# Managing Groups and Teams/Social Loafing

# Definition of Social Loafing

![](1904_tug_of_war.jpg "1904_tug_of_war.jpg"){width="300"}

Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals
exert less effort when working as a group than when working
independently. Research indicates that there is some degree of social
loafing within every group, whether high-functioning or dysfunctional.

In 1913, a French agricultural engineer, Max Ringlemann, identified this
social phenomenon. He recognized a collective group performance required
less effort by individuals compared to the sum of their individual
efforts (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). The effect he noted has been termed
the Ringlemann Effect. In this experiment, participants pulled on a rope
attached to a strain gauge. Ringlemann noted that two individuals
pulling the rope only exerted 93% of their individual efforts. A group
of three individuals exerted 85% and groups of eight exerted 49% of
their combined individual effort. As more individuals pulled on the
rope, each individual exerted themselves less. From these observations,
Ringlemann determined that individuals perform below their potential
when working in a group (LaFasto & Larson, 2001, p. 77).

Since Ringlemann's observation, social loafing has been identified in
numerous studies. Social loafing has several causes and effects that
will be discussed in this document, as well as methods for dealing with
social loafing to promote more effective group work.

\'Ringleman\'s brainchild of social loafing has now been used within a
diverse variety of studies, ranging from its impact on sports teams to
the affects on groups within huge conglomerates.' (Dr Karen Virendra
Patel, 2002; pg 124)\'\'\'\'\'

## Causes of Social Loafing

Many theories explain why social loafing occurs., below are several
explanations of social loafing causes:

**Equitable contribution**: Team members believe that others are not
putting forth as much effort as themselves. Since they feel that the
others in the group are slacking, they lessen their efforts too. This
causes a downward cycle that ends at the point where only the minimum
amount of work is performed.

**Submaximal goal setting**: Team members may perceive that with a
well-defined goal and with several people working towards it, they can
work less for it. The task then becomes optimizing rather than
maximizing.

**Lessened contingency between input and outcome**: Team members may
feel they can hide in the crowd and avoid the consequences of not
contributing. Or, a team member may feel lost in the crowd and unable to
gain recognition for their contributions (Latane, 1998). This
description is characteristic of people driven by their uniqueness and
individuality. In a group, they lose this individuality and the
recognition that comes with their contributions. Therefore, these group
members lose motivation to offer their full ability since it will not be
acknowledged (Charbonnier et al., 1998). Additionally, large group sizes
can cause individuals to feel lost in the crowd. With so many
individuals contributing, some may feel that their efforts are not
needed or will not be recognized (Kerr, 1989).

**Lack of evaluation**: Loafing begins or is strengthened in the absence
of an individual evaluation structure imposed by the environment (Price
& Harrison, 2006). This occurs because working in the group environment
results in less self-awareness (Mullen, 1983). For example, a member of
a sales team will loaf when sales of the group are measured rather than
individual sales efforts.

**Unequal distribution of compensation**: In the workplace, compensation
comes in monetary forms and promotions and in academics it is in the
form of grades or positive feedback. If an individual believes
compensation has not been allotted equally amongst group members, he
will withdraw his individual efforts (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005).

**Non-cohesive group**: A group functions effectively when members have
bonded and created high-quality relationships. If the group is not
cohesive, members are more prone to social loafing since they are not
concerned about letting down their teammates (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005).

## Effects of Social Loafing

Social loafing engenders negative consequences that affect both the
group as a whole as well as the individual.

### Effects on Groups

As explained in the Ringlemann Effect, output decreases with increased
group membership, due to social loafing. This effect is demonstrated in
another study by Latane, et al. In this experiment subjects were asked
to yell or clap as loudly as possible. As in Ringlemann's study, the
overall loudness increased while individual output decreased. People
averaged 3.7 dynes/sq cm individually, 2.6 in pairs, 1.8 in a group of
four, and 1.5 in a group of six. In this study there was no block effect
(indicating tiredness or lack of practice). Due to social loafing,
average output for each individual decreases due to the perception that
others in the group are not putting forth as much effort as the
individual.

In considering this first experiment, some individuals suggested that
results might be invalid due to acoustics (i.e. voices canceling each
other out or voices not synchronized). To disprove this theory, another
experiment was performed. For this study, participants were placed in
individual rooms and wore headphones. In repeated trials, these
participants were told they were either shouting alone or as part of a
group. The results demonstrated the same trend as in the first
experiment\--individual performance decreased as a group size increased
(Latane, 1979).

