Ten Team Dynamic Concepts

Angelina Spaulding
BIS: 343 Social Processes in Organizations
College of Letters and Sciences
Arizona State University

Ten Team Dynamic Concepts

One: Social Loafing (Thompson, 2014, pp. 31 -32)
The term social loafing is a way to describe the amount of effort, or motivation, and
individual has when working in a group versus when working independently. When social
loafers are found in a group setting these individuals do not exert as much effort to complete a
task versus when the same person may be working in an independent fashion. This is
important when relating to team size. Adding more people to a team may help increase
productivity, but at the same time can negatively effect efficiency. When more people are added
to a group the increase helps increase the overall output of a team, however at the same time
the effort that is being put forward decreases due to the perception that more people are
available to complete tasks.
At least once a year the region of my organization conducts a day of service. This is a
day that all the members of the company spend time volunteering in the community, rather than
spending time on company business. One year during this event the volunteer work focused on
maintaining a community farm that helps to feed local people in need. The task of the twentyfive-person group had been to help plant potatoes. We broke up into five even groups of five.
The small group that I had been part of had three active members, and two other members that
can be categorized as social loafers. The three engaged performers planted the potatoes fairly
well. The two social loafers would walk around holding a shovel to give the perception of
participation. The group had been able to plant the potatoes worth no problem, but the ability to
quickly plant the potatoes had been hindered by the two people who were not fully invested in
completing the task with the group.
Two: Perceived versus Actual Diversity (Thompson, 2014, p. 93)
How diversity is distinguished within a group determines how diversity impacts a group.
If a group values diversity than the group is more likely to view the differences between people
within the group in terms of individual differences. If a group perceives themselves to be
diverse than the group is more likely to view themselves in terms of larger group identifiers such
as race, religion or gender. These perceptions can then cause actual diversity to become a
concern if perceived deep-level diversity is used to predict negative behaviors.
Once when working in small business restaurant diversity had not been a strong value.
For that reason people in the restaurant had been segmented into specific roles based on
gender. If examining the restaurant workers, as a whole the perception is that the group is

diverse. However, when looking at the actual diversity of the restaurant the perceived deeplevel diversity showed. Front of house servers were mostly young women and the restaurant
managers had all been men. The back of house staff had been divided as well. All of the cooks
were men, and the women had worked the cold station and the salad station. The perceived
diversity in the restaurant had resulted in perceptions of the perceived roles that people in the
restaurant had based on gender alone.
Three: Group Entitativity (Thompson, 2014, p. 105)
The term group entitativity describes the level of unification an individual member has
with an overall group. Groups that have a high entitativity can be likely viewed as a unified
single team. Team members will likely view the completion of task work as an interdependent
function, rather than an individual function. As well, high entitativity groups have a stronger
feeling of satisfaction with interactions with the group, which comes from the fulminant of needs
the group is supplying. This than leads to more group members embracing group norms,
values and principals regardless of the individuals perspective. In the end the, overall group
identity is increased.
During the spring of every year the Kinetic Sculpture race is an obstacle race through
the streets of Baltimore City. This race is put together by a local art museum, The American
Visionary Art Museum, which requires participants to build a human powered vehicle sculpture.
A group of good friends came together to form a team. Our team had been very mixed in skill
and ability. This race requires a large amount of technical and creative knowledge to craft this
structure, and the each persons skill aptitude greatly varied. However, the group entitativity had
been so strong amongst the individual members that an individuals lack of ability in one area
had been filled by the other team member. Each individual viewed this project as a partnership.
So much so, that it turned into a learning environment. Team members would help teach skills
that others lacked, so everyone could equally work on the project. The team worked as a single
unit to achieve results as partners on a team, which helped to make the many years working
with this group such a joy.
Four: Group Potency (Thompson, 2014, pp. 109 110)
Group potency is the overall mental model that the team holds towards completing a
task. If a team believes that a task can be completed, despite the various variables that may
hinder completion, then a team can be categorized as having a strong collective efficacy.
Collective efficacy is related to an individuals belief level towards completing a task, which then

