Organizations and group behavior - Essay Example

?Organizations and group behavior Introduction The increase of competition in all industries has led organizations to search for strategies, whichcan help them to develop a competitive advantage towards their rivals. At the same time, similar initiatives are usually developed by organizations for addressing critical organizational issues. As an example, reference can be made to team development is considered as an effort to align organizational strategies with the market trends. In fact, the role of teams, or groups, within modern organizations has been proved to be critical for organizational performance. For this reason, the various aspects of group behavior have been extensively analyzed and evaluated in the literature. Current paper presents the key issues in regard to group behavior, as highlighted in the literature published in the specific field. It is proved that group can highly affect organizational strategies. However, it seems that groups tend to behave differently in organizations worldwide. The different forms of group behavior reported in industries around the world can be related either to the internal or the external organizational environment, as analyzed further below. 2. Group – characteristics and modes of action In order to identify the key elements of group behavior it should be necessary to understand primarily the characteristics of a group, as part of the organizational life. In accordance with Martin (2005) within organizations, different forms of group can be identified: a) individuals working on similar organizational activities may not constitute a group; for example, the lecture staff in the same department of a particular university may not meet or cooperate (Martin 2005); these individuals cannot be characterized as a group, b) the sub-sections of certain organizational departments are often parts of formal organizational units and they are likely to help towards the completion of organizational tasks of low importance (Martin 2005), c) informal groups within organizations are common for promoting specific organizational tasks or ideas; for instance, the case of ‘friendship groupings and task-depended networks’ (Martin 232), d) groups related to a particular organizational project can be developed within an organization; these groups, formal or informal, are not permanent (Martin 232), as for example ‘a project group working on the building of a new oil refinery’ (Martin 232), e) formal and informal groups can be developed within organizations for completed a particular organizational task; these groups are ‘transient’ (Martin 232), as for example a formal group working on the reduction of the organization’s travel expenses by 10% (Martin 232). The development of group activities within modern organizations has been often related to the trend of firms to imitate the strategies of their rivals (Griffin and Moorhead 2011). In the study of Griffin and Moorhead (2011) reference is made to the risks that such strategy can hide mostly because of the following fact: the use of teams for promoting organizational plans can be beneficial for organizations but the costs involved can be also significant. The case of Ampex is mentioned as an example of the benefits of team development within modern organization: in Ampex, the involvement of teams in organizational activities led to the increase of ‘online customer delivery by 98%) (Griffin and Moorhead 272). In Texas Instruments, the use of teams for developing the daily organizational tasks resulted to the reduction of organizational costs for about 50% (Griffin and Moorhead 272). Also, in Eastman, the development of teams across the organization supported the increase of organizational performance at significant levels; the productivity of the organization was increased for about 70%, a result which was directly related to the involvement of teams in all organizational projects (Griffin and Moorhead 272). In accordance with the above findings, the role of group in the development of organizational performance, either directly, through the increase of profits, or indirectly, through the decrease of costs, can be significant. The elements of group behavior, as it can influence daily organizational activities should be explored aiming to check whether group behavior is standardized in firms worldwide or not. In this way, it should be made clear whether specific forms of group behavior should be promoted in organizations for avoiding major risks in regard to organizational performance. 3. Group behavior 3.1 Factors influencing the behavior of groups The behavior of groups within modern organizations seems to be highly influenced by the conditions in the internal organizational environment. The term conditions is used in the above case especially in order to reflect the principles of equality and diversity as promoted within the organization. From this point of view, Cox (1994) refers to the example of ‘a USA manufacturing facility where the 80% of the staff were Hispanic’ (Cox 57) and where managers ‘were all Anglo-American’ (Cox 57). In the above organization, the performance of groups has been low, a fact which has been related to the failure of the firm’s leader to appoint managers of similar racial background. In the above case, the lack of effective communication within the organization has been unavoidable because of the cultural differences between the groups of employees and the management team. In the study of French, Rayner, Rees and Rumbles (2011) reference is made to another aspect of group behavior: the response of the members of the group to organizational learning. It is explained that learning within organizations is quite important for the success of organizational plans but it can lead to delays in the achievement of organizational goals mostly because of the following reason: not all members of each group can respond equally to the challenges of organizational learning (French, Rayner, Rees and Rumbles 2011). Moreover, Hellriegel and Slocum (2007) support that the behavior of groups within organizations is likely to have two key forms: it can be related to the society or to the work (i.e. the organization) involved. Furthermore, it is explained that group behavior is differentiated within organizations depending on the stage of the group development (Hellriegel and Slocum 2007). Hellriegel and Slocum (2007) promote the idea that each group is likely to be developed into five stages: a) the forming stage, during which tasks are assigned to each member of the group, b) the storming stage, which is characterized by ‘conflicts in regard to work behavior’ (Hellriegel and Slocum 270), c) the norming stage, which is characterized by ‘the sharing of information and the acceptance of different options’ (Hellriegel and Slocum 271), d) the performing stage, during which each member of the group has to complete the tasks assigned to him and e) the adjourning stage, which is characterized by ‘the termination of work behaviors and the disengagement from social behaviors’ (Hellriegel and Slocum 272). 