In reality, there are not many groups with the objective of yelling
loud, however the example above illustrates a principle that is common
in business, family, education, and in social gatherings that harms the
overall integrity and performance of a team by reducing the level of
output, one individual at a time. The negative social cues involved with
social loafing produce decreased group performance (Schnake, 1991, p.
51). Reasonable consequences of social loafing also include
dissatisfaction with group members who fail to contribute equally and
the creation of in groups and out groups. Additionally, groups will lack
the talents that could be offered by those who choose to not contribute.
All of these factors result in less productivity.

### Effects on Individuals

The preceding section identifies the effect of social loafing on a group
which is arguably the most prominent consequence of the group behavior.
However, social loafing also has an impact on the individuals that
comprise the group. There are various side effects that individuals may
experience.

One potential side effect is the lack of satisfaction that a member of
the group might experience, thereby becoming disappointed or depressed
at the end of project. When a member of a group becomes a social loafer,
the member reduces any opportunity he might have had to grow in his
ability and knowledge. Today, many college level classes focus on group
projects. The ability for an individual to participate in social loafing
increases at the group increases in number. However, if these groups
remain small the individual will not have the opportunity to become
invisible to the group and their lack of input will be readily evident.
The lack of identifiably in a group is a psychological production that
has been documented in several studies. (Carron, Burke & Prapavessis,
2004)

Social loafing can also negatively impact individuals in the group who
perform the bulk of the work. For example, in schoolwork teams are often
comprised of children of varying capacities. Without individual
accountability, often only one or a few group members will do most of
the work to make up for what the other students lack. Cheri Yecke,
Minnesota's commissioner of education, explains that in these instances
group work can be detrimental to the student(s) who feel resentment and
frustration from carrying the weight of the work. Yecke recounted an
experience of one child who felt she had to "slow down the pace of her
learning and that she could not challenge the group, or she would be
punished" with a lower grade than desired. Especially in situations
where members of the group of differing abilities, social loafing
negatively affects group members who carry the weight of the group.

## Variation in Social Loafing

### Culture

Social loafing is more likely to occur in societies where the focus is
on the individual rather than the group. This phenomenon was observed in
a study comparing American managers (individualistic values) to Chinese
managers (collectivistic values). Researchers found that social loafing
occurred with the American managers while there was no such occurrence
with the Chinese managers. The researchers explained this through a
comparison between collectivistic and individualistic orientations.

A collectivistic orientation places group goals and collective action
ahead of self-interests. This reinforces the participants\' desires to
pursue group goals in order to benefit the group. People from this
orientation view their individual actions as an important contribution
to the group\'s well-being. They also gain satisfaction and feelings of
accomplishment from group outcomes. Further, collectivists anticipate
that other group members will contribute to the groups\' performance and
so they choose to do the same in return. They view their contributions
to group accomplishments as important and role-defined (Earley, 1989).

In contrast, an individualist\'s motive is focused on self-interest.
Actions by these individuals emphasize personal gain and rewards based
on their particular accomplishments. An individualist anticipates
rewards contingent on individual performance. Contribution toward
achieving collective goals is inconsistent with the self-interest motive
unless differential awards are made by the group. Individuals whose
contributions to group output go unnoticed have little incentive to
contribute, since they can \"loaf\" without fear of consequences. As a
result, an individualist can maximize personal gain without putting
forth as much effort as had he/she done the work individually. The
self-interest motive stresses individual outcomes and gain over the
collective good (Earley, 1989).

### Gender

![](Hutterer-Frauen_bei_der_Arbeit.jpg "Hutterer-Frauen_bei_der_Arbeit.jpg"){width="200"}
Research indicates that women are more inclined to sustain group
cohesion where men are more interested in task achievement. As a result,
women, who deem collective tasks more significant than individual tasks,
are less likely to engage in social loafing than men. This phenomenon is
demonstrated in a study conducted by Naoki Kugihara. To determine the
social loafing effect on men versus women, he had 18 Japanese men and 18
Japanese women pull on a rope, similar to the Ringlemann experiment. On
the questionnaire, several participants indicated their perception that
they pulled with their full strength. However, Kugihara observed the men
did decrease their effort once involved in collective rope pulling.
Conversely, the women did not show a change in effort once involved
collectively.

In the paper reporting the results of this study, Kugihara explains some
reasoning behind this different reaction between men and women. In
observing Japanese junior high students, Tachibana and Koyasu found that
boys engaged more earnestly in the task when they were told that
achievement was being measured. When they were told they could relax and
enjoy the task, the boys did not put forth as much effort. However, with
the girls they did not notice any change in effort between the
achievement and relaxation tasks. These results indicate that men are
more likely to engage in social loafing in a group setting because they
will not be driven by achievement motivation since their efforts will
not be as visible. However, women tend to not be affected by achievement
motivation and therefore are less likely to engage in social loafing
(1999).

