- Home
- Sport Management and Sport Business
- Sociology of Sport
- Recreation and Leisure
- Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services
Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services
by Timothy S. O'Connell and Brent Cuthbertson
Edited by Terilyn J. Goins
320 Pages
Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services presents cutting-edge guidance and helps students apply their newfound knowledge as they prepare to enter the rapidly changing leisure services field.
This text presents fresh insights on leadership from the most prominent voices in the field today. The contributors present a comprehensive look at modern leadership, identify the challenges future leaders will face, and reveal how future leaders can best prepare to meet those challenges.
Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services provides
• a detailed look at the collaborative approach to leadership in leisure services that represents a new direction in the field;
• insight into classical leadership as well as innovative and modern leadership theory and best practices; and
• an understanding of the roles and functions students will fulfill as they enter the profession.
The material, designed for undergraduate recreation and leisure services leadership courses, is presented in three parts. Part I explores personal leadership issues, including communication skills, negotiation strategies, and leadership styles. Part II delves into professional leadership, examining topics such as group dynamics, supervision practices, and team leadership. Part III explores organizational leadership, including internal and external leadership and professional development.
The authors present new theories of leadership from research in the field of recreation and leisure. Several learning aids—including chapter-opening scenarios, key terms, glossary, references, and chapter-ending questions for reflection and discussion—appear throughout the text. In addition, each chapter features a Leisure Leaders sidebar that profiles a leader in the field who addresses preparation for the job, a peek at day-to-day work, and advice for aspiring leaders. And a Best Practices sidebar showcases an organization whose innovative leadership has led to positive organizational outcomes.
Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services helps students understand the range of leadership skills they need to develop for successful careers.
Part I Personal Leadership
Chapter 1 Introduction to 21st-Century Leadership in Leisure Services
Tim O’Connell
What Is Leadership?
Recreation and Leisure Services Leaders in the 21st Century
Setting the Stage for Leading in 21st-Century Recreation and Leisure Services
Summary
Chapter 2 Self-Leadership
Brent Cuthbertson
Toward a Definition of Leadership
Understanding Your Self
Personality
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
Summary
Chapter 3 Interpersonal Communication Skills
Terilyn Goins
The Nature of Interpersonal Communication
Listening and the Perception Process
Communication Competence and Leadership
Task- Versus Relations-Oriented Leadership
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
Interpersonal Leadership Model
Summary
Chapter 4 Facilitating Group Experiences
Brent Wolfe
Foundational Definitions
Roles of a Facilitator
Facilitation Techniques
Summary
Chapter 5 Leadership, Diversity, and Inclusion
Lynn Anderson
Diversity Defined
Variations: A New Way of Thinking
Inclusive Leadership
Professional Development for Inclusive Leaders
The New Norm
Best Practices in Inclusive Leadership
Summary
Chapter 6 Leadership Styles and Ethics
Mary Breunig
Leadership Theories
Values and Ethics
Decision Making
Summary
Part II Leading as a Professional in Leisure Services
Chapter 7 Understanding Group Dynamics
Tim O’Connell and Michael Van Bussel
Groups Defined
History of Groups
Group Development
Norms
Roles
Group Size
Cohesion
Socialization
Environmental Factors
Leadership Theory and Working With Groups
Common Issues With Groups
Summary
Chapter 8 Direct Leadership in Recreation, Leisure, Hospitality, and Tourism
Michael Van Bussel
Motivation
Preferences in Leadership Behavior
Dimensions of Leader Behavior
Multidimensional Model of Leadership
Tools for Direct Leadership: Setting Goals and Objectives
Summary
Chapter 9 Supervising Staff and Volunteers
Marilynn R. Glasser
Defining Supervision
Supervisors’ Responsibilities
Supervising Volunteers
How to Be a Top-Notch Parks and Recreation Supervisor
Summary
Chapter 10 Team Development and Team Leadership
Greg Robinson
Understanding Team Development
Teamwork in the 21st Century
Team Learning Dynamics
Team Formation
Individual Factors for Team Success
Team and Individual Leadership
Team Delivery Programs
Successful and Unsuccessful Team Development
Summary
Chapter 11 Risk Management in Leadership
Robert Kauffman
Negligence Considerations
Designing the Experience
2\x\2 Risk Matrix: Perceived Versus Actual Risks
Adventure Experience Paradigm
Accident Causation and Safety Management
Summary
Part III Organizational Leadership
Chapter 12 Internal Organizational Leadership and Professional Development