3.2 Group decision – making as an aspect of group behavior Frey (2002) promotes the idea that a group has its own way of thinking, meaning that group decisions are likely to be independent from the internal or the external organizational environment. However, it is accepted that under certain terms, group decisions have to be aligned with the rules or the ethics of the organization involved. Reference is made, for example, to the following case: ‘the members of a university committee have to take into consideration not only their personal perceptions on the issue under consideration but also the views ‘of the large faculty, the administrators and the communities in which the university operates’ (Frey 36). On the other hand, King and Anderson note that the promotion of specific principles, like equality or diversity, within modern organizations cannot highly affect the decisions of groups. Rather, group decisions are likely to be based on certain criteria, which need to be taken into consideration by managers who have to develop group management policies for their organization. It is noted that the group decision-making has different forms, being influenced by psychological and organizational factors. The characteristics/ norms of group – decision making can be described as follows: a) group polarization, a phenomenon which is based on the following rule: ‘decisions which are developed by groups in the context of face-to-face discussions tend to be riskier compared to decisions developed by each member of the group individually’ (King and Anderson 92), b) group composition; the specific characteristic of group decision making is based on the following assumption: since a group is consisted for many individuals with different skills and educational background, the decisions of each group are likely to be better justified compared to the decisions of individuals, which would be based on his personal perceptions and knowledge (King and Anderson 92); in this context, group decisions are likely to be superior compared to the decisions of individuals. Another important benefit of group decisions is the level of the commitment of group members. Indeed, when acting as members of group individuals are likely to be committed to a particular decision; at least, the commitment to a specific decision is higher compared to the decisions developed by individuals themselves, i.e. without acting as members of a group (King and Anderson 92). At the next level, Agarwal (1983) notes that group decision-making is not always beneficial for modern organizations. Reference is made to the following issues: a) in the context of groups, the decision making process can face delays, especially when they are different views in regard to a critical organizational problem, b) group – decision making can weaken the power of the chief executive to intervene in all organizational processes and c) the decisions taken by groups can be often of similar quality with the decisions taken by individuals, especially when a group promoted a decision which faced the least opposition by the group members; i.e. the specific decision has not been chosen because of its effectiveness in resolving the problem under examination but because of the high level of consensus involved (Agarwal 101). In other words, the involvement of group in the development of critical organizational decisions may not be advantageous for the organization involved, a fact that has been found to be related to the behavior of the members of the group, especially their unwillingness to cooperate for identifying the appropriate solution to a severe organizational problem. At this point, two techniques can be used for increasing the effectiveness of group decision making: the Delphi technique, a technique based on the exchange of information between the executive and the members of the group involved without the identity of the members of the group who promote a particular idea to be made clear to the executive (Agarwal 101). Another technique of similar role is the Nominal Group Technique, which is based on group cooperation but without face-to-face communication between the members of the group (Agarwal 101). From a similar point of view, Horowitz (1990) notes that when having to take a critical organizational decision, the organizational group involved in the specific process have to take into consideration not just the culture of the organization but also the culture of the region in which the relevant organizational plan will be developed. For instance, when having to decide on the method of entrance in a foreign market, the members of the organizational group involved in this plan have to take into consideration the local culture and ethics, as factors influencing the effectiveness of the plan involved. Reference can be made, for instance, to the important cultural differences in firms operating in the Western and the Eastern markets (Horowitz 180). It is further noted that the methods followed by groups for designing organizational plans are related to the global market are likely to be differentiated in accordance with the cultural background of the specific group. For instance, groups in Japan and China are likely ‘to perceive differently risk and uncertainty’ (Horowitz 180) compared to groups in United Kingdom or USA (Horowitz 180). 4. Conclusion In accordance with the issues discussed above, the characteristics of group behavior within modern organizations are different among organizations under the influence of the internal and external organizational environment. Moreover, group behavior is, normally, affected by the behavior and the perceptions of the members of the group. For this reason, the efforts for increasing the effectiveness of groups within organizations should address the needs of the organizations but also of the individuals involved. Moreover, the criteria used for the evaluation of group behavior across organizations cannot be standardized. Also, in organizations of different size, the value of groups is differentiated: in multinational organizations groups are of vital importance for promoting emergent or complex organizational tasks, which, by their nature, cannot be completed by individuals. For example, when having to establish a branch in a foreign country, employees in the host country need to cooperate with individuals in the target market so that the plans developed are aligned with the culture and the needs of the host country. In any case, groups can be both beneficial and risky for modern organizations, in the context discussed above. For this reason, the various aspects of group behavior within a particular organization need to be constantly monitored so that major damages on organizational performance are avoided. Works Cited Agarwal, R. Organization and management. Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 1983. Cox, Taylor. Cultural diversity in organizations: theory, research, & practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1994. Cummings, Thomas, Worley, Christopher. Organization development & change. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2008. French, Ray, Rayner, Charlotte, Rees, Gary, Rumbles, Sally. Organizational Behavior. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2011. Frey, Lawrence. New directions in group communication. London: SAGE, 2002. Griffin, Ricky, Moorhead, Gregory. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2011. Hellriegel, Don, Slocum, John. Organizational behavior. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2007. Horowitz, Ira. Organization and decision theory. New York: Springer, 1990. King, Nigel, Anderson, Neil. Managing innovation and change: a critical guide for organizations. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2002. Martin, John. Organizational behaviour and management. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2005. Read More