## Confronting the Social Loafer

![](Two_koreans_in_discussion.jpg){width="200"}

No one ever likes to be confronted or told what to do. So in a group
setting, what is the best way to make the most out of each individual's
contributions? Especially in groups where there is no designated leader,
it is difficult for one group member to confront another. However, Dan
Rothwell offers advice for handling these situations.

**Private confrontation**: The team leader or a selected team member
should confront the social loafer individually. This individual should
solicit the reasons for the lackluster effort. Additionally, the loafer
should be encouraged to participate and understand the importance of his
contributions.

**Group confrontation**: The entire group can address the problem to the
dissenting team member and specifically address the problem(s) they have
observed. They should attempt to resolve the problem and refrain from
deleterious attacks on the slacking individual.

**Superior assistance**: After trying to address the problem with the
individual both privately and as a group, group members should seek the
advice of a superior, whether it be a teacher, boss or other authority
figure. Where possible, group members should provide documented evidence
of the loafing engaged by the individual (De Vita, 2001). The person in
authority can directly address the problem with the lackluster team
member.

**Exclusion**: The loafer should only be booted out of the group as a
last resort. However, this option may not be feasible in some instances.

**Circumvention**: If all the above steps have been attempted without
result, then the group can reorganize tasks and responsibilities. This
should be done in a manner that will result in a desirable outcome
whether or not the loafer contributes.

(Rothwell, 2004)

## Preventing Social Loafing

![](Traitdunion_02-2002_Ostia-Talk_LR.jpg "Traitdunion_02-2002_Ostia-Talk_LR.jpg"){width="300"}

In order to prevent or limit the effects of social loafing, there are a
number of guidelines a team leader might initiate to manage team
members' efforts toward team goals. Though some do depend upon the
nature of the team and the type of team, most of these guidelines can be
adapted to provide a positive benefit to all teams.

**Develop rules of conduct**: Setting rules at the beginning will help
all team members achieve the team objectives and performance goals.
Establishing ground rules can help to prevent social loafing and
free-riding behaviors by providing assurances that free-riding attempts
will be dealt with (Cox, 2007).

**Create appropriate group sizes**: Do not create or allow a team to
undertake a two-man job. For example, municipal maintenance crews often
have crew members standing around watching one or two individuals work.
Does that job really require that many crew members?

**Establish individual accountability**: This is critical for initial
assignments that set the stage for the rest of the task (Team Based).
Tasks that require pre-work and input from all group members produce a
set of dynamics that largely prevent social loafing from happening in
the first place. If this expectation is set early, individuals will
avoid the consequences of being held accountable for poor work.

**Encourage group loyalty**: Not all cultures experience social loafing.
In China, social striving, the opposite of social loafing, occurs. In
these cases, individual performance is enhanced by being in a group
(Davies, 2006). The individuals care more about the success of the group
than their own success. They have a clear view of the group's objective
and what leads to its fulfillment. This sense of group loyalty is
created by individual awareness of the team's position in reaching the
goal. If production plant employees know the goal, know how far they
need to go, and where the competition is, they are more inclined to work
towards the goal than if they did not have that knowledge.

**Implement peer evaluation**: In academic cultures, college instructors
use peer evaluations to instill accountability for individual
contributions in group products. These evaluations are given early in
the term and are more effective in deterring social loafing than peer
evaluations given later in the term (Brooks & Ammons, 2003).

**Write a team contract**: Confusion and miscommunication can cause
social loafing. Although it may seem formal, writing a team contract is
a good first step in setting group rules and preventing social loafing.
This contract should include several important pieces of information
such as group expectations, individual responsibilities, forms of group
communication, and methods of discipline. If each group member has a
measurable responsibility that they alone are accountable for, he is not
able to rely on the group for his portion of responsibility.

**Choose complementary team members**: When possible, carefully choose
individuals to join a team. Make sure they have strengths and
personalities that will complement other group members rather than deter
from reaching the group goal.

**Minimize group size**: Whenever possible, minimize the number of
people within a group. The fewer people available to diffuse
responsibility to, the less likely social loafing will occur.

**Establish ground rules**: Discuss what the team's goals and objectives
are and then develop a process to meet them. Agree to perform by team
roles discussed in the initial meeting of a project. Also discuss
consequences of not following rules and the process to call an
individual on their negative behavior.

**Specifically define the task**: Clarify the importance of the task to
the team and assign members to do particular assignments. Establish
expectations through specific measurable and observable outcomes, such
as due dates. At the end of each meeting, refresh everyone's memories as
to who is required to do what by when and offer clarification on
required duties.

