Social loafing
is the failure of a group member to contribute personal time, effort, thoughts, or other resources to the group. Loss of individuality occurs when group members lose self-awareness and its accompanying sense of accountability, inhibition, and responsibility for individual behavior.
Deindividuation
Social loafing describes the phenomenon that
occurs when individuals exert less effort when working as a group than when working independently
. Equitable Contribution. One or more people in the group feel that others are not working as hard so they reduce their own effort. This may lead to a spiral of effort reduction.
Restaurant employees failing to put in equal amounts of effort
is an example of social loafing. If there is a small number of customers present then all the servers need not work even if they are all on duty, so lazier workers will let the ‘in’ group take on all the responsibility.
Diffusion of responsibility
: People are more likely to engage in social loafing if they feel less personally accountable for a task, and know their individual efforts have little impact on the overall outcome. … The larger the group, however, the less individual effort people will extend.
Tug of war, group homework projects, and an entertainer asking an audience to scream
are all examples of social loafing because as you add more people to a group, the total group effort declines. Tug of War is the perfect example because it’s where Maximillian Ringelmann originally found it.
Social loafing describes
the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort when they are part of a group
. Because all members of the group are pooling their effort to achieve a common goal, each member of the group contributes less than they would if they were individually responsible. 1
A musician/actor/performer who becomes energized by having an audience and does a better performance
.
Finding that you do better work if you go to a library than if you stay at home to study
.
Social loafing
creates a negative impact on the performance of the group and thus slowing down the productivity of the whole organization
. Leads to Poor Team Spirit: If few members become lazy and reluctant, making the least contribution in the group, the whole team feels demotivated and demoralized.
Normative social influence is usually associated with compliance, where a person changes their public behaviour but not their private beliefs. For example, a
person may feel pressurised to smoke because
the rest of their friends are. … This means any change of behavior is temporary.
One of the key strategies to reduce the potential for social loafing is
to create smaller groups or teams
. Make it easier for team member’s work to be seen and supported. Smaller groups also enable individuals to form relationships and build a cohesive unit – all attributes that encourage individuals to contribute.
a
social dilemma in which individuals, groups, organizations, or whole societies initiate a course of action or establish a set of relationships
that lead to negative or even lethal outcomes in the long term, but that once initiated are difficult to withdraw from or alter.
Free-riding means
individuals work less
because their colleagues will complete the task for them; Social Loafing occurs when team members cannot be identified, meaning there are no rewards or punishments for individuals.
As the social facilitation refers to the improvement of performance produced by the presence of others,
The Olympic bicycle racer who goes faster when is racing against a person rather than
a clock is the best example of social facilitation.
Social loafing
can be detrimental in workplaces
. When everyone does not put in their full amount of effort because they are part of a group, this can lead to reduced productivity. Factors influencing social loafing include expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness and culture.
Factors influencing social loafing include
expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness and culture
. The Collective Effort Model (CEM) of social loafing holds that whether or not social loafing occurs depends on members’ expectations for, and value of, the group’s goal.
