A Preliminary Examination of Perceptions of Social Influence in Group Decision Making in the Workplace

Abstract

Theory and research on social influence in groups indicate that normative influence can be detrimental to important group outcomes, whereas informational influence tends to have positive effects. However, much of the research providing these results consists of experimental studies conducted in laboratory settings. We examine how normative and informational influences are perceived in decision-making groups in the workplace. We find, in a survey of 197 individuals involved in group decision making in their workplaces, that the use of informational influence is viewed as enhancing group decision-making effectiveness and group cohesiveness. In contrast, normative influence has a negative effect on perceptions of decision-making effectiveness. Flirting as a form of idiosyncratic influence in the workplace is also considered and is found to have negative effects on perceptions of decision-making effectiveness and cohesiveness.

Keywords

group communication interpersonal communication quantitative social influence cohesiveness

Frequently, organizations and businesses rely on groups or teams to make crucial decisions (Wong, Ormisten, & Tetlock, 2011). The process of making decisions in groups, in turn, implies that organizational decision making often involves attempted social influence among group members. The influence attempt will be either successful (i.e., at least one group member will change his or her own private or public position to correspond to the position advocated) or unsuccessful (i.e., no other group member will change his or her private or public positions to the position being advocated).

There are a host of different strategies and tactics one group member may use to influence the other members of a group (e.g., Schenck-Hamlin, Wiseman, & Georgakarakos, 1982). Influence tactics will vary with regard to their effectiveness but also with regard to their effect on social relations in groups (Pierro, Kruglanski, & Raven, 2012). As a result, it is important for scholars interested in groups, organizations, and business to examine social influence in decision-making groups.

From a business perspective, extant research on social influence during group decision making has several shortcomings that we seek to address in the current study. First, much of the existing research on social influence in decision-making groups focuses on zero-history groups brought together in a laboratory setting (e.g., Bowman & Wittenbaum, 2012; Henningsen & Henningsen, 2003). Thus, there is a need to examine social influence processes from the perspective of individuals who make decisions in organizational groups. Second, much of the research on social influence in groups focuses exclusively on two distinct forms of social influence: informational influence and normative influence (Kaplan, 1989). Although a valid focus, the typology likely excludes a wide range of social influence tactics that are commonly used by employees of businesses and organizations.

In the present study, both of the aforementioned concerns are addressed in a preliminary study of social influence in organizational group decision making. We explore the perceptions of different types of social influence from the perspective of individuals who engage in group interactions for their jobs. We will look at how the perceived use of social influence in group decision making shapes impressions of the quality of decision outcomes and the reported level of cohesiveness in decision-making groups in the workplace. In addition, we will go beyond simply studying perceptions of informational and normative influence. The concept of idiosyncratic influence is introduced, and a specific idiosyncratic influence tactic (i.e., instrumental flirting) will be examined.

We believe that as a preliminary study, the current research will provide a basis for future researchers who wish to examine social influence processes in organizational and business settings. We turn next to a review of past research on social influence in group decision making.

Literature Review

Informational and Normative Influence in Group Decision Making

Research on social influence in groups primarily focuses on two fundamental types of influence: informational influence and normative influence (e.g., Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kaplan, 1989). Informational influence in groups represents an attempt to change the attitudes or behaviors of other group members based on their desire to make the best decision possible (Kaplan, 1989). Informational influence is best implemented by employing logical arguments, facts, and evidence indicating why various alternatives are stronger or weaker than others. In essence, informational influence relies on data and evidence to support a high-quality decision alternative. Informational influence has been operationalized as statements presenting facts, evidence, or arguments (e.g., Kaplan & Miller, 1987; Kelly, Jackson, & Huston-Comeaux, 1997).

Normative influence in groups, on the other hand, reflects an attempt to change the attitudes or behaviors of other group members based on the group members’ desire to belong to the group (Kaplan, 1989). Normative influence, in practice, involves indicating what behavior or attitude is desired by a majority of the group members and illustrating that resistance to those desires may lead to social disapproval or ostracism while compliance with them will lead to acceptance and belonging. Normative influence, in contrast to informational influence, relies on indicating what group preferences are and the advantages of going along. Researchers have operationalized normative influence attempts as statements of group members’ positions or descriptions of the alternative favored by the majority of the group’s members (e.g., Cruz, Henningsen, & Williams, 2000; Kaplan & Miller, 1987).

The Relative Merits of Informational and Normative Influence

In considering how the use of informational and normative influence impacts a business or organization, different outcomes may be considered. We focus first on how influence type affects the quality of decisions made by groups and second on group cohesiveness. The former relates to a business’s effectiveness in tasks such as hiring, marketing, and productivity; the latter relates to employees’ commitment to a business or organization and their job satisfaction. As such, these two variables provide a breadth of information about the effects of influence in group decision making.

