Leadership function differs from decision style. An authoritarian leader makes decisions with limited group input. A democratic leader invites participation. A laissez-faire leader allows wide member freedom. No style is always best. Direct command may speed an emergency response, while participation may improve commitment when members possess useful information.

Cooperation occurs when people coordinate toward a shared result. Competition occurs when they pursue a scarce reward that not everyone can obtain. The processes can coexist. Restaurant workers cooperate to serve customers while competing for one promotion. Institutions influence conduct by deciding whether rewards are shared, ranked, or limited.

Social exchange theory treats interaction as shaped by rewards, costs, expectations, and alternatives. Rewards include approval, help, information, affection, and money. The theory does not claim that people calculate every friendship like an invoice. It asks how dependence changes when one side controls a valued resource and the other has few alternatives.

Reciprocity can stabilize exchange. A coworker covers Mateo’s shift with an expectation that help may be returned later. Timing and form remain open, but repeated taking without return can damage trust. Exchange becomes unequal when one party can delay or deny the return without losing anything. A worker with no alternative job has less bargaining power than one with several offers.

Cooperation can pool knowledge and spread workload. It can also create free-rider problems when members receive the benefit without contributing. Competition can increase effort, yet it can discourage information sharing or reward rule breaking. The important question is how the goal and reward structure make one response sensible, not whether cooperation is always good.

Groupthink, associated with Irving Janis, occurs when pressure for agreement suppresses critical evaluation. A cohesive team under stress may censor doubts, pressure dissenters, assume silence means consent, and dismiss warnings from outsiders. Unanimity after open debate is not groupthink. The deciding evidence is a process that blocks serious examination of alternatives.

Leaders can reduce groupthink by withholding an early preference, inviting outside criticism, assigning someone to challenge the favored plan, and dividing the group into independent teams before comparison. These steps change the decision process. Simply telling people to think harder may not overcome a structure that punishes disagreement.

Group polarization differs from groupthink. After discussion, members may adopt a more extreme version of the direction they already favored because they hear new supporting arguments and learn the group’s norm. Polarization can occur during open disagreement. Groupthink requires pressure that blocks criticism and alternative review. A risky final decision therefore cannot distinguish the two without evidence about the discussion.

Researchers can test the process by recording members’ private preferences before discussion, observing who speaks and how dissent is treated, then measuring the final choice. A shift away from the initial average toward a more extreme version of the group’s favored direction supports polarization. Movement toward the average is convergence, not polarization. Self-censorship, warnings ignored, and punishment of dissent support groupthink. If a manager announces a preference before anyone else speaks, the sequence also raises a leadership question because formal authority may shape what members dare to report. CLEP application begins with the decision process rather than the quality of the outcome. A good result reached through silenced criticism can still show groupthink, while a bad result after genuine review may not.

Hidden-profile problems show why open discussion can still fail. Each member holds different information, but the group spends most of its time repeating facts everyone already knows. The final choice may be poor without pressure against dissent. A better process asks members to report unique evidence before discussing preferences. On the CLEP, repeated shared information points toward a communication failure. Punished criticism and false unanimity point toward groupthink.

Quick review: Instrumental leadership advances the task, while expressive leadership supports relationships. Cooperation shares a goal, competition divides a scarce reward, exchange depends on rewards and alternatives, and groupthink suppresses evaluation for the sake of unity.

Watch the chapter connection

Social Groups gives you a second explanation of the chapter ideas surrounding this lesson. As you watch, pause when the lesson concept appears and explain how the example fits.

Use this lesson for CLEP practice

Write one original example, one close nonexample, and one observation that would help you choose between them. This turns vocabulary recognition into the kind of applied reasoning the exam expects.