**Create personal relationships**: Provide opportunities for members to
socialize and establish trusting relationships. Dedicated relationships
cause people to fulfill their duties more efficiently.

**Highlight achievement**: Invite members of management to attend team
sessions. Allow team accomplishments to shine through to superiors.
Close meetings by summarizing their group's successes. Pat them on the
back and remind them of their upcoming duties.

**Establish task importance**: Allow team members the opportunity to
demonstrate their willingness to do their work in a timely fashion.

**Evaluate progress**: Meet individually with team members to assess
their successes and areas of improvement. Discuss ways in which the team
leader may provide additional support so the task may be completed. When
possible, develop an evaluation based on an individual contribution.
This can be accomplished through individual group members' evaluations
of others on team.

**Manage discussions**: Ensure that all team members have the
opportunity to speak. Make every individual feel they have a valuable
role on the team and their input is important to group success.

**Engage individuals**: When intrinsic involvement in the task is high,
workers may feel that their efforts are very important for the success
of the group and thus may be unlikely to engage in social loafing even
if the task visibility is low.

## References

Brooks, C. & Ammons, J. (2003). Free Riding in Group Projects and the
Effects of Timing, Frequency and Specificity of Criteria in Peer
Assessment. *Journal of Education for Business*, May-June

Carron, A., Burke, S. & Prapavessis, H. (2004). *Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology*, Vol. 16, 41-58

Charbonnier, E., Huguet, P., Brauer, M., Monteil, J. (1998). Social
loafing and self-beliefs: People\'s collective effort depends on the
extent to which they distinguish themselves as better than others.
*Social Behavior and Personality*.

Cox, Pamela L. and Brobrowski, Paula E. The team charter assignment:
Improving the effectiveness of classroom teams. Cazenovia College, State
University of New York, *Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management*.
2000, Vol.1(1), Page 92. 9 July 2007.
\<<http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol1/article_6.htm>\>.

Davies, Jamie and Holah, Mark. Social Loafing. Learn Psychology.net.
2006, Slapes Design & Hosting. 8 July 2007. \<
<http://www.learnpsychology.net/g/448>\>.

De Vita, Glauco (2001, Winter). The use of group work in large and
diverse business management classes: Some critical issues. *The
International Journal of Management Education*, 1(3), 26-34.

Earley, P.C (1989). Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the
United States and the People\'s Republic of China. *Administrative
Science Quarterly in Business*, Vol. 34, 565-581.

Faris, A. & Brown, J. (2003). Addressing Group Dynamics in a Brief
Motivational Intervention for College Student Drinkers. *Journal of Drug
Education*, Vol. 33 (3), 289-306

Hardy, C.J. & Crace, R.K. (1991). The Effects of Task Structure and
Teammate Competence on Social Loafing. *Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology*, Vol. 13, 372-381

Kerr, N.L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on
perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. *Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology* , 25, 287-313.

Kravitz, D.A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The
original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(5),
936-941.

Kugihara, Noaki (1999). Gender and Social Loafing in Japan. *Journal of
Social Psychology*. pp 516-526.

LaFasto, F. & Larson C. (2001). When teams work best. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many Hands Make Light
The Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. *Journal of
Personal Sociology and Psychology*, Vol. (37), 822-832.

Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the
individual: A self-attention perspective. *Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology* , 19, 295-322.

Piezon, S.L. & Donaldson, R.L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing:
Understanding student-group interactions. *Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration*, 8(4). Retrieved online July 7, 2007 at
<http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm>

Plaks, J.E. & Higgins, E.T. (2000). Pragmatic Use of Stereotyping in
Teamwork: Social Loafing and compensation as a function of Inferred
Partner-Situation Fit. *Journal of Persocal Sociology and Psychology*,
Vol. 79 (6), 962-974

Price, K.H. & Harrison, D.A. (2006). Withholding inputs in team context:
Member composition, interaction process, evaluation structure, and
social loafing. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, Vol. 91(6).

Rothwell, Dan (2004). *In Mixed Company*. California: Thomson Wadsworth.

Schnake, M.E.(1991, March). Equity in Effort: The \'sucker effect\' in
co-acting groups. *Journal of Management*, 17(1), 41-56.

Team Based Learning: Alternative to Lecturing in Large Class Settings.
Faculty of Applied Science, University of British Columbia.
\<ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca/wiki/images/e/e8/Group_Activities_condensed_v5.doc\>.

Yecke, C.P. (2004, January 18). Cooperative learning can backfire. *The
Star Tribune*