Decision Quality

Research indicates that normative influence can have detrimental effects on group decision making. For instance, Asch (1951), in his seminal influence studies, reported that individuals complied with decisions they knew were incorrect because of majority pressure. Similarly, Cruz et al. (2000) found, in conditions conducive to informational influence and antithetical to normative influence, that normative influence could still overwhelm informational influence and lead groups to make inferior decisions. Additionally, the superseding desire for consensus was identified as a force leading to historical fiascoes in Janis’s (1982) groupthink.

In contrast, research shows that the use of informational influence tends to have positive effects on group-decision quality. Kelly et al. (1997) found that increased use of informational influence statements in groups led to improved group accuracy. Likewise, Reid, Ball, Morley, and Evans (1997) reported that satisfaction with group decisions was positively related to the use of informational influence statements.

The idea that informational influence should positively influence decision quality is also supported by theory. The functional perspective of group decision making proposes that informational types of statements (i.e., problem analysis, positive and negative evaluations of decision alternatives) have a positive impact on the quality of group decisions (Hirokawa, 1985; 1988). Support for the claims of the functional perspective, particularly for the impact of negative evaluations of decision alternatives, have been supported in a meta-analytic review (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001).

Although there is strong support for the idea that informational influence promotes group decision-quality while normative influence impedes it, these findings are somewhat limited in terms of ecological validity. Researchers have not evaluated the outcomes of the use of normative and informational influence in organizational or business contexts. Even Janis (1982), who in his analysis of groupthink looked at bona fide group decisions, problematically considers perceptions of group processes only after decision outcomes are well known, creating the risk of retrospective sense-making (see Henningsen, Henningsen, Eden, & Cruz, 2006).

This study extends extant research by examining how normative and informational influences in workplace decision-making groups affect group members’ perceptions of their group’s decision quality. Although perceptions of decision quality are not identical to actual quality, such perceptions by stakeholders can influence commitment to the decision and engagement in its enactment. Consistent with past laboratory research, we predict that individual reports of informational influence in group decision making (i.e., perceptions of the use of data, facts, and information to influence others) will be positively associated with perceptions of decision quality (i.e., perceptions of the effectiveness of group decision making in the workplace) and that reports of normative influence in group decision making (i.e., perceptions of the use of majority pressure or pressure to maintain group harmony) will be negatively related to perceptions of decision quality. These predictions are presented in Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of normative influence will be negatively correlated with perceptions of the quality of group decisions.

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of informational influence will be positively correlated with perceptions of the quality of group decisions.

Despite the evidence that normative influence can lead to inferior decision making, group research indicates that it is quite common in decision-making groups (e.g., Kaplan & Miller, 1987; Kelly et al., 1997). It is possible that normative influence in group discussion is concomitant with other group outputs that account for its popularity. One possibility is that normative influence may positively influence group cohesiveness. We consider this in the next section.

Group Cohesiveness

Cohesiveness can be defined as “the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group” (Cartwright, 1968, p. 91). Such forces take into account the feeling of belonging that a group member has for his or her position within the group (Limon & Boster, 2003). Normative influence is based on individual group members’ desire to belong to the group (Kaplan, 1989). Statements that indicate positions held by the majority of the group provide sign posts for individuals to modify their own beliefs or behaviors to more perfectly match those of the group. Espousing a similar position to other group members should increase the likelihood of being accepted or liked by the group. The use of normative influence statements should foster the desire individuals have to belong to the group. Informational influence, on the other hand, tends to assert the superiority of one’s position over another’s. This could be viewed as potentially damaging to cohesiveness.

Results from past research are ambiguous with regard to how normative and informational influences affect cohesiveness in groups. Only one study appears to address this issue directly. Henningsen, Henningsen, Cruz, and Morrill (2003) predicted that a group harmony goal would increase the amount of normative influence statements in group discussion compared to when group harmony was not a specified goal. They also predicted that groups would be less likely to employ informational influence with a group harmony goal than under the other conditions. These predictions would indicate that the desire to promote relationships within a group is supported by normative influence statements but not by informational influence statements. The authors, however, found no evidence supporting these predictions.

More tangentially, there is some evidence that normative influence in the form of peer pressure can produce negative reactions. Plax, Kearney, Downs, and Stewart (1986), for example, found that students are more resistant to peer pressure as a form of classroom influence than other techniques. On the other hand, Sager and Gastil (2006) found that the more groups choose to employ a consensus decision rule, the more satisfied they tend to be with the group. It is possible that a push for consensus could be interpreted by group members as the use of normative influence.

