• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evidence that formal selection of groups and formal selection of leaders can enhance group performance.

Extracts from this document...


Evidence that formal selection of groups and formal selection of leaders can enhance group performance Organisational psychologists have been interested in seeing whether random selection of leaders or the usual systematic selection of leaders leads to greater task performance and greater group cohesiveness (also known as group maintenance). Finding significant results here would be beneficial in the workplace if the problem of random selection vs. formal selection is solved as it would help increase group harmony and productivity. The findings of previous research have been varied. In a study very similar in method and aims to this present study found that the random selection of leaders leads to greater task performance. ( Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Brown, P.M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B.E., & Reynolds, K.J. (1998). Three experiments were done in this study using the same survival task used in this present study. The first two experiments measured task performance and group maintenance by manipulating the process of leadership selection (random, informal and formal). The third experiment confirmed that society holds the view that formal selection is better than random selection of leaders, hence explaining the reduced group maintenance in groups with randomly selected leaders since they perceived the process of leadership selection to be less legitimate. ...read more.


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) ...read more.


Procedure 1. There was a leadership questionnaire completed 2. The following week the survival task was completed by groups with the various experimental conditions imposed 3. Instructions were given to the leader and they were given instruction and the Nuclear Fallout Shelter task to give to the groups. 4. 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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Personal Performances section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Personal Performances essays

  1. Drama Course Work

    We learn about her inexpressible joy about seeing her brother again and how she might have felt guilt about causing the Capo to beat her brother. THE BANK OF THE RIVER LOIRE DUNOIS Are you Joan the maid? JOAN Sure.

  2. character study

    He also knows how to get the best out of them and this is shown on how he encourages Nick and Gary to the meeting. Talks to Gary professionally and Nick more friendly. The next two questions I will ask is where and when.

  1. Clearly state what constitutes performance indicators? Why do people want organisations to produce these? ...

    A performance indicator can be seen to be any target or goal that can be used to judge whether an organisation is successfully performing in its market. However, performance indicators are just one tool in the arsenal of efforts to improve quality, management, and accountability.

  2. Explain how group work contributed to the final performance

    One of the most difficult parts of coming to the devising process was learning how to constructively working in a group over a long period of time. While we were used to being part of a cast, we had always had the influence of a director to keep things fresh and to solve conflicts.

  1. The Language of Performance.

    This is because the music being used had to fit in with a couple of steps, which were the stimulus, and everything grew from them. Improvisation was used throughout as new steps were added continually, as we amended the piece.

  2. Improvisation involves a variety of different factors.

    The grandfather told stories to his children about how the fish were bigger in his day and how everything was better as old people often do. They used space very well and set up chairs at the edge of an imaginary riverbank.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work