| Course | MAN-3110 Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Application activity: group and team processes |
| Length | About 621 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MAN 3110 Module 3
One Unanimous Vote and One Slow Saturday: Groupthink and Social Loafing at a Regional Theater
Student Name
B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management, Thomas Edison State University
MAN-3110: Organizational Behavior
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
One Unanimous Vote and One Slow Saturday: Groupthink and Social Loafing at a Regional Theater
The Situation
At the Raritan Stage Company, the composite New Brunswick theater used in this course's samples, two group episodes this year cost money and goodwill. First, the eight-member season-selection committee unanimously approved a large-cast musical with a $1.1 million production budget, nearly twice the usual, after a single meeting in which the artistic director spoke first and enthusiastically. Two members later admitted privately that they had doubts about ticket sales but did not raise them. The show sold 62% of its seats and lost $280,000. Second, the volunteer crew that dismantles each set after a production's final weekend took eleven hours with 24 volunteers, longer than it had taken the previous year with 14.
Applying Groupthink
In groupthink, a close team cares so much about staying in agreement that it stops weighing its options honestly (George & Jones, 2012). The committee showed several of its symptoms: a strong leader stating a preference first, members censoring their own doubts, an illusion of unanimity and no formal review of risks such as the ticket sales needed to break even. Research on groupthink suggests some caution in applying the full model. Esser (1998) reviewed a quarter century of groupthink studies and found that support for the complete model was mixed, while several elements, such as directive leadership and closed decision procedures, were more consistently linked to poor decisions. That fits this case: the problem was less excessive cohesion than a process in which the leader spoke first and no one was assigned to test the plan.
The committee's composition added to the risk. Six of its eight members owed their positions to the artistic director, which made disagreement feel costly even without any pressure being applied.
A simple rule would have changed the outcome: circulate the budget and sales projections a week before the vote and ask each member for written concerns.
Applying Social Loafing
Social loafing is the tendency of individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone, especially when their contributions cannot be identified. Karau and Williams (1993) combined results from dozens of studies and found the effect robust across tasks and populations, but smaller when individual contributions could be identified or evaluated, when the task was meaningful and when people worked with others they valued. The strike crew fits the pattern. With 24 volunteers and no assigned tasks, many stood waiting for direction while a few experienced crew members did the skilled work. Adding people without structure reduced each person's effort and created bottlenecks.
The strike crew also lacked a shared goal beyond finishing. When the crew lead later posted a target time and a simple map of which section each pair would clear, volunteers could see how their work fit the whole, which research identifies as a condition that reduces loafing.
General Principles
Four principles follow for any team at the theater. First, in decision groups, the leader should speak last and the group should hear options before preferences. Second, important decisions should include a structured challenge, such as one member assigned to argue against the proposal or a written risk review before the vote. Third, in task groups, each person's contribution should be visible: the crew lead will assign each volunteer to a named section of the set with a checklist. Fourth, groups should be sized to the work; a strike needs about twelve well-organized volunteers, not twenty-four unorganized ones. These steps cost little and address the specific mechanisms the research identifies, rather than relying on exhortations to try harder or speak up.
Neither principle requires new staff or money; both change how existing groups are run.
References
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 116-141. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2758
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681
MAN 3110 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
Application activities in MAN-3110 ask you to apply organizational behavior concepts in a paper of 1 to 2 pages, usually responding to a specific question or situation, and sometimes suggesting general principles that would apply to similar situations. Module 3 covers group and team processes, so expect a prompt about group development, norms, cohesiveness, decision making, conflict or effectiveness. Keep the paper within the length guideline by focusing on one or two concepts applied in depth rather than many in passing. Support each application with the George and Jones text or research, and include the identifying information the syllabus requires at the top of the page. Keep background short so most of the page goes to analysis.
How this MAN 3110 Module 3 example is built
The paper is short by design and uses four headed sections. The situation section gives two concrete episodes with numbers, so the analysis has something to explain. Each of the next two sections defines one concept, matches it to the episode's features and uses a research source to sharpen the application; the groupthink section notes where the evidence is mixed. The final section proposes four principles, each tied to a mechanism identified in the analysis and to a specific practice the theater can adopt. The whole activity stays within the 1 to 2 page guideline. Numbers from the episodes, such as the loss and the crew hours, anchor the analysis.
MAN 3110 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors grade application activities on how accurately and specifically course concepts are applied to the situation, whether the response answers the question posed, and whether any general principles suggested follow from the analysis. Concise writing matters because the activity is limited to 1 to 2 pages; depth on a few concepts earns more than a survey of many. Using research to support or qualify an application shows critical thinking. Clear organization, correct grammar, cited sources and the required identifying information complete the evaluation. Principles that a reader could apply in another organization meet the prompt's request for generality. Concise writing within the limit is part of the grade.
MAN 3110 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
The most common weakness in application activities is defining many concepts without applying any of them closely. Choose one or two that fit the situation and show how each explains specific facts. Another frequent issue is going well beyond the page limit; trim background and keep the analysis. Students also suggest principles like communicate better that could apply anywhere; tie each principle to a mechanism and a practice. When using groupthink, check whether the evidence actually fits rather than assuming any bad group decision qualifies. Our writers can prepare a MAN 3110 application activity for a team situation you describe. Read the prompt for whether it asks for principles; if so, end with them.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MAN 3110 and B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management sample papers
- MAN 3110 Module 1: Organizational Behavior Written Exercise
- MAN 3110 Module 2: Self-Awareness Exercise
- MAN 3110 Module 4: Leadership Written Exercise
- MAN 3110 Module 5: Capstone Paper
- MAN 3310 Module 3: Workforce Planning Assignment
- MAN 4250 Module 4: Final Integrating Paper: A Cultural Assessment and a Change Plan
- PSY 3630 Module 5: Training Paper: Design, Practice and Transfer to the Branch
MAN 3110 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MAN 3110 Module 3 sample paper?
The full Module 3 application activity is above: a theater's committee vote and volunteer crew analyzed through groupthink and social loafing, with four general principles, sources and notes.
How long are MAN-3110 application activities?
The syllabus describes them as 1 to 2 page papers that apply organizational behavior concepts to a specific question or situation.
What is groupthink?
What happens when a tight-knit team values consensus so much that it stops testing its options, usually under a forceful leader while doubters stay quiet.
What reduces social loafing?
Research finds it shrinks when individual contributions are identifiable or evaluated, when the task is meaningful and when people value the group.
Does every bad group decision reflect groupthink?
No. A review found mixed support for the full model, so check whether the specific conditions, such as directive leadership and closed procedures, were present.