In the current study, we seek to address whether perceptions of normative and informational influence are related to group cohesiveness (i.e., reported preference to remain with and work with the group). The research questions formally state the interconnections in the investigation.

Research Question 1: How will perceptions of normative influence correlate with perceptions of group cohesiveness?

Research Question 2: How will perceptions of informational influence correlate with perceptions of group cohesiveness?

In addition to examining normative and informational influence, we are also interested in examining other social influence tactics that are used in businesses and organizations but that cannot be easily categorized as informational or normative. In the next section, we address flirting as a potential form of social influence in organizational group decision making.

Flirting as Social Influence

The extant literature on group dynamics frequently focuses on influence in groups as either informational or normative (e.g., Asch, 1955; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kaplan, 1989). Individuals, however, may use influence strategies in group discussions that do not fit perfectly under these designations. One social influence tactic that fits poorly as either informational or normative influence is flirting. Flirting can be defined as “ambiguous goal motivated behaviors that can be, but are not restricted to being, interpreted as sexually motivated” (Henningsen, Braz, & Davies, 2008, p. 484). Thus flirting involves engaging in behaviors that imply sexual interest for another person but that are abstruse enough that such a motive could be plausibly denied.

The flirting literature provides a typology of motivations for flirting (Henningsen, 2004). Instrumental flirting (Henningsen, 2004) is performed with the goal of getting another person to perform a task for the sender rather than for sexual motivations. There is evidence that flirting is used as a social influence tactic in the workplace. For instance, an instrumental goal was found to be a more common motivation for flirting in the workplace than in social settings (Henningsen et al., 2008). This indicates that flirting is used as a social influence tactic at work.

Engaging in instrumental flirting has elements in common with employing normative influence in that instrumental flirting implies a form of social acceptance of another individual. However, the type of acceptance flirting proffers does not imply acceptance by the group as a whole but rather an individual form of acceptance by the flirter. Indeed, flirting may be viewed by observers as inappropriately sexualized behavior in the workplace (Solomon & Williams, 1997a, 1997b). In this sense, responding to flirtation by another may lead to group disapproval or sanction. Thus, characterizing instrumental flirting as a normative influence tactic is problematic.

A better fit for flirting as a form of influence may be found by examining compliance-gaining strategies. Schenck-Hamlin et al. (1982) explicated a compliance-gaining strategy typology. Ingratiation is a strategy in which individuals provide rewards such as gifts, favors, or affection in advance of a request for compliance. Instrumental flirting aligns with the ingratiation compliance-gaining tactic as it exchanges the reward of attraction or affection for compliance with the sender.

Instrumental flirting, as a form of idiosyncratic influence, occurs in the workplace (Henningsen et al., 2009) and may influence group discussions and decision-making outcomes. As a result, the next sections address how flirting, as an influence tactic in group decision making, may affect perceptions of decision quality and cohesiveness.

Flirting and Decision Quality

Little research has examined how flirting as an influence tactic affects decision outcomes or the perceptions of group members. Dillard, Hale, and Segrin (1994) found that romantic relationships that could be characterized as instrumentally motivated were viewed negatively by others in the workplace. Instrumental flirting could be perceived similarly to office romances pursued to advance one’s career. Kray and Locke (2008), for instance, examined how flirting in negotiation influenced perceptions of the flirter. They found that individuals who engaged in flirting during negotiation were found to be viewed as less authentic than those who did not. Interestingly, those who flirted during negotiation were not judged to be less competent than those who did not. Kray and Locke did not examine perceptions of the quality of the outcome produced by the negotiations. This study extends the findings of Dillard et al. (1994) and those of Kray and Locke (2008) by examining how perceptions of the use of instrumental flirting (i.e., communicating the potential of romantic interest to influence others) occurring during group decision making are correlated with perceptions of decision quality. More specifically, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of instrumental flirting during group decision making will be negatively correlated with perceptions of decision quality.

Flirting and Cohesiveness

Although flirting as an influence tactic may or may not influence decision quality, it is possible that it will have a direct effect on group cohesiveness. Dillard et al. (1994) found that when workplace relationships were viewed as motivated by instrumental goals, the office romance negatively influenced the social climate of an organization. Similarly, Horan and Chory (2009) found that dating a superior, which could be attributed to pursuing career goals, was negatively associated with trust and solidarity in an organization. Thus, we hypothesize that perceptions of flirting as an influence tactic during group decision making will be negatively correlated with perceptions of group cohesiveness.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of instrumental flirting during group decision making will be negatively correlated with perceptions of group cohesiveness.