can be translated onto a larger scale under the term group potency. Groups that have high
collective efficacy likely develop more challenging goals and are more resilient when facing
adversity. Group potency is developed over time as team members learn about each other.
The longer a group interacts the more likely a group will become more confident when working
together, thus increasing the groups potency.
When from being a girl scout into a troop to and adult scout, my troop had been together
for twelve years. We had different leaders over the years, and girls that would move in and out
of the troop. About seven years into the troop, a core group of ladies who would end up being
the final members of the group stayed together for five more years. This little group had already
developed confidence with each other in a larger team environment. In the end we had five of
us in the troop. We were also the oldest troop in the cluster, so we felt a responsibility to the
younger troops. One of those events happened to be an overnight Mall sleepover, where girls
would have the opportunity to complete requirements for patches. This had been a very large
event, and none of us had the experience of putting something like this together. However, our
troop believed that we could work together to do what needed to be done to put on this event. It
was a lot of work that went into planning, organizing and executing this event. Yet, due to the
troops strong collective efficacy, the group potency had been powerful enough to help put on a
successful event.
Five: Emotional Contagion (Thompson, 2012, pp. 112 - 113)
People are influenced by their environment, and based on this logic it can then be
believed that people are also influenced by the emotions that others are feeling within their
environment. This idea of being influenced by others emotions is known as emotional
contagion. If a person in the group is feeling frustrated and angry, others may also start to
develop the same emotions. At a group level emotional contagion spreads to all the group
members, which then reaches point where the overall emotion of the group fits a similar profile.
When my broomball team started travelling for competitions made different emotions
would be had throughout the tournament, which in the end would affect the entire group in a
similar way. We would mostly travel as a group to the tournament, and everyone in the group
would be excited about playing. We would than get to our first game of the tournament and
everyone would be feeling nervous, but still excited about playing. Usually, after loosing the first
two games of the tournament the excitement was gone. People would start developing feelings
of frustration and disappointment for not even winning a game. This emotion would ultimately
affect the last game, which usually resulted in a loss since everyones emotional state had

collectively deflated. This is something that the group recognized, so the team has developed a
more positive culture. As a group we stray away from any sort of coaching when situations get
tough. This positive energy we maintain on the bench, even when things are not going well on
the ice helps can defiantly be considered a driving force as to why we are winning
championships today.
Six: Group Socialization (Thompson, 2012, pp. 123 - 124)
Group socialization focuses on the processes in which individuals enter and exist a
group, and how those individuals are integrated into the current team environment. Most often
teams are an ever-changing entity. Meaning that groups have people that leave a group and
new members that enter a group. These changes in team membership result in the need for
new team embers to be integrated in to the norms of the group to help facilitate coordination
and effectiveness. Group socialization helps individuals assimilate with the group.
In my current work place the team is continuously shifting. The team has four main
people that work the morning shifts, and others fill in based on availability. Sometimes a new
team member that has worked in the evenings is moved to work with the morning shift for a few
weeks. Even tough the routines and processes are the same when the business is functioning;
it is the social aspect that takes some time to evolve. The morning crew has slight variations,
such as how a reach in refrigerator should be organized for the rush. Newer team embers are
not aware of these idiosyncrasies, and for that reason socialized is required.
Seven: Confirmation Bias (Thompson, 2012, pp. 165 - 166)
Confirmation bias is when people manipulate facts to push a specific agenda. If a group
has a specific belief and wants to advocate for that belief it is likely that the group will search out
facts that support a desired narrative. As well, people that have a confirmation bias will dispute
any facts that do not support their specific narrative regardless of how much evidence goes
against the groups belief.
Consider one of the top three or four twenty-four hour major news networks. It is very
often when commentators are providing opinions to present a confirmation bias. The anchor is
providing a narrative to viewers. It is likely that this anchor is presenting facts to support the
perspective that is being presented. To provide even more creditability to the perspective,
consider that the anchor may have a guest panel that supports the evidence being presented.
Sometimes panels may have an opposing view presented, and usually that individual is the only
person that has the view and is overthrown by the majority perspective. Network anchors