Amy Hurd
Succession Planning
Step 1: Understand Agency Development Needs
Step 2: Assess Job Demands, Competencies, and Bench Strength
Step 3: Build the Talent Pool
Summary
Chapter 13 External Community and Organizational Leadership
Dale Larsen
External Community Leaders
External Organizational Leadership
Summary
Chapter 14 Leading in the Profession
Jane H. Adams and Elaine Schilling
Macro Trends Affecting Parks and Recreation
Competencies for the 21st-Century Parks and Recreation Leader
Summary
Timothy S. O’Connell, PhD, is a professor of recreation and leisure studies at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. He has taught group dynamics since 1997 and has been a wilderness guide since 1991. A member of the National Recreation and Parks Association, the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, the Association for Experiential Education, and the Council of Outdoor Educators of Ontario, O’Connell has developed outdoor recreation curricula and coedited the Journal of Experiential Education. He has received many awards for his teaching. An avid outdoor recreationist, O’Connell enjoys rock climbing, sea kayaking, and home brewing in his spare time.
Brent Cuthbertson, PhD, is an associate professor of outdoor recreation, parks, and tourism at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario. He has been a wilderness educator and guide for more than 25 years and coeditor of the Journal of Experiential Education. He has written book chapters, papers in refereed journals, and a variety of other refereed and nonrefereed contributions. Cuthbertson has received awards for his teaching excellence. In his leisure time he enjoys wilderness canoeing, sea kayaking, woodworking, and sailing.
Terilyn J. Goins, PhD, is a career management and independent consultant is Yorktown, Virginia. She worked for 19 years for Christopher Newport University as a professor of communication studies and leadership studies. She also served for four years as chair of the communication studies department at the university. Goins received the National Speaker’s Association Outstanding Professor Award, was voted Professor of the Year at Christopher Newport University by the student body, and has published numerous articles for trade and academic journals related to personal and professional growth and development.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Values, Beliefs, and Emotional Intelligence
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you.
If it is not clear yet in this chapter, let me be unequivocal now. Leadership - your leadership - is about you. Your ability to be the best leader you can be does not depend on your attempts to copy others or emulate great historical figures. Rather, it has everything to do with knowing who you are and understanding what you need to do to become a better version of you. It is all about you. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't learn from others, but you need to evaluate how what you learn from others will fit in with your own leadership style. In your ongoing efforts to know and improve your leadership, it is also important to recognize that your beliefs and values have a significant role to play.
Beliefs are the ideas and concepts that we hold to be true, even without complete knowledge or evidence. Many people, for instance, have religious beliefs that they hold dearly. People can believe in ghosts, in the existence of life on other worlds, or that they have a soul mate. Beliefs are generally not provable (at least for the time being; they may be proved or disproved later on), but they are important nonetheless because they form the basis for our values systems. Values, then, are ideas that we hold to be important. They tend to form directives for us to follow. As we weave together values we choose to live by, we create a values system, a coherent and internally consistent set of related values.
Values are outgrowths of our beliefs. We can believe a great many things, and those beliefs that have a moral imperative will potentially lead us to make some sort of value statement - or statements - that are dependent on the beliefs we hold. It is not always the case that a stated value is accompanied by a stated belief. The underlying belief may be unstated or implied, but it is present regardless. To understand the relationship between beliefs and values, consider the Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov's collection of science fiction short stories, I, Robot (1950):
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These laws described by Asimov are correctly thought of as values. They give direction for how robots should behave and how humans can expect robots to behave. They describe what is important in robot - human relationships. What is left unsaid is the foundation on which these values rest. Two beliefs that might inform the Three Laws of Robotics could be expressed like this:
- Human beings are more important than robots.
- The purpose of robots is to serve human beings.
People must believe these two statements to be true to hold the values set out by the Three Laws.
