A number of works are devoted to social loafing, among which the most famous are the studies of Max Ringelman, Bibb Latane, Kipling Williams and Stephen Harkins.
Research work using modern technologies also confirmed the manifestation of social laziness. Many of the reasons for this phenomenon stem from the individual's feeling that his efforts will not matter to the group.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 1
Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38
Story
Tug of war experiment
One of the first works devoted to the study of the phenomenon of social loafing was the work of Max Ringelmann (1913), known as the Ringelmann effect. Scientists conducted a series of experiments on groups of individuals who were not informed about hidden dimension their contribution to overall result. In the course of the study, he found that in the group, participants in the tug-of-war made less effort than in individual work.
In 1974, researchers led by Alan Ingham repeated Ringelman's experiment using two types of groups: 1) groups with real participants (according to Ringelman's setup) 2) pseudo-groups with one real participant. In the pseudo-group, assistant researchers simulated the work of tug-of-war, but in reality only one person controlled the rope. The results showed that the achievement of the group, whose members really made an effort, is much lower than the achievement of the pseudo-group. Because the pseudo-groups lacked coherence within the team (because research assistants weren't physically pulling the rope), Ingham proved that communication between participants did not in itself reflect a possible reduction in outcome - loss of motivation was more probable cause performance degradation.
The applause experiment
Bibb Latane, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins continued to look for other ways to study this phenomenon. The experiments were carried out on a group of six individuals seated in a semicircle. The participants in the experiment were blindfolded and wearing headphones. A deafening ovation and screams were broadcast to a group of subjects through headphones. Participants were deprived of the opportunity to hear their own or others' cries and applause. According to the scenario of the experiment, the participants of the group had to shout or applaud "with all their might" alone or together with others. It was assumed that each of the participants would shout louder, because they would feel relaxed. In reality, social laziness manifested itself in full measure: in the group, the subjects shouting or applauding made three times less noise than each of them individually. However, according to the participants of the experiment, in both cases they "given the best" in the same way.
Influence of culture
Christopher P. Earley in 1989 conducted a study of social loafing, taking into account the influence of the cultural factor on this phenomenon. Groups of individuals with Western (individualistic) and Asian (collectivist) types of cultures took part in the experiment. An individualistic culture is characterized by the fact that in it the individual goals of its members are no less (if not more) important than group ones, in a collectivist culture, on the contrary, group goals prevail over individual ones. Earley suggested that social loafing may be less pronounced in collectivist cultures, focused on achieving a common result by a group rather than an individual. In his study, he showed that Chinese managers who completed a series of hour-long tasks worked harder as a group than US managers who worked harder alone.
Causes
Potential assessment
How more quantity group members, the more each member tends to feel deindividualized. This term defines a decrease in the personal responsibility of an individual in a group, which leads to a decrease in the efforts made by individuals in groups. Thus, this phenomenon can reduce the overall effectiveness of the group. The individual may feel "lost in the crowd", believing that his efforts will not be rewarded.
Insignificance of influence on the overall result
In a group with large staff individuals, each of them tends to believe that his contribution to the overall result is insignificant and does not have a significant impact on the result. Believing that his efforts are not important in the context general group He makes the least amount of effort. A case in point this approach is voting in the United States, where most citizens believe that voting in elections is an important procedure, but the percentage of citizens voting in presidential elections is very low (51% in the 2000 elections).
How common is social loafing? In laboratory conditions, this phenomenon was observed not only in those who tug of war, spin the exercise bike, shout and clap, but also in those who pumped water or gas, evaluated poems and editorials, came up with new ideas, typed on a typewriter and recognized signals. Will the results obtained in real life, correspond to laboratory?
Under the communist regime, peasants on Russian collective farms worked first in one field, then in another and practically did not bear any personal responsibility for a particular piece of land. Small private allotments were left to them for their own needs. According to one study, these private allotments as a whole occupied only 1% of land suitable for cultivation, but provided 27% of all Soviet agricultural production (H. Smith, 1976). In Hungary, private plots occupied 13% of the land, providing one third of the production (Spivak, 1979). In China, where after 1978 peasants were finally allowed to sell surplus produce beyond state order, food production immediately began to increase by 8% per year - two and a half times faster than in all the previous 26 years (Church, 1986).
