Social Loafing

Social Loafing

Introduction

Social loafing refers to a phenomenon within a gathering or organization where the contributions of the stakeholders significantly vary as a result of laxity or uncooperative member (s). This situation where one of the group members is considered as giving fewer efforts towards the overall contribution in an organization affects the overall output of a group negatively.  It results in reduced group output, which is usually characterized by constant disagreements and possible collapse of the group. Various theories and principles have been identified by studies that include the theory of dispensability of effort and the social loafing theory, which have been widely explained in the psychological fields. These theories are explaining and evaluating the expansion on the idea of application and implications amongst employees in a working environment and the possible approaches used in overcoming this phenomenon of social loafing in organizations to maximize the output.

Thesis Statement

            Collective responsibility and absolute collaboration amongst all members in a social group enhance team-building and maximization of output through the optimum dispensation of the human resource skills of all the stakeholders.

Social Loafing Theory

Numerous theories are trying to relate the ineffectiveness of social groups with individual participation and the contributions injected by every stakeholder. Social loafing theory opines the effects of non-collaborative actions displayed by some or individual members with the quality of the output given out by any organization. The theory suggests that groups of a large scale can result in a lack of sense of responsibility (Jackson & Wiliams, 1985). In large groups, the outcome of the group performance is shared; thus, employees will perceive their role to be less significant in contributing to the success of the group (Kerr, 1983). In the long run, this diminished awareness of obligation can result in social loafing. Therefore, this theory can be applied to help managers understand group work and introduce various strategies to promote group cohesiveness to eliminate social loafing (Liden, 2004).

The article Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance explains how agreeableness and conscientiousness can compensate for the effect of social loafing. For that reason, this article explains that there is a correlation between the difficulty of the task and the work the team members put into it; because the more difficult the task is, the more cooperation that it needs from the team members and vice versa (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1993). More so, if the work is working towards a common goal that everyone knows about, and the task is barely challenging, it is most likely that one or two individuals will do most of the work. Social loafing has some positive effects as well, such as some individuals will take over the team’s work, be responsible and get the task done on the circumstance that no one else has or will contribute.

Dispensability of Efforts Theory

The dispensability of efforts theory suggested by Kerr and his colleagues in 1983 had much strength. Firstly, the study was conducted with three experiments, and it was one of the first studies, which explained the occurrence of social loafing. Moreover, it gained empirical support amongst North American researches such as Karau and Williams (Ying Yi, Robert & Candy, 2008).

However, it is worth understanding that this theory is not the only explanation for the concept of social loafing, as there were certain limitations. For example, the theory failed to explain the different stages of group life. Also, it was unable to describe the fundamental psychological process of social loafing. Besides, Kerr and his colleagues were unsuccessful in researching this theory under different conditions, such as culture and gender (Karau & Williams, 2004).

There are some of the factors that are contributing to the social loafing phenomenon in various organizations. These factors include; organizational environment, the business ownership, corporate employees and physical equipment, and internal working environments.

Organizational Environment

The organizational environment encompasses a myriad of aspects that take part in corporate operations, which contributes to social loafing amongst some of the employees. Productive organizational environments get underpinnings from various business organization dimensions such as economic, technical, and socio-cultural dimensions. The economic aspect addresses the general health and significance of the commercial system and structure that accommodates the business organization. The technological dimension, on the other hand, depicts the techniques applied by the organization in converting the raw materials into the final product reading for customer consumption. Finally, the socio-cultural dimension covers the customs, morals, values, and demographic indices of the society in which the business organization operates (Hall & Tolbert, 2018). Ensuring the proper interconnection of all these dimensions is through all the organization’s involved units need to work hand in hand to ensure a thriving and manageable organizational culture. Therefore, various stakeholders play a vital role in every organization and providing smooth operations and effective day-to-day organizational practices while others might ensure laxity. These stakeholders include; the organization as the central entity, suppliers, customers, labor unions, government, public pressure groups, and the market competitors (Hall & Tolbert, 2018). All these factors contribute to the success of every organization as an individual party has a role to play.

Internal Business Environment

The internal environment is described as all the conditions and factors that are within the organization’s reach and control. The latter plays a crucial role in employees’ cooperation and organizational achievements of goals and objectives through proper management. Internal organization environment includes; organizational employees, owners, business environment culture, Board of directors, and the organization’s assets, which may result in social loafing due to unfavorable working environment (Shanker et al., 2017). Skillful management of all these parameters yields positive output that beats the threshold of the organizational goals. The management or the organization through the Human Resource department is usually responsible for handling this type of organizational environment.

Organizational Employees and physical equipment

The employees in an organization are regarded as the unique assets that add a lot of value to the organization through delivering services that yield the good and service for commercial activities. They impact significantly on the productivity of the organization and affected by other human activities like rewards and motivational presents. Workplace equity and inclusivity in the internal environment enhance a pleasant stay and operational environment amongst the organizational staff members and improve the profit margins of the business organization (Shanker et al., 2017). The quality of products of an organization is much dependent on the technological status of the production methods used and the know-how of the employees responsible for production. Since labor is among the main factors of production in an organizational environment, proper management of employees who provide employment enables the organization to make trajectory improvement steps towards high-quality production and improvement of the firm’s image and reputation.

Organization’s Owner

Furthermore, the owner of the business organization is a central factor that articulates the overall organizational activities and crucial decision-making processes (Marx, 2017) and leadership. The owner of the organization is the initial entrepreneur who has the legal rights for the organizational assets. Ownership of an organization falls under the internal environment since the responsibilities of the owners are within business’ jurisdictions and control. The latter performs the overall oversight and leadership operations of the firm, which involves making critical business decisions regarding the organization, taking part in market research that enables the organization to participate in perfect completion in the market with the competitors (Hall & Tolbert, 2018).

Social loafing is very common in school. Likewise, when I was in middle school and high school, I had to do numerous projects in teams of 2 or more, but it didn’t matter the quantity the outcome was most of the time the same. I had to do more than half of the effort because I felt more responsible than my team members to do the work. They would just agree on what they wanted to write or do depending on the task, but I was the one writing or resolving the task given by the instructor. I could also say that when I got to college, this changed because the task was harder and longer, so the cooperation from every single person was needed.

The content in the article Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance does match with my previous experience in social loafing. Most people do put less effort into none when working in a group when the outcome is simple, but they also put in more work when the task requires everyone’s effort. Therefore, social loafing depends on personality and the degree of difficulty of the task.

Conclusion

From literature, there are some of the key factors that are contributing the social loafing in organizations. There have been several studies of the ‘dispensability of effort’ theory pursued to explain social loafing. Most studies conclude that this theory has a significant contribution to the occurrence of social loafing. However, the phenomenon of social loafing could be multifactorial, so one should not accept the ‘dispensability of effort’ theory as the only explanation or cause of social loafing.