Perceptions of the Relative Use of Social Influence

A further issue can be explored in the current investigation. There is conflicting evidence about the relationship between the use of normative and informational influences in groups. Some research indicates that normative and informational influence statements are positively correlated (Henningsen et al., 2003; Henningsen & Henningsen, 2003). Henningsen et al. (2003) argue that conditions that promote social influence bring about higher levels of both types of influence statements than conditions that dissuade from social influence. In contrast, other research finds that the use of one type of influence tends to offset use of the alternative influence type (e.g., Kelly et al., 1997). In essence, this line of reasoning proposes that conditions that promote normative influence are those that dissuade from informational influence and vice versa. Still other studies find no significant association between the types of statements (e.g., Reid et al., 1997). The current research tests this question using perceptions of influence use in group decision making by business professionals. The following research question is presented to reflect this idea.

Research Question 3: How are perceptions of normative and informational influence in groups associated with one another?

Method

Participants

A log-rolling technique was used to recruit eligible participants. Students in a group communication course recruited individuals to participate in the study who met the following criteria: the participants had to be at least 18 years old, they had to be currently nonstudents working full time (i.e., at least 40 per week), and finally their job had to entail group decision making in which they were actively involved. In total, 233 participants (117 women, 116 men) completed the survey. Of these participants, 197 responded yes when asked whether they regularly participate in group decision making in their jobs. Only the participants who responded affirmatively to this question were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 36.24 years (SD = 12.88, range = 20-66). Participants reported that they had been with their current job for a mean of 8.24 years (SD = 9.31). On average, individuals in the study reported working 43.74 hours per week at their jobs. The majority of our sample, 73.8%, reported being Caucasian American; 15.8% reported being African American, 3.0% reported being Latino/a American, and 2.1% reported being Asian American. Given the exploratory nature of the study, we allowed anyone to participate who met the criteria delineated above regardless of the nature of their positions within organizations.

Procedures

Individuals who met the recruitment criteria and who agreed to participate in the study filled out a questionnaire. Among the items in the questionnaire were scales measuring the respondents’ perceptions of normative influence, informational influence, and instrumental flirting use during group decision making in their workplace. In addition, individuals recorded their perceptions of decision-making effectiveness and cohesiveness in the workplace. Finally, individuals provided basic demographic information.

Measures

Perceptions of Informational Influence

Participants filled out a five-item measure of perceived informational influence, α = .80, M = 4.52, SD = 0.86. Responses to the items were recorded on a 6-point scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Scores were coded so that higher numbers indicated greater levels of perceived informational influence. People were instructed to think about their experiences in decision-making groups in their workplace. The items included the following: (1) People present new information to try to get group members to change their minds. (2) People present data in support of their position to try to get others to accept the position. (3) People often repeat key items of information in support of the position they favor. (4) People provide factual evidence in support of their positions to persuade others. (5) People generally rely on the facts to try to make their case for a position.

Perceptions of Normative Influence

Participants filled out a five-item measure of perceived informational influence, α = .84, M = 3.78, SD = 1.08. Responses to the items were recorded on a 6-point scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Scores were coded so that higher numbers indicated greater levels of perceived normative influence. People were instructed to think about their experiences in decision-making groups in their workplace. The items included the following: (1) People often assert that others should accept a certain position to try to keep harmony in the group. (2) People try to get others to accept a position because the majority favors it. (3) In group discussions, the majority tries to get minority members to go along with them. (4) People urge dissenters to go along with the group. (5) When making a decision in a group, the majority pressures the minority to give in.

Perceptions of Flirting as Influence

Participants filled out a five-item measure of perceived flirting as influence, α = .90, M = 2.50, SD = 1.24. Responses to the items were recorded on a 6-point scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Scores were coded so that higher numbers indicated greater levels of perceived flirting as influence. People were instructed to think about their experiences in decision-making groups in their workplace. The items included the following: (1) People try to flirt with other group members to get them to go along with them. (2) People hint at romantic interest in other group members to try to lure those members into agreeing with them. (3) People act in a sexy way to get others to go along with them. (4) People pretend to be interested in another to get that person to go along with them. (5) People use flirtation to try to get their way in groups.

In addition to examining the reliability of the items measuring perceptions of informational influence, normative influence, and flirting as influence, we performed an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation on all 15 items to see if the anticipated three-factor solution emerged. A three-factor model emerged with factors loading onto components reflecting normative influence, eigenvalue = 4.58, percentage of variance accounted for = 32.74%; instrumental flirting, eigenvalue = 3.14, percentage of variance accounted for = 22.45%; and informational influence, eigenvalue = 1.24, percentage of variance accounted for = 9.02%.