But, of course, collective efforts do not always lead to their weakening. Sometimes the goal is so significant and so important that everyone makes every effort that the team spirit causes and maintains real zeal. Is it possible that in Olympic rowing races each rower of the academic eight leans on the oar with less effort than in a two or a single?
A number of testimonies convince us that this is not the case. People in a group are less likely to idle if the task is challenging, engaging, and engaging (Karau & Williams, 1993). Collectively solving difficult and interesting task, people may perceive their own contribution as indispensable (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). When people view other members of their group as unreliable and incapable of productive activity they work harder (Vancouver & others, 1993; Williams & Karau, 1991). Additional incentives or the need to strive for certain standards also contribute to the collective effort of the group (Shepperd & Wright, 1989; Harkins & Szymanski, 1989).
Groups are much less likely to goof off if their members are friends, not strangers (Davis & Greenlees, 1992). Latane noted that in Israel, kibbutzim, oddly enough, are more productive than farms of other forms of ownership. Unity enhances efforts. Does this mean that there is no social loafing in collectivist cultures? To find out, Latane and colleagues (Gabrenya & others, 1985) traveled to Asia and repeated their noise experiment in Japan, Thailand, India, and Malaysia. What did they discover? Social laziness was evident in these countries as well.
Yet sixteen subsequent experiments in Asia have shown that people in collectivist cultures exhibit less social loafing than those in individualist cultures (Karau & Williams, 1993). As noted earlier, in collectivist cultures, loyalty to the family and working group. Women are also in lesser degree show social laziness than men who are more prone to individualism.
Some of these data are similar to the results obtained in the study of conventional working groups. When the group is confronted difficult task, which is perceived by her as a challenge, when the success of the group is rewarded as holistic education and when the spirit reigns team play”, all of its members work most vigorously (Hackman, 1986). So, although social laziness does appear every now and then when people work together and do not bear individual responsibility, it still cannot be said that there is always more than more hands the less work done.
Concepts to remember
social laziness(Social loafing) - the tendency of people to work less diligently when they combine their efforts for a common goal, compared to when they are personally responsible for their work.
Chapter 16
In 1991, an eyewitness videotaped four LAPD officers bludgeoning an unarmed Rodney King while 23 the other policemen are watching blankly. AT total more than fifty blows were inflicted, King was pierced in the skull in nine places, damaged the brain and knocked out his teeth. The playback of this recording plunged the country into a lengthy discussion about police brutality and gang violence. People were interested: where was the notorious humanity of the police? What happened to the standards of professional conduct? What evil force caused such actions?
Deindividualization
Experiments on social facilitation show that being in a group can excite people, and experiments on social loafing show that in a group, personal responsibility for deeds can become blurred. When arousal is superimposed on the blurring of responsibility and normative deterrence is weakened, the results are striking. Actions can range from relatively slightly out of the ordinary (throwing bread at each other in the cafeteria, insulting a sports referee, screaming uncontrollably during a rock concert) to impulsive self-gratification (gang vandalism, orgies, robberies) and even to destructive social explosions (police brutality, riots, lynchings). In 1967, about two hundred students at the University of Oklahoma gathered to watch their friend threaten to jump off the roof. The crowd began to chant "Jump, jump." He jumped and fell to his death (UPI, 1967).
Rice. The footage of Rodney King being beaten by Los Angeles police made people wonder: why do people so often break the usual taboos in group actions?
These examples of unbridled behavior have something in common: they are all provoked in one way or another. group pressure. Awareness of belonging to a group can make a person aroused: he grows up in his own eyes, it already seems to him that he is the spokesman for something more than just his own "I". It's hard to imagine a rock fan screaming alone at a rock concert, an Oklahoma student single-handedly trying to incite someone to commit suicide, or even a policeman single-handedly beating a defenseless driver. In certain situations, people united in a group tend to discard generally accepted normative restrictions, they lose a sense of personal responsibility and become deindividualized(a term coined by Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone & Theodore Newcomb, 1952). Under what circumstances does this psychological condition?
