How managers can prevent social loafing in teams

Social Loafing: A plan for change

Overview and plan to prevent social loafing

Anyone who has ever been involved in a group project is familiar with the phenomenon of social loafing. Even in school, there is always one student who will coast along on the hard work of other students who are more conscientious and dedicated. The profile is business is the same regarding this phenomenon: "it can be easier to conceal laziness when working in a group of people who are working together" (Social loafing, 2009, Changing Minds). As early as 1913 Max Ringelmann found that when a group of men were asked to pull on a rope, they each pulled less hard than when pulling alone (Social loafing, 2009, Changing Minds). Individuals in a crowd are also found to clap less vigorously than if they are in a small group or alone (Coleman 2001). According to Latane's social impact theory: "if a person is the target of social forces, increasing the number of other persons diminishes the relative social pressure on each person. If the individual inputs are not identifiable the person may work less hard. Thus if the person is dividing up the work to be performed or the amount of reward he expects to receive, he will work less hard in groups" (Latane & Harkins 2009).

In the context of a work team, some individuals who are committed to excellence will know that they will be judged on the performance of the team and will work tirelessly to ensure the team performs to a high standard. Those members who do not care benefit from their dedication without putting in any effort. The central problem with social loafing is that it is unfair to those who work, and the amount of social loafing, if it is allowed to increase, will eventually result in lost productivity, as more and more individuals (human nature being what it is) will fail to work hard, as they see no reward in doing so. This may additionally creates the perception that management does not care about fairness, is 'clueless' about the social dynamics on work teams. It also does not use all of the productive human resources of the assembled team. Presumably, the team was created with a certain number of individuals with particular skills, and if not all of these resources and skills are deployed, the project may fail to reap the desired results. "When we are working in a group, it can be easier to conceal laziness when working with a group of people who are working together" (Social loafing, 2009, Changing Minds).

Geographically dispersed multicultural teams are even more prone to social loafing, given that there is a greater tendency to behave 'badly' when one is not being watched, and a greater diversity of cultural and work values on the team. There may be even a greater loss of productivity as individuals will assume that others are doing the work, and thus there is less of a tendency for a few members to pick up the loafer's slack -- in short, everyone becomes a loafer. Additionally, multicultural teams may have more diffuse values and loyalties as individuals and there may be a lack of commitment to the group as a result, because of a lack of personal friendship as well as work-related values. It is essential to first: 1) foster individual accountability and 2) create a common sense of group loyalty.

Preventing social loafing: Specific recommendations and change plan

It should be noted that social loafing is not inevitable -- in fact, in some instances there is a phenomenon that exists directly contrary to the phenomenon of social loafing, namely social facilitation (Social loafing, 2009, Changing Minds). Social loafers often have a particular social profile: "The key here is that the loafer is not worried about being evaluated. This can also be an attraction of being an acknowledge expert or in a position of authority: although it may take time to climb the mountain, you may be able to relax once you have got there" (Social loafing, 2009, Changing Minds). The loafer is confident that his or her performance of lack thereof will not result in him or her being punitively judged by others, and he or she has little at stake in the outcome or the negative social judgments of those on the task. "When we are being evaluated, such as when working on a team task, we will work hard to ensure nobody can criticize us for not pulling our weight. People who have less concern for groups are more likely to be social loafers, such as men and Western societies in general" (Social loafing, 2009, Changing Minds).

Step 1: Accountability

To undercut the tendency to socially loaf within a group, managers should increase supervision of the group by an outside authority, so individual as well as group performance is evaluated. Although the Japanese approach to management where team rather than individual performance is weighted is seen as praiseworthy and avoids a focus on 'me' rather than 'us,' the culture of the individual workplace must be acknowledged. If individuals first and foremost see themselves as individuals, creating an evaluative dynamic that rewards social loafing will not help, and creating some sense of individual accountability mechanism will be necessary while that group identity takes form. "Japanese business persons describe themselves first as members of a particular group, and then mention their names and departments in the company where they are working," and "Japanese parents teach their children from their childhood to play together with other children. Kindergarten teachers guide their students to suppress individual desire in favor of the rules of the particular group" (Sai, 2001, p.121). But such a sense of collaboration cannot be taken for granted amongst individuals from all culture. Japanese workplaces are often even set up differently from American workplaces -- there are few barriers and divisions between work units to create a sense of a collective surveillance, workers cannot cloister themselves in cubicles as segmented units.

Culturally diverse teams, with representatives of individuals from individualistic and collectivist cultures may thus be especially vulnerable to social loafing on the part of those who are not used to being rewarded for team performance. Thus, an outside authority should observe the group and work, and consult, at least by email or preferably regularly in individual conferences, about how the group is working to 'feel out' the group. Emailing dispersed team members may be necessary, and additional probing regarding the team dynamics of workers of more collectivist orientations may be helpful, given that they may be more likely to be the victims of social loafing. Research indicates sense of being accountable is essential for most people to uphold the social value of honesty, and even simply the presence of accountability and watchfulness devices increases honesty. "A Newcastle University team monitored how much money people put in a canteen 'honesty box' when buying a drink. They found people put nearly three times as much in when a poster of a pair of eyes was put above the box than when the poster showed flowers" (Big brother eyes boost honesty, 2006, BBC)

Step 2: Create cohesion

Geographically dispersed teams are also more prone to social loafing because the stimulation of social facilitation, the counteraction to social loafing, is far less present. One of the reasons for social facilitation, or enhanced individual performance as a result of group dynamics, is that the physical presence of others can make a task feel easier and encourage compliance: "The presence of others increases physiological arousal such that our bodies become more energized, and secondly because when we are aroused it is more difficult to perform new or difficult tasks" (Social facilitation, 2009, Changing minds). Having meetings at least occasionally in the real world thus is best to increase compliance amongst geographically dispersed teams, but if this is not possible, conference calls, regular meetings on Internet chat rooms, and fostering as much positive physiological arousal through technology can be helpful -- in short, creating a collective sense of accountability and identity.

Creating a common ethos where individuals feel a social as well as a performance investment in the success of the project is necessary as well as formal prodding and surveillance: To avoid social loafing, make sure everyone in a group knows that they can easily be evaluated by others. Creating a culture of social loafing can be dangerous, even for employees who might work hard otherwise: "Watching other bystanders. Individuals are guided in their behavior by observing other bystanders. They may be aware that the individuals they are observing are acting irresponsibly, yet they may do nothing to intervene because they assume that keeping silent is the norm" (Bansal & Kandola 2004).