Perceptions of Group Decision-Making Effectiveness

Participants were asked to think about group decision making in their workplace. They were asked questions evaluating their perceptions of the effectiveness of group decision making in their workplace. A six-item measure was used to record perceptions of group effectiveness, α = .80, M = 4.51, SD = 0.96. Scores were recorded on six items that were scaled and coded so that higher numbers indicated greater levels of perceived effectiveness. Scales were anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. The items included the following: (1) Group decision making is the best way to get things done at my job. (2) Group decision making really does not work well at my workplace. (3) At my workplace, group decision making is a disaster. (4) When we make decisions in groups at work, we generally do a good job. (5) In my workplace, group decision making is very effective. (6) Given the choice, at my job I would rather see key decisions made by groups than by individuals.

Perceptions of Group Cohesiveness

Impressions of group cohesiveness were recorded. Individuals were asked to focus on the group of individuals they were most likely to make group decisions with at work. A five-item measure was used to record perceived cohesiveness, α = .81, M = 4.08, SD = 0.99. Scores were recorded on five items that were scaled and coded so that higher numbers indicated greater levels of perceived cohesiveness. Scales were anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. The items included the following: (1) If I could choose who I make decisions with, I would pick the people at my workplace. (2) The decisions we make at work would be better if I worked with a different group of people. (3) I would like to continue to be in my decision-making group at work over any possible alternative teams. (4) I enjoy the group of decision makers I work with in my workplace. (5) On the whole, I would say I enjoy making decisions with the group at work.

Results

Frequency of Influence Types

We examined participants’ reports of the frequency of each type of influence. If frequency scores did not differ significantly from the scale anchor, this would indicate that the type of influence was not perceived as occurring frequently by the individuals in our sample. In contrast, a finding that the mean frequency for a type of influence was greater than the scale midpoint (i.e., 3.5) would indicate that the influence attempt was somewhat common.

Informational Influence

Individuals recorded a mean level of informational influence in their groups of 4.52, SD = 0.86. This mean is significantly higher, t(196) = 16.65, p < .05, than the scale midpoint, 3.5. This indicates that individuals perceive that informational influence does actively occur in their decision-making groups.

Normative Influence

Individuals recorded a mean level of normative influence in their groups of 3.78, SD = 1.08. This mean is significantly higher, t(195) = 3.64, p < .05, than the scale midpoint, 3.5. This indicates that individuals perceive that normative influence does actively occur in their decision-making groups.

Flirting as Influence

Individuals recorded a mean level of flirting as influence in their groups of 2.50, SD = 1.24. This mean is significantly lower, t(195) = 12.13, p < .05, than the scale midpoint, 3.5. This indicates that individuals perceive that flirting as influence is relatively uncommon in their decision-making groups. However, the mean is also significantly higher than the scale anchor of 1.0, t(195) = 18.47, p < .05. Thus, there is some evidence that, although it may not be commonplace, flirting as influence does occur on occasion in decision-making groups.

Relative Contributions

We compared the level of flirting as influence, normative influence, and informational influence perceived by group members in group decision making in their workplace using a one-way, within-group analysis of variance (ANOVA). Overall, a significant linear trend emerged, F(1, 231) = 364.69, p < .05, partial η² = .61. Individuals reported more informational influence than normative influence, and more normative influence than flirting as influence.

How Influence Type Contributes to Perceptions of Group Decision-Making Effectiveness

We performed a regression analysis to determine how the perceived use of influence (i.e., normative, informational, and flirting as influence) affected the perceived effectiveness of group decision making. We regressed perceptions of normative influence, informational influence, and flirting as influence onto perceived group decision-making effectiveness (see Table 1). Overall, a significant multiple regression coefficient emerged, R = .44, R² = .19, p > .05. The beta for normative influence indicates a significant and negative effect of normative influence in groups on group decision-making effectiveness. This result supports Hypothesis 1. The beta for informational influence indicates a significant and positive effect of informational influence in groups on group decision-making effectiveness. This result supports Hypothesis 2. Flirting as influence also produced a significant and negative beta. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is also supported.

Table 1.

Regression of Informational Influence, Normative Influence, and Flirting as Influence Onto Decision Quality.