Group size
The group is not only able to excite its members, it provides them with anonymity. A screaming crowd hides a screaming basketball fan. Members of a rampaging lynch pack believe they can get away with it; they perceive their actions as group. The rioters, who have become an impersonal crowd, do not hesitate to rob. After analyzing 21 cases in which a would-be suicide threatened to jump off a skyscraper or bridge in the presence of a crowd, Leon Mann (1981) found that if the crowd was relatively small and illuminated by daylight, then, as a rule, attempts to provoke suicide were not made. But when the size of the crowd and the darkness of the night ensured anonymity, people usually teased the suicide by mocking him in every possible way. Brian Mullen (1986) reports similar effects in lynch mobs: the larger the lynch mob, the more its members lose their sense of personal responsibility and the more willing they are to engage in limitless atrocities - burning, mauling, or dismembering the victim. For each of these examples, from a crowd of fans to a pack of vigilantes, it is characteristic that people's fear of evaluation drops sharply in such cases. Since “everyone did it this way”, they explain their behavior by the current situation, and not by their own free choice.
Philip Zimbardo (1970) suggested that impersonality in big cities already in itself guarantees anonymity and provides for norms of behavior that allow vandalism. He bought two ten-year-old used cars and left them with their hoods up and license plates off, one on the old NYU campus in the Bronx and the other near the Stanford campus in the small town of Palo Alto. In New York, the first “cloakroom workers” appeared within ten minutes, they removed the battery and radiator. Three days later, after 23 episodes of theft and vandalism (on the part of people, by all indications, by no means poor), the car turned into a pile of scrap metal. In contrast, the only person who touched a car in Palo Alto during the week was a passer-by who closed the hood of the car as it began to rain.
Anonymity guaranteed
Can we be sure that the stark contrast between the Bronx and Palo Alto is due to the greater anonymity in the Bronx? There is no absolute certainty about this. But on the other hand, you can set up appropriate experiments to make sure that anonymity really removes the prohibitions on people's behavior. In one experiment, Zimbardo (1970) asked women at New York University to wear identical white robes and hats similar to the Ku Klux Klan (Figure 16-1). When instructed to shock the victim, these subjects held their finger on the button twice as long as those who could see the face and large name tag.
Rice. 16-1. The test subjects, whose faces are hidden under the mask, apply more strong blows shock to a defenseless victim than those who can be identified.
A group of researchers led by Ed Diener (1976) ingeniously demonstrated what happens when group members are guaranteed total anonymity. On Halloween Eve, 1,352 Seattle children were observed going door-to-door with the traditional "trick or treat." [Treat, otherwise we will play a trick on you. Kind of caroling. (Translator's note)]
In 27 houses in different districts of the city, the children, coming alone or in a group, were waiting for the experimenters. The owner cordially invited guests to the house and offered to take "each one chocolate bar," after which he left the room. The hidden observers found that children in the group took an extra chocolate bar more than twice as often as those who went alone. Similarly, children who remained anonymous were more than twice as likely to be deceitful as children who were asked for their name and address. These examples demonstrate that the degree of honesty depends a lot on the situation. As shown in fig. 16-2, in the case when the dissolution in the group was combined with the guarantee of anonymity, the children took the extra chocolate most often.
[Offenders, Identified, Anonymous, Individual, Group]
Rice. 16-2. Children are more likely to take an extra chocolate bar when they are in a group, when they act as anonymous, and especially when they are deindividualized by both (data from Diener & others, 1976).
Experiments like this got me interested in the effect of wearing a uniform. In preparation for battle, the warriors of some tribes depersonalize themselves: they paint their faces and bodies or put on special masks (like ardent fans of sports teams). It is also known that in some cultures, it is customary to kill, torture and maim the enemies who survived after the victory; in others, prisoners are simply sent to prison. Robert Watson (1973) scrutinized anthropological data and found that cultures in which warriors are depersonalized are those in which prisoners are brutally dealt with. The uniformed LAPD officers who beat Rodney King were angered by his defiant refusal to stop, they felt mutual support and were unaware that they were being watched. Thus, they fell under the power of the situation, forgetting about the usual norms of behavior.
Does guaranteed anonymity always free our worst instincts? Fortunately, no. First of all, it should be noted that the situations in which the subjects were placed during most of the experiments described above had clearly expressed antisocial features. Robert Johnson and Leslie Downing (1979) have pointed out that in Zimbardo's experiment, the violence may have been provoked by the Ku Klux Klan costumes. In one experiment at the University of Georgia, female subjects put on nurses' gowns before delivering electric shocks. When women in such gowns acted as anonymous, they showed less aggressiveness towards the victim than when their names and identification data were emphasized. Obviously, in a situation of anonymity, a person is less aware of his actions and becomes more receptive to situational hints - both negative (Ku Klux Klansman costume) and positive (nurse robe). Feeling altruistic cues, deindividualized people donate even more money than when their names are announced (Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990).
