Koodo 3:10 PM ilearn.canadorecollege.ca Case study 1 ETHICAL DILEMMA IS Social Loafing Shirking? As you now...

Transcribed Image Text:

Koodo 3:10 PM ilearn.canadorecollege.ca Case study 1 ETHICAL DILEMMA IS Social Loafing Shirking? As you now know, social loafing is one disadvantage of working in groups. Regardless of the type of task-from games of Tug of War to working on a group projects- research suggests that when working in a group, most indi- viduals contribute less than if they were working on their own. We might call those who do social loafing "shirkers" because they are not living up to their responsibilities as group members. Most of us have experienced social loafing, or shirking. in groups. And we may even admit to times when we shirked ourselves. We discussed earlier in this chapter some ways of discouraging social loafing, such as limiting group size, holding individuals responsible for their contributions, set- ting group goals, and providing "hybrid" incentives that re- ward both individual and group performance. While these tactics may be effective, in our experience many students simply work around shirkers. "We just did it ourselves-it was easier that way," says one group member. It is sometimes easy to forget that humans are not unlike other animals. Economist John Maynard Keynes recog- nized this when he commented, "Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits-a spontane- ous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities. Such "animal spirits" are particularly dangerous at the collective level. One animal's decision to charge over a cliff is a tragedy for the animal, but it may also lead the entire herd over the cliff. 58% You may be wondering how this is applicable to orga nizational behavior. Consider the recent housing bubble and its subsequent and enduring collapse, or the dot-com implosion of the turn of the century. As housing prices rose ever higher, people discounted risk. Homeowners and investors rushed to buy properties because everyone else was doing it. Banks rushed to provide loans with little due diligence because, well, everyone else was doing it. "Banks didn't want to get left behind. Everybody lowered their underwriting standards, no matter who they are." said Regions Bank executive Michael Menk. "As bankers that's who we are, we follow the herd. Similar problems led to a run up in prices for internet-based companies during the early twenty-first century, and some wonder Questions 1. If group members end up "working around" shirkers, do you think this information should be communicated to the instructor so that each indi- vidual's contribution to the project is judged more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical respon- sibility to communicate this to the shirking group member? 2. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to one's responsibilities)? Is social loafing always unethical? Why or why not? Case Study 2 CASE INCIDENT 2 Herd Behavior and the Housing Bubble (and Collapse) 3. Social loafing has been found to be higher in Western, more individualist, nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S. students and workers to a greater degree than if it occurred with someone from Asia² whether the current valuations of social networking site are following a similar trend of overpricing. Yale Economist Robert Shiller called this "herd behav ior" and cited research showing people often rely heavil on the behavior of groups in formulating decisions abou what they should do. A recent study in behavioral finance confirmed herd behavior in investment decisions anc showed that analysts were especially likely to follow othe analysts' behavior when they had private information tha was less accurate or reliable. Questions 1. Some research suggests herd behavior increases as the size of the group increases. Why do you think this might be the case? 2. One researcher argues that "pack behavior" comes about because it has benefits. What is the upside of such behavior? 3. Shiller argues that herd behavior can go both ways: It explains the housing bubble, but it also explains the bust. As he notes, "Rational individuals become ex- cessively pessimistic as they see others bidding down home prices to abnormally low levels." Do you agree with Shiller? 4. How might organizations combat the problems re sulting from herd behavior? Case study I ETHICAL DILEMMA IS Social Loafing Shirking? As you now know, social loafing is one disadvantage of working in groups. Regardless of the type of task-from games of Tug of War to working on a group projects- research suggests that when working in a group, most indi- viduals contribute less than if they were working on their own. We might call those who do social loafing "shirkers" because they are not living up to their responsibilities as group members. Most of us have experienced social loafing, or shirking, in groups. And we may even admit to times when we shirked ourselves. We discussed earlier in this chapter some ways of discouraging social loafing, such as limiting group size, holding individuals responsible for their contributions, set- ting group goals, and providing "hybrid" incentives that re- ward both individual and group performance. While these tactics may be effective, in our experience many students simply work around shirkers. "We just did it ourselves-it was easier that way," says one group member. Questions 1. If group members end up "working around" shirkers, do you think this information should be communicated to the instructor so that each indi- vidual's contribution to the project is judged more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical respon- sibility to communicate this to the shirking group member? 2. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to one's responsibilities)? Is social loafing always unethical? Why or why not? 3. Social loafing has been found to be higher in Western, more individualist, nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S. students and workers to a greater degree than if it occurred with someone from Asia? Case Study 2 CASE INCIDENT 2 Herd Behavior and the Housing Bubble (and Collapse) whether the current valuations of social networking site are following a similar trend of overpricing. It is sometimes easy to forget that humans are not unlike other animals. Economist John Maynard Keynes recog nized this when he commented, "Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits-a spontane ous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities." Such "animal spirits" are particularly dangerous at the collective level. One animal's decision to charge over a cliff is a tragedy for the animal, but it may also lead the entire herd over the cliff. You may be wondering how this is applicable to orga nizational behavior. Consider the recent housing bubble and its subsequent and enduring collapse, or the dot-com implosion of the turn of the century. As housing prices rose ever higher, people discounted risk. Homeowners and investors rushed to buy properties because everyone else was doing it. Banks rushed to provide loans with little due diligence because, well, everyone else was doing it. "Banks didn't want to get left behind. Everybody lowered their underwriting standards, no matter who they are," said Regions Bank executive Michael Menk. "As bankers that's who we are, we follow the herd." Similar problems led to a run up in prices for internet-based companies during the early twenty-first century, and some wonder Yale Economist Robert Shiller called this "herd behav ior" and cited research showing people often rely heavil on the behavior of groups in formulating decisions abou what they should do. A recent study in behavioral finance confirmed herd behavior in investment decisions and showed that analysts were especially likely to follow othe analysts' behavior when they had private information tha was less accurate or reliable. Questions 1. Some research suggests herd behavior increases as the size of the group increases. Why do you think this might be the case? 2. One researcher argues that "pack behavior" comes about because it has benefits. What is the upside of such behavior? 3. Shiller argues that herd behavior can go both ways: It explains the housing bubble, but it also explains the bust. As he notes, "Rational individuals become ex- cessively pessimistic as they see others bidding down home prices to abnormally low levels." Do you agree with Shiller? 4. How might organizations combat the problems re- sulting from herd behavior? Koodo 3:10 PM ilearn.canadorecollege.ca Case study 1 ETHICAL DILEMMA IS Social Loafing Shirking? As you now know, social loafing is one disadvantage of working in groups. Regardless of the type of task-from games of Tug of War to working on a group projects- research suggests that when working in a group, most indi- viduals contribute less than if they were working on their own. We might call those who do social loafing "shirkers" because they are not living up to their responsibilities as group members. Most of us have experienced social loafing, or shirking. in groups. And we may even admit to times when we shirked ourselves. We discussed earlier in this chapter some ways of discouraging social loafing, such as limiting group size, holding individuals responsible for their contributions, set- ting group goals, and providing "hybrid" incentives that re- ward both individual and group performance. While these tactics may be effective, in our experience many students simply work around shirkers. "We just did it ourselves-it was easier that way," says one group member. It is sometimes easy to forget that humans are not unlike other animals. Economist John Maynard Keynes recog- nized this when he commented, "Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits-a spontane- ous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities. Such "animal spirits" are particularly dangerous at the collective level. One animal's decision to charge over a cliff is a tragedy for the animal, but it may also lead the entire herd over the cliff. 58% You may be wondering how this is applicable to orga nizational behavior. Consider the recent housing bubble and its subsequent and enduring collapse, or the dot-com implosion of the turn of the century. As housing prices rose ever higher, people discounted risk. Homeowners and investors rushed to buy properties because everyone else was doing it. Banks rushed to provide loans with little due diligence because, well, everyone else was doing it. "Banks didn't want to get left behind. Everybody lowered their underwriting standards, no matter who they are." said Regions Bank executive Michael Menk. "As bankers that's who we are, we follow the herd. Similar problems led to a run up in prices for internet-based companies during the early twenty-first century, and some wonder Questions 1. If group members end up "working around" shirkers, do you think this information should be communicated to the instructor so that each indi- vidual's contribution to the project is judged more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical respon- sibility to communicate this to the shirking group member? 2. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to one's responsibilities)? Is social loafing always unethical? Why or why not? Case Study 2 CASE INCIDENT 2 Herd Behavior and the Housing Bubble (and Collapse) 3. Social loafing has been found to be higher in Western, more individualist, nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S. students and workers to a greater degree than if it occurred with someone from Asia² whether the current valuations of social networking site are following a similar trend of overpricing. Yale Economist Robert Shiller called this "herd behav ior" and cited research showing people often rely heavil on the behavior of groups in formulating decisions abou what they should do. A recent study in behavioral finance confirmed herd behavior in investment decisions anc showed that analysts were especially likely to follow othe analysts' behavior when they had private information tha was less accurate or reliable. Questions 1. Some research suggests herd behavior increases as the size of the group increases. Why do you think this might be the case? 2. One researcher argues that "pack behavior" comes about because it has benefits. What is the upside of such behavior? 3. Shiller argues that herd behavior can go both ways: It explains the housing bubble, but it also explains the bust. As he notes, "Rational individuals become ex- cessively pessimistic as they see others bidding down home prices to abnormally low levels." Do you agree with Shiller? 4. How might organizations combat the problems re sulting from herd behavior? Case study I ETHICAL DILEMMA IS Social Loafing Shirking? As you now know, social loafing is one disadvantage of working in groups. Regardless of the type of task-from games of Tug of War to working on a group projects- research suggests that when working in a group, most indi- viduals contribute less than if they were working on their own. We might call those who do social loafing "shirkers" because they are not living up to their responsibilities as group members. Most of us have experienced social loafing, or shirking, in groups. And we may even admit to times when we shirked ourselves. We discussed earlier in this chapter some ways of discouraging social loafing, such as limiting group size, holding individuals responsible for their contributions, set- ting group goals, and providing "hybrid" incentives that re- ward both individual and group performance. While these tactics may be effective, in our experience many students simply work around shirkers. "We just did it ourselves-it was easier that way," says one group member. Questions 1. If group members end up "working around" shirkers, do you think this information should be communicated to the instructor so that each indi- vidual's contribution to the project is judged more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical respon- sibility to communicate this to the shirking group member? 2. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to one's responsibilities)? Is social loafing always unethical? Why or why not? 3. Social loafing has been found to be higher in Western, more individualist, nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S. students and workers to a greater degree than if it occurred with someone from Asia? Case Study 2 CASE INCIDENT 2 Herd Behavior and the Housing Bubble (and Collapse) whether the current valuations of social networking site are following a similar trend of overpricing. It is sometimes easy to forget that humans are not unlike other animals. Economist John Maynard Keynes recog nized this when he commented, "Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits-a spontane ous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities." Such "animal spirits" are particularly dangerous at the collective level. One animal's decision to charge over a cliff is a tragedy for the animal, but it may also lead the entire herd over the cliff. You may be wondering how this is applicable to orga nizational behavior. Consider the recent housing bubble and its subsequent and enduring collapse, or the dot-com implosion of the turn of the century. As housing prices rose ever higher, people discounted risk. Homeowners and investors rushed to buy properties because everyone else was doing it. Banks rushed to provide loans with little due diligence because, well, everyone else was doing it. "Banks didn't want to get left behind. Everybody lowered their underwriting standards, no matter who they are," said Regions Bank executive Michael Menk. "As bankers that's who we are, we follow the herd." Similar problems led to a run up in prices for internet-based companies during the early twenty-first century, and some wonder Yale Economist Robert Shiller called this "herd behav ior" and cited research showing people often rely heavil on the behavior of groups in formulating decisions abou what they should do. A recent study in behavioral finance confirmed herd behavior in investment decisions and showed that analysts were especially likely to follow othe analysts' behavior when they had private information tha was less accurate or reliable. Questions 1. Some research suggests herd behavior increases as the size of the group increases. Why do you think this might be the case? 2. One researcher argues that "pack behavior" comes about because it has benefits. What is the upside of such behavior? 3. Shiller argues that herd behavior can go both ways: It explains the housing bubble, but it also explains the bust. As he notes, "Rational individuals become ex- cessively pessimistic as they see others bidding down home prices to abnormally low levels." Do you agree with Shiller? 4. How might organizations combat the problems re- sulting from herd behavior?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Part A Case Study 1 Question 1 Yes if group members end up working around shirkers the information should be communicated to the instructor to ensure each individuals contribution is judged fairly The ... View the full answer