We all have beliefs and values that guide our actions. Depending on the amount of work and thought we have put into reflecting on them, our systems of beliefs and values will have varying degrees of consistency. In other words, if you have not spent any time thinking about the things that matter to you and the ideas you believe to be true, you likely either have a hodgepodge of beliefs and values that often conflict, or have simply adopted the beliefs and values of someone else, who has essentially done the work for you. In the first case, life may be more confusing than you would like it to be, whereas in the second case, you may not actually believe or value some of the things set out for you, which can cause internal conflict. The result is also confusion because you may feel compelled to act against your true values or ignore the values you claim to hold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was so convinced that personal growth was the highest purpose for humans that he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Although some may consider his statement extreme, research does show that critical reflection of one's beliefs and values tends to lead to personal growth and more consistent, more effective leadership. In their research on the subject, Kouzes and Posner (2006) found that "Clarity of personal values matters greatly to our feeling motivated, creative, and committed to our workplaces. When we're clear about our personal values, we feel empowered, ready and prepared to take action. Ready to be a leader" (p. 96).
As Kouzes and Posner maintain, a solid, well-thought-out system of beliefs and values is essential for developing authenticity in your leadership, the kind of leadership that demonstrates self-confidence and earns the respect of others. The question is: How do you go about examining your beliefs and values?
Like personality constructs, beliefs and values are complex and not easily pinpointed. You will also find that no values system is perfectly consistent. In addition, as a naturally flawed human being, you will never be able to live up to all of your values all of the time. Your values, and even your beliefs, will likely change with time as you learn new things and as some of your beliefs become refined or even refuted. Keeping an open mind and being willing to grow can also be important in the development of your values.
Many online sources offer lists of values that you can review and then choose as priorities. However, you can also develop your own list of values that may be more meaningful than those in lists provided by others. This way, you can be more specific and even create descriptive values statements rather than single words.
Beliefs and values are subjective. Even though logic and rationality can be applied to these subjective components, objective rules are of limited value in governing our communications. Have you ever been surprised by someone's reaction to something you've done or said - or something they thought you should have done or said? Have you found yourself feeling upset or elated without fully understanding what is making you feel that way? These common experiences are just two examples of the complexity of human emotions and interactions, and we have all had our share of miscommunication and misunderstanding. However, perhaps you also know people who seem really in touch with their own emotions, who appear to easily read others' emotional states, and always say the right thing. Such people display a high level of what has been called emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed a framework for emotional intelligence (EI), describing it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Social intelligence is the degree to which we can understand the motivations and behaviors of others and adapt our own responses to work and communicate effectively with them. It's no surprise, then, that Salovey and Mayer (1990) saw EI as a set of skills. Like any other set of skills that relates to working with others, emotional intelligence has a lot to say about our effectiveness as leaders.
Goleman (2011) believes that EI and leadership are intimately linked. In fact, he maintains that most models attempting to explain leadership at its most complex are, in their majority, EI-based, with four basic components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness speaks to your knowledge of your own emotional states. Recognizing emotions as they surface, acknowledging the feelings associated with recurrent emotions, and understanding how emotions drive your thoughts and behavior all inform self-awareness.
Self-management is about engaging your emotions in a way that is positive or at least productive. You can choose to modify impulsive emotions; for example, delaying immediate gratification for a bigger gain later on is a form of managing a potentially destructive emotion. Once you have a handle on how you react emotionally to situations (emotional self-awareness), you can adapt and consciously select actions and even thoughts that would create more positive outcomes for you. If a new smartphone has just been released that you would really like to have, would you rush out to buy one, even though your old phone works just fine and a new one will cost you a lot of money? Or, knowing that your current network provider will allow you to upgrade three months from now, could you wait, get the phone for free, and save the money?
In social awareness, empathy - the ability to understand and connect with others - is an important characteristic. If you have had the privilege to be part of or witness a group in which all the members respect each other, take time to really hear and understand each other, and communicate honestly, you have no doubt witnessed the effectiveness that characterizes such groups as well. On the other hand, one or more individuals who are rude in their communication, lack respect for others and their ideas, display contempt, or try to intimidate people in order to push their own agendas can place a group and their productivity in jeopardy. In the latter situation, the motivation to work to your potential can be compromised, and groups full of competent people often fail or do not achieve what they could otherwise.
