Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition at work
View(s):‘I don’t know why, but I really need to be around people to complete my daily work to the best of my ability. If you ask me to be creative all alone in what I do routinely, that would drive me crazy. When I am alone, I feel demotivated and end up doing a less-than-ideal job. I guess I need others’ presence to be felt. It’s as if their presence is a real motivator even though they add nothing to what I do or say anything to encourage me,” says Andrew.
Some others nod in agreement. Note that not all of them describe themselves as extroverts. I ask in response, ‘What happens if the job is novel and difficult, and has to be learnt first?’ to which he replies, ‘Ah! Then it is different. If I have to do something new and difficult, I would prefer to do it myself. I’d rather learn it first with minimal interference from others’. This discussion takes place during one of our group coaching sessions in a management trainee programme for a client, when addressing issues on team work, competitiveness, cooperation, and individualism. In the teaching- moment of our discussion, I then explain how this might be a tendency that we all have regardless of our personality when attempting well learnt tasks confidently.
The above scenario could be explained by the phenomenon known as Social Facilitation (SF). Simply, it is the tendency of people to perform well-learned tasks better in the presence of others. Why is this the case?
In an influential article published in 1965, US social psychologist Robert Zajonc proposed that the mere presence of others increases the physiological arousal, and this arousal increases the likelihood of better performance in a well learnt skill. When the performer notices his effectiveness increasing, this further becomes a motivator that encourages excellence. This is one of the many reasons as to why in teams the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Think about an athlete who breaks his own records on the day of the actual tournament as opposed to when he is practising by himself, or when a colleague who is normally very quiet, impresses you at a meeting with his presentation, or think about the employees who only work when the peers or bosses are around.
SF can also occur due to evaluation apprehension; be it fear, anxiety, or excitement, the fact that others are observing us and evaluating us leads to physiological arousal that once again pushes us to give our best shot. It can also occur because audiences, co-actors, bystanders often lead performers in to a state of ‘attentional temptation’, in which they are placed in a state of conflict regarding whether to focus on other people or the ongoing task. This again creates stress or arousal, which leads to expressing the most dominant or well-learnt response. Researchers also say that it could be the mere desire to ‘show off’ what we can do best which propels us to do better in the presence of others than when we are alone.
This is not always the case though. Conversely, when presented with a difficult task such as solving a complex problem, or learning something completely new in front of a class, maybe even to drive a vehicle for the first time without help with a group of friends at the back, or to play a difficult piece of music which you have not practiced properly before your extended family; in all these scenarios, performance tends to decrease in the presence of others – which is known as Social Inhibition. It is not surprising then as to why Andrew said he prefers to learn the new and novel task first before opening it up for others to see or comment on it. When you are working alone, there is no evaluation apprehension or the attentional temptation or even the mere desire to present yourself in a positive light in terms of your competence. Even if you struggle to complete the task, you might not be as embarrassed as you would be in the presence of others. Very rarely would we want others to know that we are not-so-good in what we attempt to complete.
The problem that was mentioned by Andrew is not really an issue but a common human response in social situations. Now that we know that both social facilitation and inhibition can operate within us and our teams, how could we best appreciate and capitalise on our strengths both individually and group-wise? This is indeed good news for teams, where people can respect each other as to when to come together, and when to give each other time to learn a new skill/project first. This will save much time and energy wasted on ineffective meetings, and in fact this can energise the members to perform better in what they do individually.
Furthermore, it can be concluded that group decision-making will be more effective than individual decision making because in groups, with the social support and cooperation amongst members, the stress and arousal, fear of evaluation, and competitiveness are moderated. There is a reason why teamwork requires respect for interdependence. In the presence of others we actually encourage ourselves to do better and be better, even though this might not happen consciously. A healthy dose of in-group competitiveness (which adds an element of fun), can further enhance the output. Knowing ourselves and our teams well enough to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses, and truly valuing the diversity, can enlighten the groups to function optimally.
The power of the team is each and every one of us individually, and the power of each and every one of us is indeed the team.
(Author of ‘From Crisis to Character’, Rozaine Cooray is a Business Psychologist specialised in organisational culture analytics and HR Coaching. She can be contacted on rozaine@forte.lk)