Social Loafing

Our group thinks that the level of motivation can be the first condition that promotes social loafing. Individual representing his attitude is more likely to involve in his group and prefer to undertake every workload. This situation results in the other members have less motivation to make effort on their work and to do social loafing. Others might have the perception that the one who works hard and does better job than me so I do not need to contribute to group work and our group still can achieve our goal. For example, one of my volleyball team members has really good talent to utilize strategies and skills to get points. Even though all of members realize every single one was responsible to get points, we always relied on that girl to win the game. Others did not put their all effort on the game. Also, the thought existed in our mind that if we cannot catch the ball, the girl will support us. This causes a vicious cycle that ends at the point where only the minimum amount of work is accomplished.
In addition, when people perceive that they are performing above the fair share level of the group’s work, they will want to balance the justice by lowering their effort. It is called sucker effect. (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005) For example, employees have a certain number of days off. They will use all of days off whether they are actually need to absence because they may think that they share overload work if they do not run out of days off.
The second condition is less cohesive environment in the group. If the group members cannot establish strong sense of group identity, they are more inclined to engage in social loafing. (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005) Because the group does not have common set of value, individual cannot feel belonging in the group and find their social identity. They will not do correct member behavior and do not consider about expectation of others. According to the “ZAPP” department N, we can find that no matter supervisors or employees do not