This understanding of others, and the associated benefits of acting on a heightened social intelligence, is an important asset for leaders. Researchers have found that people can be profoundly affected by the emotional tone set in a group, especially by its leader. The brain state that results in each individual from emotional comfort, emotional detachment, or even anxiety will inevitably influence the way they relate to others and ultimately the outcomes of the group as a whole. In this way, it's easy to see how the emotional well-being of the members in the group should be of great concern for leaders.
Relationship management, the final component of four in Goleman's framework of emotional intelligence, requires that one have a firm grasp of the other three (self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness). From a leadership perspective, this final goal of leading others effectively depends heavily on knowing yourself well, being in control of your own reactions to situations, and understanding others and their motivations. Relationship management involves inspiring others, focusing on teamwork and collaboration, and managing conflict (Goleman, 2011). While these themes are picked up in later chapters with more detail, and are less germane to the topic of self-leadership, perhaps one thing that should be said here is that emotional intelligence is another field of study that makes it clear that successful leadership is contingent on knowing yourself.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Traditional Face-to-Face Versus E-Leadership
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships.
In the technology-rich environment in which we live, our key interpersonal and professional encounters are not likely to be solely face-to-face or virtual. Rather, our relationships exist on a continuum between more or less virtual. Some of us believe that virtual encounters, via Facebook, MySpace, Skype, FaceTime, and the like, enhance our already established relationships. On the other hand, Instagram and Twitterare encounters experienced almost exclusively online, such as IT specialists who contract their services to institutions and perform the majority of their work within the online environment. In exclusively online encounters, face-to-face interactions are supplemental and secondary to the online experience.
As the world grows smaller through technology-driven globalization, questions emerge about the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face leadership models within the virtual environment. In face-to-face interactions, participants enjoy a complete communication experience, along with an immediacy that gives them a chance to reflect, seek feedback, and respond based on the information obtained. Furthermore, the immediacy of face-to-face encounters fosters a sense of aliveness and community that has to be manipulated and created in situations in which people are separated by time, culture, and distance (Kerfoot, 2010). E-leaders, in contrast to traditional leaders, enact their leadership roles in virtual networks such as e-mail, instant messages, videoconferences, webinars, FaceTime, Google Hangout, and Skype. Although such technologies provide quick access to a lot of information and a vast array of communication venues, they can also create feelings of anxiety as a result of information overload (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).
Because of the apparent interpersonal disconnectedness the virtual environment affords, it is natural for e-leaders to focus more time on tasks than relationships. This, of course, is a grave error because rapport, cohesion, and trust are essential to virtual team success. An absence of relational connection can result in increased interpersonal conflict, which inhibits productivity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). Unfortunately, the nature of the virtual environment makes it difficult for leaders to recognize such conflict and address it in a timely fashion. Because of factors such as culture, time, and space differences, along with divergent levels of technological expertise, e-leaders also have difficulty succinctly articulating a vision, a mission, and objectives to virtual participants (Dewar, 2006), which, in turn, potentially squelches feelings of unity and enthusiasm.
Although some leadership behaviors are equally important in face-to-face and virtual settings, evidence suggests that certain actions are more important than others depending on the degree of virtualness. For example, in highly virtual environments, participants believe it is important for leaders to establish a clear and common understanding of tasks, "focusing on outcomes and deliverables rather than on team members' activities" (Zimmerman, Wit, & Gill, 2008, pp. 328-329). Additionally, they suggest that leaders establish and maintain relationships in a time-efficient manner, avert misunderstandings, ensure that everyone feels a part of the team, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and emphasize shared values among team members (Walvoord et al., 2008).
Consider the job of educators offering courses that are administered entirely online. To accomplish similar goals online to those achieved in face-to-face classes, instructors must meticulously measure their words, communicate more frequently, read between the lines students write, engage each student individually rather than as a part of the class, and constantly reassure students that they can succeed in the course. In essence, because there are limited opportunities to engage students as a group within the virtual environment, instructors must work much harder to reach a goal that's comparatively simple to attain in person. Additionally, when a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or conflict occurs in the virtual environment, it takes significant time and effort to repair the damage, and sometimes it's not even possible to do so.
