These studies provide a basis for this present study. The method of leadership selection and its impact on group task performance and on team maintenance as examined by (Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B.E., & Reynolds, K.J. (1998)) needs to be verified and confirmed. Further, none of these studies examined the process of group member selection (i.e. formal allocation or self-selected allocation) on group task performance and team maintenance. This is of importance since it provides insights into productivity and efficiency of work groups who are previously acquainted versus those groups in which members are selected formally.
Based on the results of the previous ( Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B.E., & Reynolds, K.J. (1998) study, it is hypothesized that the random selection of leaders would lead to greater task performance (hypothesis 1). And using the results of experiment 3 in this study, it is expected group maintenance and the view of effectiveness of leadership by non leader members would be greater in the systematic selection of leaders (hypothesis 2). Using common sense (since there is no previous research on this subject), self selected groups should have higher group maintenance and greater confidence in the group decision since individuals should have selected members in which they had faith or potency (hypothesis 3).
Method
Design
We used a 2 (alphabetical allocation of groups/ self selected groups) x 3 (formal/random/informal) factorial design. The participants were placed randomly approximately evenly assigned to these conditions. The 6 different conditions were:-
Allocated- Formal Self-selected- Formal
Allocated- Random Self-selected- Random
Allocated- Informal Self-selected- Informal
In the Group allocation independent variables, the random allocation of the groups were done alphabetically in the individual tutorial groups. While the self-selected groups contained people who chose to form a group together.
In the leadership selection independent variables, the formal allocation was done on the basis of the highest score on the Leadership questionnaire. The random allocation was done by alphabetical surname (e.g. the surname that is first in the alphabet) and the informal was where the group chose its own leader.
The dependant variable of task performance was measured by calculating the difference in score between score rankings, and expert rankings of the Nuclear Fallout task. The closer the score was to the expert rankings, the better the task performance.
The dependant variable of group maintenance was measured by using a number of different measures. Team maintenance refers to the proximity between non-leader member’s rankings and group rankings and enjoyment of the task.
Extraneous variables were controlled by the tutor being instructed on how to perform the task accurately and without bias. The sizes of the tutorial classes were roughly similar and the group sizes were equal in each tutorial. (e.g. 4 in each group)
Participants
204 males and 385 participants doing psychology as a subject as a first year course at the University of New South Wales participated in this experiment. The participated as part of compulsory tutorial attendance.
Materials
- Leadership questionnaire- a leadership questionnaire was completed by all individuals in the tutorial classes (See Appendix part 1). In this they indicated they indicated the level of skill they believed they possessed in 10 aspects of leadership qualities.
- Tutor and Leader Instructions- The tutor took spoke with the leaders in isolation from the groups. They told them they had to read the instructions that were on a piece of paper out loud to their group gave them the materials for the group survival task. (see Appendix Part 2)
- Nuclear Fallout Shelter Task- The task was to rank 12 items (e.g. broom, water, compass, Geiger-counter) in terms of necessity for the group’s survival. The groups were given 20 minutes to complete the task. (see Appendix Part 3)
- Individuals- The individuals were asked to provide their own ranking of the 12 items and also complete answers to a few questions demonstrating group cohesiveness. (see Appendix Part 4)
Procedure
- There was a leadership questionnaire completed
- The following week the survival task was completed by groups with the various experimental conditions imposed
- Instructions were given to the leader and they were given instruction and the Nuclear Fallout Shelter task to give to the groups.
- After the completion of the tasks, all individuals completed an Individual feedback form in order to measure group maintenance
Results
The difference in Group Performance in random and non-random leadership selection was non-existent. Formally selected leaders performed significantly worse than informally selected leaders (53.7 for Formal selection as compared to 51.5 for Informal selection).
There was no significant difference in group cohesion levels as measured by deviation from Group Decision scores.
Self-selected groups performed significantly better than allocated groups in task performance (51.9 for self-selected compared to 53.96 for allocated, remembering lower score indicates greater proximity to expert rankings and higher task performance).
Group cohesion was not dependant on Group selection.
The agreement with the leader was greater in formally and informally selected groups than in randomly selected groups. (The deviation in random selection was higher (24.7) compared to formally and informally selected groups (21.3 and 19.5 respectively).
Informally selected groups thought their leaders were more legitimately chosen than in the formally selected groups. (4.7 compared to 4.3 respectively)
Team members with informally selected leaders enjoyed the task more than those with formally selected leaders.
References
-
Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B.E., & Reynolds, K.J. (1998). Inspecting the Emperor’s clothes: Evidence that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 168-184
-
Sosik, John, J., Avolio, Bruce, J., Kahai, Surinder, S.(1997) Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-100