	B	SE	β	t	p
Constant	3.62	0.36
Informational influence	0.37	0.07	.32	5.06	.00
Normative influence	−0.13	0.06	−.14	−1.98	.04
Flirting as influence	−0.16	0.05	−.20	−2.84	.01

How Influence Type Contributes to Reports of Group Cohesiveness

We performed a regression analysis to determine how the perceived use of influence (i.e., normative, informational, and flirting as influence) affected the perceived cohesiveness in decision-making groups. We regressed perceptions of normative influence, informational influence, and flirting as influence onto perceptions of cohesiveness (see Table 2). Overall, a significant multiple regression coefficient emerged, R = .31, R² = .09, p > .05. The beta for normative influence was not significant although it indicated a negative effect of normative influence on group cohesiveness. This finding indicates, in answer to Research Question 1, that normative influence does not appear to significantly influence cohesiveness. The beta for informational influence indicates a significant and positive effect of informational influence on group cohesiveness. This finding indicates, in response to Research Question 2, that informational influence appears to positively influence group cohesiveness. The beta for flirting as influence was significant and negative. This supports Hypothesis 4.

Table 2.

Regression of Informational Influence, Normative Influence, and Flirting as Influence Onto Cohesiveness.

	B	SE	β	t	p
Constant	3.56	0.38
Informational influence	0.25	0.07	.21	3.20	.02
Normative influence	−0.09	0.07	−.10	−1.31	.19
Flirting as influence	−0.13	0.06	−.15	−2.06	.04

Perceptions of Informational and Normative influence

We asked whether normative influence and informational influence would be positively or negatively correlated with one another. Our results indicate that a significant positive correlation exists between the perceived use of the two types of influence (see Table 3). The finding is consistent with the argument that when influence is perceived as appropriate or necessary, both normative and informational influence strategies are attempted. In answer to Research Question 3, normative and informational influence are perceived to rise and fall together in real-world work groups. Interestingly, flirting as influence is positively correlated with normative influence but negatively correlated with informational influence.

Table 3.

Correlations Among Predictor and Criterion Variables.

	Normative	Informational	Flirting	Cohesiveness	Effectiveness
Normative	1.00	.24*	.49*	−.12*	−.16*
Informational		1.00	−.12*	.21*	.31*
Flirting			1.00	−.23*	−.32*
Cohesiveness				1.00	.62*
Effectiveness					1.00

α = .05.

Discussion

Normative and Informational Influence

Social scientific research on normative and informational influence provides clear evidence that informational influence benefits and normative influence hinders group decision making (e.g., Kelly et al., 1997; Reid et al., 1997). That research, however, could not address the way that employees nested within decision-making groups in businesses and organizations perceive the use of influence tactics. Groupthink case studies (Janis, 1982) show that all groups are susceptible to normative forces, even those at the highest levels of business and government. In the current study, we examined how perceptions of normative and informational influence usage were associated with perceived group decision-making effectiveness and group cohesiveness.

The current study predicted that perceptions of informational influence would be positively associated with perceived group decision-making effectiveness and that perceptions of normative influence would be negatively associated with it. The data supported both hypotheses. Perceptions of the use of informational influence in group decision making were associated with the perception of more effective decision making. In contrast, perceptions of normative influence in group decision making were associated with perceptions of less effective decision making. This indicates that individuals in the workplace can affirm the findings in past laboratory-based studies (e.g., Kelly et al., 1997; Reid et al., 1997).

The study also was designed to investigate how perceptions of normative and informational influence usage would affect perceived group cohesiveness. Research Questions 1 and 2 were posed to address this issue. Although normative influence was negatively associated with cohesiveness, this effect was not statistically significant. Thus, in answer to Research Question 1, perceptions of normative influence usage has relatively little influence on cohesiveness. Informational influence was positively and significantly associated perceived group cohesiveness. In answer to Research Question 2, therefore, perceptions of the use of informational influence in group decision making are positively associated with cohesiveness.

The implications of these findings are clear. The use of normative influence appears to have deleterious effects on business decision making. In contrast, focusing on informational influence appears to have beneficial effects.

The results of this investigation also address whether perceptions of normative and informational influence were positively or negatively associated. Consistent with some past research (e.g., Henningsen et al., 2003), the results indicated that as perceptions of informational influence increased, perceptions of normative influence did as well. This is consistent with the idea that when group members feel the need to influence others during decision making, they tend to use any available strategy rather than selecting between normative or informational strategies. Noteworthy, however, is that although perceptions of flirting as influence did increase with rising perceptions of normative influence, they were negatively correlated with perceptions of informational influence.

Flirting as Influence

Flirting as a form of influence in groups was predicted to be damaging to both perceived group decision-making effectiveness and group cohesiveness. Both of these hypotheses were supported. Although overall amounts of flirting as influence in group decision making were not high, they were associated with reduced decision-making effectiveness and cohesiveness.