This helps explain why wearing black uniforms - traditionally associated with evil and death and worn by medieval executioners, Darth Vader and ninja warriors - has the effect of opposite effect from wearing nurse's clothing. Mark Frank and Thomas Gilovich (1988) report that from 1970 to 1986 sports teams with black uniforms (primarily Los Angeles Raiders and Philadelphia Flyers consistently ranked first in the National Football and Hockey League in terms of the number of penalties received. Subsequent laboratory experiments found that wearing a plain black sweater can already provoke a person to more aggressive actions.
Exciting and distracting activities
Explosions of aggression in large groups often preceded by minor actions that excite and confuse. Groups are shouting, chanting, clapping, dancing, and this is necessary in order to both arouse people and reduce their self-consciousness. An eyewitness from the Moon sect recalls how the chant "choo-choo-choo" helped deindividualization:
« All the brothers and sisters joined hands and began to shout with increasing force: choo-choo-choo, choo-choo-choo, choo-choo-choo! YA! YA! PAH! This action brought us together as a group, as if we mysteriously experienced something important together. The power of "choo-choo-choo" scared me; but she also made me feel comfortable. After releasing the accumulated energy, we felt completely relaxed.» (Zimbardo & others, 1977).
Experiments by Ed Diener (1976, 1979) showed that actions such as throwing stones and choral singing may set the stage for more unbridled behavior. There is a self-reinforcing pleasure in doing impulsive actions while watching others do the same. When we see others doing the same, we assume that they feel the same and thus reinforce our feelings (Orive, 1984). Impulsive group acts grab our attention. When we resent the actions of the arbitrator, we are not thinking about our values, we are reacting to the immediate situation. Later, when we think about what we did or said, we sometimes feel ashamed. Sometimes. But sometimes we ourselves look for opportunities to de-individualize in a group: at a disco, at war, in street riots - wherever you can indulge in strong positive emotions and feel connected to others.
Weakened self-awareness
Group experiences that weaken self-awareness tend to mismatch behavior and attitudes. Experiments by Ed Diener (1980) and Steven Prentice-Dunn and Ronald Rogers (Steven Prentice-Dunn & Ronald Rogers, 1980, 1989) have found that deindividualized, self-conscious people are less self-restraint and control; they tend to act in direct response to the situation without even remembering their values. All this is confirmed in experiments on self-awareness. Self-awareness and deindividualization are like two sides of the same coin. Those who have been heightened in self-awareness, say by placing them in front of a mirror or TV camera, show increased self-control, their actions more reflecting their attitudes. When in front of a mirror, people who are afraid of gaining weight will eat less starchy foods and sweets (Sentyrz & Bushman, 1997). In addition, people who have not lost self-awareness are less prone to trickery and deceit (Beaman & others, 1979; Diener & Wallbom, 1976). The same is true for those who are keenly aware of their individuality and independence (Nadler & others, 1982). People who have or are induced to have heightened self-awareness show a greater correspondence between what they say and what they do.
Circumstances that reduce self-consciousness, such as alcohol intoxication, respectively, increase deindividuation (Hull & others, 1983). Conversely, deindividualization is reduced in circumstances that increase self-awareness: in front of a mirror and television camera, in small towns, in bright light, when using name tags or custom clothing, etc. (Ickes & others, 1978). When a teenager goes to a party, a wise parental advice might sound like this: "I wish you a pleasant evening, and do not forget who you are." In other words, enjoy being in a group, but don't lose your self-awareness: don't succumb to deindividualization.
Concepts to remember
Deindividualization(Deindividuation) - loss of self-awareness and fear of evaluation; occurs in group situations that guarantee anonymity and do not focus on the individual.
Social facilitation is manifested when a person makes certain efforts to achieve individual goals. Group interactions develop differently in a situation where the group has a common goal, but there is no individual responsibility. When people work in a group, they work less hard than they do individually. For example, if you announce in a group that the proceeds earned will go to a general excursion, then the group's performance will drop. When pulling the rope in a team, they pull 18% worse than in pairs. Or another striking example from the Soviet past: in the USSR, 1% of the land was privately owned, and Soviet peasants harvested 27% of the crop from this land. This figure gives an idea of the extent of the social laziness of the same peasants in the collective farms.