have been observed presenting a narrative supported by facts that are manipulated to meet a
specific agendas purpose.
Eight: Perceptual Conflict (Thompson, 2012, pp. 199 - 200)
Perceptual conflict is the amount of perceived conflict based from each group members
perspective. One group member may view conflict in a situation, whereas another group
member may not even observe conflict at all. The composition of perceptual conflict is
completely influenced by the different levels of conflict that each member is aware of or is not
aware within the group.
Once when working in a department with a new manager the level of perceptual conflict
amongst the team had varied so much that the productivity and the efficiency of the group were
greatly impacted. The team had worked together for some time. Team members engagement
in regards to task completion had greatly varied. Some of the team members felt as if the
workload had become unfair, because it was perceived that other team embers in the group
were not working in a collective fashion. As a result, some of the disgruntled team members
that thought they were over exerting themselves stopped working as hard. The team members
that were not as task focused on completing tasks did not recognize this change in behavior
from the other team embers, and continued on as if no conflict existed. The new store manger
did not recognize this issue, and allowed the perceived conflict to fester. This conflict went on
for so long that it caused a verbal fight between two employees on the floor, because one of the
two had become so frustrated with the lack of work from the other. This interaction most likely
would not have occurred if the store manager had been more aware of the dynamics between
the groups when it came to recognize the individual perceptions of conflict within the group.
Nine: Leader Centrality-performance hypothesis (Thompson, 2012, p. 262)
The leader centrality-performance hypothesis explains that constituents that seek out
leaders for more relational connections have a stronger knowledge of the social structure of the
team. Subordinates are more likely to look to the leader for advice and seek out to develop a
meaningful relationship. These types of leaders also help to manage the boundary lines of
information and resources flow between the group and the organization. Teams with this type of
leader has more trust amongst team members and is likely to stay together as a group for a
longer period of time.
My recent leader can be viewed under the terms of the leader centrality-performance
hypothesis. This leader had a large amount of knowledge, and would willing share that

knowledge if a constituent would ask to receive the knowledge. After a relationship had been
developed with this person information flow increased on a one-on-one level. The group would
be informed of basic organizational information, but also more regional specific information
would also be shared. Information that had only been received at the salary manager level
would also be shared among the lower level employees. As well, this leader had a large
amount of influence in the region. For that reason organizational resources would be allocated
to our department first or over another department. This type of border management from the
recent leader helped to drive strong efficiency and performance within the department.

Ten: Leader Categorization Theory (Thompson, 2014, p. 290)

The leader categorization theory focuses on the perceptions that an individual has when
envisioning the concept of a perfect leader. This perception is then projected on an individuals
actual leader. This belief of an idle leader than dictates how receptive the individual will be
towards the leader.
I have been with my company for fourteen years, and have held many various roles
throughout the company. About four months ago a new manager, an external hire, filled the role
as the department head. Due to my experience, my time invested in the company, and my
expectations of what an organizational leader should look like caused me to be more
judgmental when it came to behaviors and actions of the new leader. It was not that I did not
welcome this new person into the role, but it was more than I did not feel that this person was
meeting even the basic standards of the role. About a month after the new store manger came
into the role, I realized that I was projecting a harsh expectation towards this person. I took a
step back and assessed the situation. I realized that this individual needed to really learn our
culture as an organization, and needed to have a better understanding of routines and process;
two things that take time to develop. Once I realized this I lessoned my expectations, or was
not necessarily so quick to judge actions or behaviors. I am still categorizing my manager
based on perception, but I am trying to be less strict when it comes to meeting specific
expectations of the role.

Reference
Thompson, L.L. (2014). Making the team: A guide for managers (5th ed.) [Ebook]. Retrieved
from https://reader.brytewave.com/app/index.html#/book/Mk5 STAy/Mw==