Reaction to poor performers in task groups: A model of pro-group intent.

Abstract

How do task groups react to poor performers? We integrate attribution theory with individual motivation theories in a novel, parsimonious model that makes nuanced predictions. Our model asserts that group members assess the poor performer’s intent to help the group (i.e., pro-group intent) by first considering the poor performer’s characteristics suggested by attribution theory: effort and ability. While attribution theorists have mainly assumed that low effort reflects lacking desire to contribute to group goals and that it is infeasible to acquire ability, motivation theories assume individuals set their goals to perform tasks and acquire skills based on both desirability (value) and feasibility (expectancy). As group members may well assume that a poor performer uses these criteria when forming a pro-group intent to contribute to group goals, low effort may also reflect the infeasibility of making the required contributions, and low ability may reflect a low desire to acquire new skills. Therefore, our model of pro-group intent predicts that desirability–feasibility assumptions moderate the effort–ability effect on reactions to poor performers and that evaluations of pro-group intent mediate this effect. Indeed, in five experiments (total N = 1,011), low effort only produced more negative reactions than low ability when a desirability attribution was made for effort, and a feasibility attribution was made for ability. In contrast, reversing these assumptions eliminated the effort–ability effect. This interaction was fully mediated by the performer’s perceived pro-group intent. We discuss how our (meta-) intentional perspective informs existing accounts of poor performers, group processes, and motivation science.

When facilitating a group member’s (versus one’s own) progress increases motivation in group-level goal pursuit.

“…This research makes a theoretical contribution in three areas. The first is in the area of motivational dynamics of group-level goals (e.g., Collins, 2000; Hackman & Katz, 2010; Haslam, 2004; Hertel et al, 2000, 2008; Karau & Williams, 1993, 2001; Kerr, 1996; Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Mathieu et al, 2019; Seta, 1982; Tannenbaum et al, 2012; Thürmer et al, 2019; Thürmer & Kunze, 2023; Weingart & Weldon, 1991; Weldon & Weingart, 1988). We document a novel phenomenon whereby individuals are more motivated to take an action that facilitates the progress of a group member than to undertake an equivalent action that facilitates one’s own progress.…”

“…The first is to the understanding of motivational effects that are unique to group-level goals. Whereas some scholars emphasized motivational similarities between individual- and group-level goals (e.g., Huang et al, 2012, 2017; Koo & Fishbach, 2008), others focused on unique motivational and social aspects of group-level goal pursuit (e.g., Hackman & Katz, 2010; Mathieu et al, 2019; Tannenbaum et al, 2012; Thürmer et al, 2019; Thürmer & Kunze, 2023). Here we show that actions that facilitate the progress of another person (i.e., a group member) are more motivating in pursuit of a group-level goal than actions that facilitate one’s own progress.…”

Intergroup sensitivity in a divided society: Calls for unity and reconciliatory behavior during the 2020 U.S. presidential election

“…Researchers have assumed that defensive reactions to criticism are emotional and hot (Hornsey & Esposo, 2009), but little research has directly investigated the emotional responses of group members to criticism. This is surprising, given that attribution research has long established a cognition-emotion-action link (Thürmer & Kunze, 2023;Weiner, 1980Weiner, , 2018. It is therefore plausible that emotions may serve as a subsequent process variable between attributions of constructiveness and behavioral responses.…”