Individual and group performance — practice questions

Social facilitation (Zajonc): Supervisor presence increases arousal on the well-learned picking task → faster performance. If pickers were new or routes complex, the same arousal could impair performance (dominant response not yet skilled).

Social loafing / Ringelmann: Layout project is collective with pooled output — individual contribution hard to see, so motivation drops (Latane et al.). Team of twelve amplifies Ringelmann effect.

Solutions: Assign named sub-tasks, individual deadlines, smaller sub-groups, make outcomes visible to manager.

Evaluation: Facilitation and loafing are not contradictory — task type and evaluation potential determine which dominates. Culture may moderate loafing (collectivist groups sometimes show less). Link to goal-setting (4.1.2) for collective projects.

Step 1: Calculate the expected group output. Based on individual performance, the expected output for a team of 8 would be: 8 workers × 50 boxes/hour/worker = 400 boxes/hour.

Step 2: Calculate the actual average individual output in the group. The team's actual total output was 320 boxes. The average output per person is: 320 boxes / 8 workers = 40 boxes/hour/worker.

Step 3: Calculate the productivity loss. Each individual is producing 40 boxes/hour instead of their potential 50 boxes/hour. The loss per person is: 50 - 40 = 10 boxes/hour. As a percentage, the productivity loss (or efficiency drop) is: ( (50 - 40) / 50 ) × 100% = (10 / 50) × 100% = 20%.

Analysis: The 20% productivity loss is an example of the Ringelmann effect. As the group size increased to 8, the average individual effort decreased. This is due to two factors:

1. Motivation Loss (Social Loafing): Individuals feel less accountable in a larger group, and their personal contribution feels less significant (diffusion of responsibility).
2. Coordination Loss: In a physical task like packing, 8 people may get in each other's way, leading to inefficiencies that are not related to motivation.