It would seem that allowing groups autonomously to form and break up as necessary would be nearly ideal: People would choose to be with their friends, and this would promote the efficacy of social sanctions, increase the likelihood of a cooperatively collusive equilibrium being reached, and encourage the group's welfare by individual members. But things are not so simple, for several reasons.
To the extent that group members are socially dissimilar from others in the organization, or even just socially dissimilar from their "bosses," a dysfunctional us-them atmosphere may be created. This can lead in turn to a within-group equilibrium that works against the interests of the firm-for instance, fostering norms of restricted output; lack of cooperation among groups; concealment of information; unwillingness to discipline group members who underperform; and norms that tolerate mild corruption (petty theft, for example).
Other social and technological concerns must be weighed as well. In particular, to the extent that within-group diversity on ethnic, racial, gender, or other grounds is socially desirable, self-forming groups may pose a problem. On grounds of skill mix, talents, attitudes, and experiences, the employer may wish to form groups that combine workers of different ages, educational backgrounds, and family statuses, among other factors. Self-forming groups are unlikely to fulfill this sort of wish. leia todo o artigo