Flirting is unique from informational influence and normative influence. A variety of compliance-gaining strategies exist that do not necessarily fit under the omnibus terms normative or informational influence. Flirting and other compliance-gaining strategies that focus on the unique relationship between two individuals are forms of idiosyncratic influence. Normative and informational statements during a group discussion may influence any member of the group; flirting, on the other hand, would be directed at influencing one specific group member. In essence, flirting could be characterized as a form of interpersonal influence nested within a social influence context. Theoretically, the use of an individual compliance-gaining strategy in a group context could occur in other forms as well. Developing an understanding of idiosyncratic influence extends our understanding of the forms that influence can take in group decision making.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

It is important to recognize that this study deals solely with perceptions of the different forms of influence in decision-making groups and perceptions of decision-making quality. Although appropriate for a preliminary investigation, it is possible that these perceptions do not directly correspond to actual influence attempts in groups or to the different ways in which decision quality could be assessed. Future research would benefit by examining the content of work group discussions in actual decision making. In addition, establishing a metric to assess decision quality that is independent of group members’ perceptions would improve the applicability of the relevant findings. Despite these limitations, we believe that our results provide insights into the way that employees in businesses and organizations perceive social influence in decision-making interactions.

It is also worth noting that the perceptions examined in this study were global perceptions. In other words, individuals assessed how much normative, informational, and flirting influence occurred in groups without respect to the actual influence attempts of specific group members. It is possible that variation may occur among group members in their perceptions of influence statements. For instance, consider flirting as a form of influence. It is possible that perceptions may vary depending on whether men or women are the initiators of such tactics. A man may perceive instrumental flirting attempts directed at him less negatively than would a woman. Individuals also may hold different attitudes about the use of instrumental flirting. These distinctions were not possible to detect using the global perceptions measured in this study. Again, future research may find fruitful ground in exploring this question in greater detail by examining the content of actual group discussions. In that way, perceptions could be examined and compared for different types of group members (e.g., male vs. female group members, group members with more and less negative views about instrumental flirting).

Our sampling technique includes certain limitations. A log-rolling sampling technique does not produce a random sample. Other than minor restrictions (i.e., individuals had to be over 18, nonstudents, working full time, and involved in group decision making at work), recruiters had wide latitude regarding recruitment. There are no guarantees that the sample does not include an overrepresentation of some professions, for example. All caveats regarding nonrandom samples are applicable. Importantly, the results of the study parallel the findings of research from laboratory studies of group decision making. The validity of the findings seems to generalize despite the sampling technique.

Finally, our results are largely correlational. Although it is reasonable to infer from the time ordering of events (e.g., influence occurs in groups, a decision is made, the quality of that decision is assessed over time as it is implemented), it is possible that people retroactively interpret the decision-making process based on how they believed the decision itself turned out (see Henningsen et al., 2006). In that way, perceptions of decision quality could influence perceptions of social influence in groups. Again, this problem would be best addressed by examining the actual discussions of decision-making groups in organizations and seeing how those statements relate to specific criteria used to assess decision quality.

Conclusions

Overall, this study provides preliminary evidence that the type of influence people attempt to employ in decision-making groups can have broad implications for organizations. Extending past research (e.g., Kelly et al., 1997; Reid et al., 1997), the study investigated the perceived effects of normative and informational influence in real world settings. The study further introduces the concept of idiosyncratic influence for strategies that are neither normative nor informational influence.

The investigation’s findings have potentially important implications for individuals in business. As the results indicate, when individuals try to influence one another in groups, they tend to draw from a variety of tactics in the service of their suasary goals. Although this may be effective in terms of bringing about public shifts in other’s opinions, the specific types of influence used by individuals could have negative effects for the organization on both task (e.g., quality of decisions) and socioemotional (e.g., group cohesiveness) levels. Training group members to avoid using majority pressure and calls for group harmony during decision making could improve the quality of group discussions and the subsequent group outcomes. Focusing group discussions on the relevant evidence, facts, and information pertaining to a decision, in turn, may promote positive group outcomes.

The results of the study demonstrate that the use of instrumental flirting as a means of influence may have negative consequences in group decision-making contexts. Perceptions of flirting as an influence tactic are negatively associated with perceptions of decision quality and group cohesiveness. In addition, such tactics could potentially be associated with perceptions of sexual harassment. It would seem advisable that organizations attempt to deter the use of this type of idiosyncratic influence tactic. In addition, future research is needed to examine other forms of idiosyncratic influence that could have similarly deleterious effects.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

David Dryden Henningsen is a professor in the Communication Department at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

Mary Lynn Miller Henningsen is an associate professor in the Communication Department at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

References

Asch

S. E.

(1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow

(Ed.), Groups, Leadership, and Men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA.: Carnegie Press.

