Have you ever noticed how the emotions of one member of your family, especially strong emotions, can influence the emotions of the other members? A family can be a highly normative group. So can a task group whose members work together on a daily basis, because frequent communication can increase the power of norms. A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa. This may not be surprising, but researchers also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups—in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.19 As we discovered in Chapter 4, our emotions and moods can shape our perspective, so the normative effect of groups can powerfully influence group attitudes and outcomes.

As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are susceptible to conforming to group norms. Considerable evidence suggests that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to match the group’s standard.20

The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others.21 Asch made up groups of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards. One card had one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was identical to the line on the one-line card, as Exhibit 9-2 shows. The difference in line length was obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects were incorrect less than 1 percent of the time in announcing which of the three lines matched the single line.

The experiment began with sets of matching exercises. Everyone gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject, who was part of the research team, gave an obviously wrong answer—for example, saying “C” in Exhibit 9-2. The next subject, also on the research team, gave the same wrong answer, and so forth. Now the dilemma confronting the subject, who didn’t know any of the subjects were on the research team, was this: publicly state a perception that differed from the announced position of the others, or give an incorrect answer that agreed with the others.

The results over many experiments showed 75 percent of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed—that they knew was wrong but was consistent with the replies of other group members—and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37 percent of the time. But does that mean we are mere robots? Certainly not. Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Again, obviously not. People conform most to their reference groups, important groups in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her.

Norms can cover any aspect of group behavior.22 As we’ve mentioned, norms in the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. This may seem intuitive, but full appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the Hawthorne Studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 with production workers at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago.23 Subsequent studies have reinforced the general findings, so next we detail the Hawthorne experiments for you.

The researchers first examined the relationship between the physical environment—specifically, the amount of light on the shop floor—and productivity. As they increased the light level for the experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and the control group. But as they dropped the light level, productivity continued to increase. In fact, productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity had been reduced to that of moonlight, leading researchers to believe that group dynamics, rather than the environment, influenced behavior.

The researchers next isolated a small group of women assembling telephones so their behavior could be more carefully observed. Over the next several years, this small group’s output increased steadily, and the number of personal and sick absences was approximately one-third of that in the regular production department. It became evident this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its “special” status. The members thought they were in an elite group, and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received.

A wage-incentive plan was then introduced in the bank wiring observation room. The most important finding was that employees did not individually maximize their output. Rather, their role performance became controlled by a group norm. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate might be cut, the expected daily output might be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers might be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output—neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level, and the norms the group established included a number of behavioral “don’ts.” Don’t be a rate-buster—turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler—turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. The group enforced its norms with name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arms of violators. The group thus operated well below its capability, using norms that were tightly established and strongly enforced.

One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR; see Chapter 3) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might expect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. However, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Why? The clear expectations about male–female interactions usually present in high PC environments reduce uncertainty about group expectations,24 which allows the members to more easily express their creative ideas without combating stereotype norms.

Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. For instance, in a recent study a high level of group extraversion predicted helping behaviors more strongly when there were positive cooperation norms.25 As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity with the group. Also, a recent study in Germany indicated that the more satisfied people were with their groups, the more closely they followed group norms.26

LeBron is frustrated by a coworker who constantly spreads malicious and unsubstantiated rumors about him. Lindsay is tired of a member of her workgroup who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by yelling and screaming at her and other members. And Mi-Cha recently quit her job as a dental hygienist after being sexually harassed by her employer.

What do these illustrations have in common? They represent employees exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior.27 As we discussed in Chapter 3, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) or deviant workplace behavior is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members. Exhibit 9-3 provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors, with examples of each.

Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage or sustain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we discussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative attributes. When those attributes are negative, such as when a workgroup is high in psychopathy and aggression, the characteristics of deceit, amorality, and intent to harm others are pronounced.28 Second, employees have been reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behaviors, has many negative outcomes for those on the receiving end.29 Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it.30 Also, a study of nearly 1,500 respondents found that in addition to increasing their intentions to leave, incivility at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness.31 Third, research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more with less and pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may indirectly be facilitating deviant behavior.32

Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society? In one recent experiment, an organizational role-playing exercise was given to a neutral group of subjects; the exercise stressed either collectivist or individualist (see Chapter 4) norms. Subjects were then given a task of their personal choice or were assigned one by an ingroup or outgroup person. When the individualist-primed subjects were allowed personal choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated.33