fair” Team Rewards Demoralizing?