Max Ringelmann, who studied these phenomena, concluded that the collective performance of a group is approximately equal to ½ the sum of the performance of each individual. This process is called social laziness (social idleness).
social laziness - the tendency of people to make less effort when they combine their efforts for a common goal than in the case of individual responsibility.
It's likely that people loafer in groups because they don't feel a fair amount of trust in them, or because they think they can work less in a crowd. At the same time, no one in the group considers himself a loafer, but there are always "hares" - people who receive some benefit from the group, but give little in return.
The fear of evaluation in a group situation decreases. Thus, when observation increases fear of judgment, the result is social facilitation; when being lost in a crowd lessens the fear of judgment, the result is social laziness.
Sloth increases with group size. For example, a student's motivation to prepare a practical lesson drops sharply if the group consists of 30 people instead of 10.
Groups goof off a lot less if their members are friends rather than strangers, so cohesion enhances effort. In collectivist cultures, social laziness manifests itself to a lesser extent than in individualistic ones, since loyalty to the family and the work group is strong. Women are less prone to social laziness than men, since male psychology is more individualistic.
To combat social laziness and increase the motivation of group members, two main strategies :
1) a strategy for identifying individual productivity, that is, the leader gives individual tasks and takes into account the personal contribution of each to the result;
2) creating a team spirit, that is, rewarding and encouraging the group as a holistic entity.
Deindividualization
When social facilitation (getting people excited) is added to social laziness (responsibility dilution), normative deterrence is weakened and results can range from mild disruption (tossing food in the cafeteria, cursing the referee, yelling at a rock concert) to disruptive social explosions (gang vandalism, police brutality, riots, lynching).
Apparently, the band evokes a sense of belonging to something more than "I" (it's hard to imagine a lonely rock fan). In certain situations, people who are members of a group tend to drop normative restraint, to lose their sense of individual responsibility.
Deindividualization - loss of self-awareness and fear of evaluation; occurs in group situations that provide anonymity and do not focus on the individual.
Evgenia Panova
One hundred years ago, the Frenchman Ringelmann was experimenting with tug-of-war and discovered that one person pulls the rope harder than the same person in a team. The larger the team, the less effort each member makes
The phenomenon was called the Ringelmann effect and began to be investigated. Scientists have carried out the most different experiments and made sure that, for example, in a crowd, each participant claps and shouts weaker than alone and pedals better if he thinks he is doing it alone, and not as part of a team.
The subjects themselves in all experiments were sure that they were trying the same way.
This phenomenon has been called social laziness. When the opportunity arises to “get lost in the crowd”, everyone makes a little less effort than when working alone: social laziness increases.
Social loafing in action
If there are no personal assessments in the team and the management evaluates only collective results, social laziness will also manifest itself in work.
A canned cucumber factory has several employees who have to sort cucumbers into jars by size. The work of each of them is impersonal: the banks then accumulate in a common bunker, and it is impossible to distinguish which of the workers was responsible for filling each of them.
In this situation, workers will stuff all the cucumbers in a row into the jar, regardless of their size.
At work, the same Ringelman effect operates: the larger the team, the weaker the efforts of each employee. Collective responsibility, impersonal labor are the conditions for the manifestation of social laziness.
To reduce negative manifestations, it is necessary to personalize the responsibility and the result of the work of each employee as much as possible.
When collective efforts don't relax
The researchers also found that teamwork does not always become a condition for the manifestation of social loafing.
If the team is working on a complex, extraordinary, exciting task, social laziness does not manifest itself. Team members value their work as indispensable and try their best, regardless of the personalization of the results.
Members of the group in which friends work are not lazy either: no one wants to let a friend down, so social laziness does not manifest itself in such a group.
How to beat social laziness
The first step in the prevention of social laziness is the definition of a personal area of responsibility and the development of clear requirements for employees.
For example, you manage workers who dig garden beds. Your personal area of responsibility is a piece of land plowed in a certain way. As a leader, it is important for you to define a personal area of responsibility for each of your subordinates. Each of the workers must clearly understand what kind of result you expect from him, for example, the area of the surface treated in a certain way.
If you have employees who pack products, they need to clearly understand what exactly you want from them. For example, 12 candies in a general package, 12 candies stacked in a certain way, or 12 candies of a certain color - there is a difference.
