Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers ☆

Abstract Although initial work on minority influence was spurred by interest in group processes, relevant research has rarely examined interactions between majority and minority factions. In particular, little is known about how current members of work teams respond to newcomers’ efforts to change existing work practices. In this study, three-person teams (a commander and two subordinates) used a computer-based air-surveillance system to monitor planes flying through a simulated airspace. After either choosing or being assigned a task strategy, teams completed a work shift and received feedback that they had either failed or succeeded. One subordinate was then replaced by a confederate (newcomer) who suggested a new strategy for the next shift. As predicted, newcomers were more influential when teams had been assigned rather than chosen their initial strategy and had subsequently failed rather than succeeded. Although newcomers are often portrayed as passive recipients of influence, this study identifies conditions under which they can function as influence agents.

[1]  R. Ziller,et al.  Assimilation of the knowledgeable newcomer under conditions of group success and failure. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[2]  W. Wood,et al.  Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making , 1984 .

[4]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[5]  Beth Dietz-Uhler,et al.  The escalation of commitment in political decision‐making groups: a social identity approach , 1996 .

[6]  G. Mugny,et al.  Perspectives on minority influence , 1985 .

[7]  Dieter Frey,et al.  Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[8]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[9]  D. Gruenfeld,et al.  What Newcomers See and What Oldtimers Say: Discontinuities in Knowledge Exchange , 1999 .

[10]  J. Levine,et al.  Knowledge Transmission in Work Groups: Helping Newcomers to Succeed , 1999 .

[11]  C A Kiesler,et al.  A test of a model for commitment. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[13]  Robert W. Swezey,et al.  Teams: Their Training and Performance , 1992 .

[14]  J. Levine,et al.  Shared Cognition in-Organizations: The Management of Knowledge , 1999 .

[15]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Cognition: Process and Performance at the Inter- and Intra-Individual Level , 2002 .

[16]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes , 2001 .

[17]  Carsten K. W. De Dreu,et al.  Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. , 2001 .

[18]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. , 1976 .

[19]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Series in Applied Psychology. , 1997 .

[20]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. , 1987 .

[21]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  J. Cooper,et al.  A New Look at Dissonance Theory , 1984 .

[23]  R. Scott Tindale,et al.  Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Qualitative versus quantitative differences , 1996 .

[24]  John M. Levine,et al.  Group staffing levels and responses to prospective and new group members , 1993 .

[25]  C. Kiesler.  The psychology of commitment : experiments linking behavior to belief , 1971 .

[26]  C. Gersick,et al.  Habitual routines in task-performing groups. , 1990, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[27]  Masanori Takezawa,et al.  Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence : An illustration in a group decision-making context , 1997 .

[28]  John M. Levine,et al.  Newcomer innovation in work teams. , 2003 .

[29]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Group creativity : An introduction , 2003 .

[30]  John M. Levine,et al.  Impact of personnel turnover on team performance and cognition. , 2004 .

[31]  Thomas Gilovich,et al.  Commission, Omission, and Dissonance Reduction: Coping with Regret in the "Monty Hall" Problem , 1995 .

[32]  M. Turner.  GROUPS AT WORK: THEORY AND RESEARCH , 2002 .

[33]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Social Influence And Social Change , 1976 .

[34]  Tatsuya Kameda,et al.  Psychological entrapment in group decision making : an assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon , 1993 .

[35]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.