Because people in a virtual setting often have little to no firmly established interpersonal connection to those who lead them, it is all too easy to assign negative or dishonest motives when things go awry. Quashing those attitudes, once in motion, can be quite the feat for even the most experienced leaders.
Leadership Within a Virtual Environment
Without question, leading in online environments presents greater challenges than leading in face-to-face environments. Computer-mediated communication is here to stay; thus, it is essential to consider strategies to enhance the online leadership process. It should be obvious by now that the area in need of the most work within the virtual environment is the interpersonal, relationship dimension of the communication process. When people feel valued, they produce, regardless of the communication medium. Following are some suggestions for improving performance and satisfaction in computer-mediated situations:
- Establish a clear set of rules regarding communication behaviors - how frequent, how much, and to what extent (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008).
- Set consistent meeting times for the group as a whole, and connect via other media whenever possible, such as FaceTime, telephone, Skype, and chat sessions (Cascio, 2000).
- Create an easily accessible central databank of information for participants (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Also, if at all feasible, as early as possible in the process, virtual participants should meet face-to-face, even if it is only once. When virtual groups meet face-to-face, they more readily establish essential interpersonal connections and develop the rapport, respect, and trust they need to carry them through the assigned project(s). Because the focus within the virtual encounter tends to be task oriented, face-to-face meetings should concentrate on relational development among participants and ironing out any existent or potential misunderstandings or conflict issues (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Lantz, 2001; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).
Leadership Within a Hybrid Environment (Both Face-to-Face and Virtual)
Although computer-mediated communication is best suited for certain tasks, such as passive, informational, and nonsocial tasks (e.g., brainstorming), the optimum situation in which to lead is a combination of virtual and face-to-face encounters. When both are used, the task and interpersonal demands can be met with greater ease, thereby enhancing overall productivity. For instance, instructors of hybrid courses that combine virtual and face-to-face instruction do not have to scrutinize every word, nor do they need to expend as much effort to meet every student's need. Face-to-face instruction enables them to cover a topic or address an issue once rather than have to repeat it a number of times, depending on the number of student inquiries. Additionally, impressions of e-leaders tend to be more accurate when interpersonal connectedness is established in the face-to-face encounters. As figure 3.3 illustrates, relational depth tends to function on a continuum of least intimate to most intimate based on degree of face-to-face encounters.
Ten dimensions of intimacy in today's communication.
Reprinted, by permission, from J. Lee.
Advantages of Face-to-Face Communication
For a number of reasons, face-to-face communication may be superior to mediated communication. Face-to-face communication is more nonverbally substantive; and the communication experience is more comprehensive. It presents a stronger social, emotional, and cultural context and is generally less stressful than computer-mediated communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Hancock, 2004; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Walther, 1993). Additionally, when the other person doesn't respond in a virtual environment, you can never be totally certain of whether the person received the message or is simply ignoring you. Unfortunately, this phenomenon often elicits a number of not-so-positive assumptions that can later backfire (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008; Dewar, 2006).
Imagine a situation in which a coworker attempts to contact you via e-mail to discuss an important issue and you don't receive the message. In the absence of a response, your coworker assumes that you are ignoring the message and complains to your boss. The boss subsequently calls you into her office to address your apparent apathy. You're completely taken by surprise because you never received the e-mail, which you tell your boss. The misunderstanding is resolved and the meeting is scheduled. The incident would never have happened had your coworker simply followed up with a telephone call or office visit.
It is possible to avoid such unnecessary communication mishaps by adhering to a few simple e-mail etiquette rules:
- Never use e-mail to address emotionally charged or sensitive issues that are better communicated face-to-face. E-mail should primarily be reserved for exchange of information.
- E-mail the person back within 24 hours of the time the message was sent to you.
- Stay away from flashy colored and patterned backgrounds because they can distract from the message conveyed.
- Avoid using all caps in your e-mail response because it can come across as yelling.