If the leader has not defined clear areas of responsibility and the requirements set by him are vague, unclear or ambiguous, then he may face the effect of social laziness.
Understanding whether there are prerequisites for social loafing in a group is simple. It is enough to answer a few questions:
- Are personal areas of responsibility between employees sufficiently clearly distributed?
- Does each employee know their area of responsibility?
- Do employees understand what the results of their work should be? If you are sure that yes, then how did you understand this?
- Do spontaneous redistribution of areas of responsibility occur at the enterprise, in which employees no longer understand who is responsible for what? And if so, how often?
- Are the results of individual work recorded and analyzed? There are cases when the indicators seem to be there, but they are either not controlled, or they do it formally.
- Is the result of individual work reflected in wages?
For example, if several diggers dig a pit together, then each of the diggers will "give out to the mountain" a smaller amount of soil per unit time than if the diggers worked alone. This, of course, applies not only simple species labor. This effect has been confirmed in huge number experiments on the example of the most different types activities. The overall result is that working in a group leads to a relative decrease in productivity compared to individual work.
Under the group this case refers to a set of individuals whose activities are aimed at achieving common goals. To obtain the effect of social laziness, it is not at all necessary that the members of the group work in the same place, like diggers. A group can be called, for example, employees of the purchasing department, warehouse and sales department. They have common goal to the maximum extent and minimum terms meet the needs of buyers. It can be called a group of accounting staff, since they have a common goal - the preparation of correct financial statements. Generally speaking, the company as a whole can be called a group, since the employees have a common goal - the profit of the company.
What are the reasons for such "netting" individuals when they are combined into a group? And how to deal with it? Social psychologists explain this effect the fact that, working in a group, individual person as if hiding in the crowd, his individual results are not clearly visible, and that is why he can afford to “jump”, “slip for free”.
Indeed, the results of studies show that in those cases where, along with group, are fixed and individual performance results, in other words, when it is “seen” not only how much the group as a whole has done, but also how much each individual has done, then social laziness disappears. In order to ensure that work in a group does not reduce the productivity of diggers, it is enough to trace how much land each digger dug and make his payment dependent not only on group, but also on individual results.
However, the reality is that it is not always possible to clearly measure individual results. Let's take as an example group work at meetings. Suppose there is a discussion of ways to solve this or that production problem. The meeting is attended by heads and leading specialists of various divisions of the company. How to evaluate the individual contribution of each participant in solving the problem? By the number of ideas put forward, by their quality, by the total time of speeches ..? Problematic. One can talk a lot, but "not on business." And the other is to meditate silently throughout the entire discussion, and then give out a super idea.
More recently, a study by Worchel, Rothgerber, & Day, 2011 provided evidence that sheds New World on the phenomenon of social loafing and offer some additional recommendations to eliminate this undesirable effect.
The experimental results show that the magnitude of the effect of social loafing is related to the level of maturity of the group. In the early stages, when the group is just formed, the effect of social loafing is not observed, on the contrary, there is even a tendency for participants to work better in a group than individually. On the other hand, when the group has existed for a long time, when it becomes mature, the effect of social laziness is fully manifested.
The explanation for these facts is as follows. In the early stages, most members of the group, as it were, merge with it, consider themselves and the group as a whole. Over time, however, this sense of unity weakens, the individual begins to mentally separate himself from the team, separate his working interests and the interests of the group; as a result, the group becomes a collection of functionally (but not emotionally) related individuals.
Thus, in order for the activities of the group members to be as productive as possible, the following can be recommended:
First of all, in mature, established groups, it is necessary to clearly measure individual performance each of the employees, make the remuneration system dependent on individual results and not be limited only to the performance indicators of group work.
Secondly, necessary create new groups more often. This does not necessarily require the destruction, disbandment of existing collectives. It’s just that in addition to the existing ones, it makes sense to create new, possibly temporary associations of employees: for example, different kind project teams, created for the solution of a specific task on a temporary basis from employees of different departments. By the way, in "young" groups it is not necessary to fix the participants' attention on their individual results , it can disrupt the feeling of unity of the group members, shift the focus from the feeling of "we" to the feeling of "I", weaken the sense of identification with the group and the desire to work for a common result. In young groups, it will most likely be sufficient to use only group performance as the basis of the reward system.