Asch

S. E.

(1955). Opinions and social pressures. Scientific American, 193, 31-35. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31

Bowman

Wittenbaum

G. W.

(2012). Time pressure affects process and performance in hidden profile groups. Small Group Research, 43, 295-314. doi:10.1177/1046496412440055

Cartwright

(1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In Cartwright

Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cruz

M. G.

Henningsen

D. D.

Williams

M. L.

(2000). The presence of norms in the absence of groups? The impact of normative influence under hidden-profile conditions. Human Communication Research, 26, 104-124. doi:10.1093/hcr/26.1.104

Deutsch

Gerard

H. B.

(1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon social judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636. doi:10.1037/h0046408

Dillard

J. P.

Hale

J. L.

Segrin

(1994). Close relationships in task environments: Perceptions of relational types, illicitness, and power. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 227-255. doi:10.1177/0893318994007003001

Henningsen

D. D.

(2004). Flirting with meaning: Examining miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481-489. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023068.49352.4b

Henningsen

D. D.

Braz

M. E.

Davies

(2008). Why do we flirt? Flirting motivations and sex differences in working and social contexts. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 483-502. doi:10.1177/0021943608319390

10.

Henningsen

D. D.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

Eden

Cruz

M. G.

(2006). Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Research, 37, 36-64. doi:10.1177/1046496405281772

11.

Henningsen

D. D.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

(2003). Examining social influence in information sharing contexts. Small Group Research, 34, 391-412. doi:10.1177/1046496403251933

12.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

Henningsen

D. D.

Cruz

M. G.

Morrill

(2003). Social influence in groups: A comparative application of relational framing theory and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 70, 175-197. doi:10.1080/0363775032000167398

13.

Hirokawa

R. Y.

(1985). Discussion procedures and decision-making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12, 203-224. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00073.x

14.

Hirokawa

R. Y.

(1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00165.x

15.

Horan

S. M.

Chory

R. M.

(2009). When work and love mix: Perceptions of peers in workplace romances. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 349-369.

16.

Janis

I. L.

(1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

17.

Kaplan

M. F.

(1989). Task, situational, and personal determinants of influence processes in group decision making. In Lawler

E. J.

(Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 6, pp. 87-105). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

18.

Kaplan

M. F.

Miller

C. E.

(1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.306

19.

Kelly

J. R.

Jackson

J. W.

Hutson-Comeaux

S. L.

(1997). The effects of time pressure and task differences on influence modes and accuracy in decision-making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), 10-22. doi:10.1177/0146167297231002

20.

Kray

L. J.

Locke

C. C.

(2008). To flirt or not to flirt? Sexual power at the bargaining table. Negotiation Journal, 24, 483-493. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008

21.

Limon

M. S.

Boster

F. J.

(2003). The effects of performance feedback on group members’ perceptions of prestige, task competencies, group belonging, and loafing. Communication Research Reports, 20, 13-23. doi:10.1080/08824090309388795

22.

Pierro

Kruglanski

A. W.

Raven

B. H.

(2012). Motivational underpinnings of social influence in work settings: Bases of social power and the need for cognitive closure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 41-52. doi:10.1002/ejsp.836

23.

Plax

T. G.

Kearney

Downs

T. M.

Stewart

R. A.

(1986). College students’ resistance toward teachers’ use of selective control strategies. Communication Research Reports, 3, 20-27.

24.

Orlitzky

Hirokawa

R. Y.

(2001). To err is human, to correct for it divine: A meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Research, 32, 313-341. doi:10.1177/104649640103200303

25.

Reid

F. J. M.

Ball

L. J.

Morley

A. M.

Evans

J. S. T.

(1997). Styles of group discussion in computer-mediated decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 241-262. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01130.x

26.

Sager

K. L.

Gastil

(2006). The origins and consequences of consensus decision-making: A test of the social consensus model. Southern Journal of Communication, 71, 1-24. doi:10.1080/10417940500503464

27.

Schenck-Hamlin

W. J.

Wiseman

R. L.

Georgakarakos

G. N.

(1982). A model of properties of compliance gaining strategies. Communication Quarterly, 30, 92-100. doi:10.1080/01463378209369434

28.

Solomon

D. H.

Williams

M. L. M.

(1997a). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work: The effects of message, situation, and observer characteristics on judgments of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 196-216. doi:10.1080/00909889709365476

29.

Solomon

D. H.

Williams

M. L. M.

(1997b). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 147-184. doi:10.1177/0893318997112001

30.

Wong

E. M.

Ormiston

M. E.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1207-1228. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0762