- After a couple of responses on an issue, you need to change the subject of your e-mail. Don't have 20 e-mails referencing an issue that was resolved 15 e-mails back.
- Run a spell-check and then read through your response thoroughly to ensure that it doesn't contain major grammatical errors. If you write Susan went to there house, the spell-checker will not catch this error because the word there is spelled correctly (the correct word is their).
- If you haven't heard back from the person in 72 hours, send a follow-up e-mail to check the status of your original e-mail. If you still receive no response, you may have to resort to picking up the telephone. This will alleviate any unnecessary, and probably inaccurate, assessments about why the person has not responded to your e-mail.
The immediacy of face-to-face encounters creates a strong sense of community and vibrancy that is often difficult to negotiate in computer-mediated environments.
Advantages of Virtual Communication
Although mediated communication introduces chellenges that can typically be avoided in face-to-face encounters, it is not without advantages. We can now interact with people across the globe, which introduces cultural exposure beyond what we could ever have imagined. We can reconnect on Facebook with people we haven't seen or heard from in years; we can have virtual, face-to-face encounters, via FaceTime, Skype, or Google Hangout, with friends and family who live across the globe or across the street; we can play games with complete strangers; we can even meet and court people we've met only over the Internet.
Many people report that the virtual communication experience has actually improved the quantity and quality of their relationships with others, resulting in more regularly scheduled and substantive contact time (Boase et al., 2006; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Wellman et al., 2008). Moreover, the absence of the visual component in many virtual encounters tends to create an equalizing effect and openness among participants that may not exist in face-to-face encounters. Visual cues available face-to-face tend to highlight features we use to discriminate against one another, such as sex, race, attractiveness, body size, age, and physical limitations. The virtual environment, on the other hand, diminishes such power plays, encouraging inclusiveness, respect, and affinity. Put another way, computer-mediated communication focuses more on the content dimension of the interaction and less on the relationship dimension, or at the very least redefines it. In virtual communication, absent the visual display, there is no race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social or cultural status. It is pure, unadulterated human-to-human contact. See figure 3.4 for a visual depiction of the advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Advantages of face-to-face and virtual communication.
Whether face-to-face or virtual, the communication process is complex. For it to succeed, all participants must fully commit to the experience. In face-to-face interactions, it is necessary to confront issues as they emerge, which doesn't always allow for sufficient processing time before forging ahead. Virtual communication, on the other hand, gives participants a chance to step away from the situation, reflect on what's happening, and carefully respond after thinking things through. In any case, it is essential to consider the purpose of the interaction and select the medium of communication that best suits that purpose and can accomplish established goals.
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.
Common Issues With Groups
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly.
Working in a group is usually a good way to get things done, especially in recreation and leisure settings. Bringing together diverse people with their own opinions and ways of doing things can create a rich environment for success. However, traps and pitfalls can occur; leaders can avoid them by understanding some of the warning signs and responding accordingly. Common pitfalls include groupthink, polarization, and social loafing.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink was introduced by Irving Janus (1972), a social psychologist who was interested in how some groups make such disastrous decisions. Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement with one another. The desire for agreement is so strong that any potential concerns about a decision from individuals in the group are pushed aside in favor of absolute consensus (Janus, 1972). Because of this desire, group members support and express confidence in a decision that may be problematic. Janus (1972) indicated the following warning signs that a group is headed toward groupthink:
- Pressure on those who disagree with the majority or favored opinion
- Mindguards, or group members who block information and opinions that oppose the decision
- Stereotyping of those who are outside the group who disagree or provide alternative solutions
- Self-censorship to keep individual concerns quiet
- Appearances of invulnerability, or the wrong idea that the group is making positive progress with a discussion or decision
- Incorrect justification that the discussion or decision is right, even though a careful examination would reveal many issues in the process
- False impressions of morality in which the group believes its decision is a good one despite potential ethical issues and consequences
- Appearances of total support, or the belief that everyone in the group is in agreement with the decision, when in fact, not everyone agrees with the decision (Janus, 1972)
These signs of groupthink might not be easy to notice right away, and may not even be recognized until after an incorrect decision has been made. However, some conditions contribute to a group's chance of falling into groupthink. These include separation from outside sources of information; leadership styles that repress people who disagree with where the group is headed; a lack of different experiences, ranges of experience, and backgrounds of group members; strong cohesiveness and bonds among group members; a lack of decision-making skills; and having to make fast decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should consider whether a group is predisposed to experience groupthink or if the conditions are right for groupthink to occur. If a leader believes that a group is headed toward groupthink, it is best to call a time-out and carefully consider the proposed course of action. This may be difficult if group members are working well together and the group has experienced success with decisions in the past.
Polarization
Working in a group certainly has many advantages, but there are disadvantages as well. Being in the presence of others can sometimes overwhelm individuals. This is part of a process called social facilitation in which people perform reasonably well on simple tasks and less well on complex tasks in the presence of others. Through this process, groups regularly adopt either more risky or more cautious positions than those initially held by any of the individuals. This was originally called risky-shift, but is now called group polarization. Researchers have found that groups make cautious decisions (cautious shift) as well as more risky decisions than the average of individual group members' decisions. Figure 7.4 shows the continuum of group polarization.
Group polarization.
The starting positions of individuals and the group as a whole provide key information as to whether the eventual decision is either cautious or risky. Individuals and groups tend to assume more severe positions as discussion and the decision-making process unfold. If at the start a position is cautious, it will become even more cautious as the process continues. If it is risky at the start, it will get more risky. Recreation or leisure services leaders can help groups make good decisions by paying attention to the conditions, opinions, and positions at the start of decision-making process. By reminding the group of its initial attitude toward the issue or decision, a leader can encourage the group to reconsider, especially if the leader recognizes that it is polarizing in a cautious or risky way.
What makes group polarization happen? The way people are influenced by and influence the group contributes to the chance that polarization will occur. The thing that attracts people to groups, how norms are created, the feelings of connectedness that develops, and communication structures all factor into group polarization. The following conditions may result in group polarization:
- Information sharing. People often confirm what the rest of the group already knows. However, people who have information not known to the rest of the group might not share it because they want to gain an edge or have control over the process. Furthermore, if this information is distinctive or "out there," they may choose not to share it because they don't want to be embarrassed or sanctioned by the group. Fresh information may also influence group members if it is sensible, convincing, and well thought out. Finally, people may change the information they have to fit within the values held by a group.
- Loyalty.People may go along with polarized decisions because they want to stay in a group or be on good terms with other group members.
- Norms. The norms a group sets for itself around decision making may set the stage for polarized decisions, particularly if the group has had similar experiences in which things worked out favorably. People may believe that they need to support the cautious or risky stance to be looked at in a positive light. These people tend to become strong supporters of the proposed decision and disregard the polarized nature of the decision.
- Convincing points of view. People tend to support decisions the more they hear persuasive arguments. The more the ideas are discussed, the more people believe that the decision is sound. This is especially true if the decision is shared with others outside the group. People are not apt to easily switch positions once a decision has been made public - they believe they have to stick to their guns.
Group polarization can result in either positive or negative decisions. Recreation and leisure services leaders should be aware of the factors that contribute to group polarization so they can help groups benefit from the positive aspects of group decision making.
Social Loafing
Some group members see the group as a way to reduce their input to the decision-making process. People who tend to hide in a group and not contribute to their full capability are called social loafers. They turn the old adage of "Two heads are better than one" to their benefit. In essence, these people purposefully lose themselves in the crowd and do not work hard as a result. This may occur as a result of low group cohesion, individual inputs that are not recognized or evaluated, a group that is too big, the perception that others are not working, or a decision that is not considered meaningful or interesting.
On a similar note is the phenomenon of free riding. This is social loafing to an extreme, in which a member does not contribute to the group process in any way. The person gets the most from the group for the least amount of energy. People who have previously experienced this with other group members may be inclined to follow suit to avoid feeling taken advantage of. These people do not want to be easy targets or get stuck doing everything for the group. If individual contributions are supported and the rest of the group members are pulling their own weight, these feelings can be circumvented.
When group members pull their own weight, this can help minimize the effects of group polarization.
© Human Kinetics
Learn more about Leadership in Recreation and Leisure Services.