Group Dynamics and the Importance of Team Building - Essay Example

? Group dynamics al affiliation Group dynamics In the business world, various analysts and researchers have always endeavoured to come up with answers that relate to behavioural attributes of employees in an organization. In an attempt to understand the behaviour of persons in the workplace, group dynamics has formed the core of the study of the business world. An understanding of the concepts that underlie group dynamics ahs made the understanding of the functioning of the group practical from a study of the relationships between the persons in then group. According to Belohoubek, et al., (2001) the contemporary organizations cannot function effectively without the incorporation of group dynamics. On then other hand, Jung & Sosik (2002) indicate that group dynamics ahs been beneficial to the organization since it aids the management in devising problem solving skills in the workplace. Through group dynamics, the management has been able to create team work among its employees; thus, creativity and cooperation in the workplace. A group is inclusive of several people who come together with the aim of achieving a common objective. Group dynamics refers attitudinal and characteristics in behaviour of a given group (Robbins, 2007). Group dynamics are relevant to the organization in the HS engineering firm where there are several group dynamics in the Leeds firm that work together with the aim of achieving organizational objectives. The study of group dynamics within an organization will enable one understand the status of an organization (Cheringtan, 2004). However, group dynamics can only be successful if the management organizes the various aspects of groups in the workplace (Lovelace, Shapiro & Weingart, 2001). Among these attributes include the size of the groups, the characteristics of the members of these groups, their norms beliefs, and finally, the nature of tasks that they perform so as to be successful in their quest to create team work. Through categorization of these attributes in the organization gives the management an opportunity to strategies the kind of activities that ought to be performed in the workplace ands at what pace. From the HS engineering firm case study, group dynamics has not been alienated from the functioning of the organization. In the Leeds firm for instance, several aspects of group dynamics have been put in place to see to the success of the organization. Through analysis of the group dynamics of the organization, the management has been able to clearly understand what aspects to apply so as to understand the entire organization (Marcus, 1998). With the HS engineering company having other branches in other parts of the country, there was dire need by the company to understand the functionality of all the branches in the workplace. A closer scrutiny of the case also indicates that the company has gone through massive changes all in attempt to survive in the market. In the long run, the company has experienced massive losses in some of its branches that led to the closure of the same. This indicates that the management has dedicated a lot of efforts in understanding the operations of the company. Social identify theory states that individual group dynamics help to obtain a sense of identity and acquire self actualization. This reduces the rate of conflict within the organization. As an illustration from the HS engineering sample the major conflicts that arise due to the change taking place within the organization include; loss in manufacturing industries, there is an expectation of 30% reduction in the financial status of the company. The different group dynamics established had their own needs that lead to the closure of some of them due to poor management. Mangold & Miles (2002) and Moritz &Watson (1998) indicate that leaders of organizations can only implement the aspects of group dynamics if the management of the organization is well conversant with the occurrences in the organization, no matter how minute they may seem. All organizations comprise of varying personalities and persons with varying expectations and attitudes. The loyalty levels of the employees are also different; therefore, constant monitoring is useful for the success of the organization. Moreover, for group dynamics to be successful, the managers must be keen to study the interactions of the members of the group, and whether they have the same interests as those of the management. With this in mind, the organization is able to plan on execution of the plans set by the organization. Group dynamics are concerned with how groups work within an organization. Groups, as organization develops due to the activities performed by the group members within an organization, group sentiments, and individual interaction within the group. It is in this case that, when individuals share a common activity they tend to work hard so as to achieve the common goal (Frey, 2000). Organizational politics can be controlled by the managers establishing a work flow between rhythms in work related activities and this does not entail work related activities. The managers are encouraged to assess the group from time to time to determine if there is any political influence within it. The managers are to provide support to each group with the visualized company objective that makes the group active throughout the system. For instance, from time to time the manager can keep on changing the sitting position of the groups (Hellriegel, 2003). In relation to the HS engineering firm case study, it is through group dynamics that the management was able to make the best decisions regarding making decisions on the firm’s progress. As indicated earlier, group dynamics is beneficial in giving the management a chance to come up within then best decisions that relate to the progress of the firm (Highhouse, 2002; Levine &Kerr, 2008). After analysis of the current situation of the market and the survival chances of some of the branches of the firm, the management managed to come up with the decision that closure of Wolverhampton and Oldham would be useful for the company’s long term success. This emanates from an analysis of the financial ability of the firm and what control measures would be of benefit to the firm. After the closure of Wolverhampton and Oldham firms, Leeds would see to it that they take over the manufacturing exclusively, and that they would revive the roots of the firm in Leeds. What's more, through application of the aspects of group dynamics in the firm, it has been made easier for the firm’s management to come to the decision that Malaysia would be profitable venture since the competition in the country is manageable. The labor costs in the country would also cost them less, and the markets are easy to switch to and dominate as well. According to Schaller & Conway (1998), group dynamics cannot be discussed without the mentioning of group processes. Through group dynamics, the management is able to bring the employees together towards performing roles for the collective good of the company. Therefore, it is arguably correct to indicate that management of the organizations can mobilize their workers towards completion of tasks through group dynamics. This argument correlates to the study by Ettin (1996) who indicates that group dynamics allows for an understanding of the attitudes and characters of individuals within an organization. This cannot be escaped in the study of the HS engineering firm that has applied these skills in saving the company that was almost going to its deathbed. For groups to perform effectively after the changes, the managers have to look at the ways in which they can develop good dynamic groups, and this can be achieved by making the groups to form to gathering just like in the case of formal meetings (Katz, 2003). Bringing a new team into the system requires a well organized procedure outline as follows, determining the business objectives and coming up with a group that is characterised by intense confusion and unsurely (Luthans, 2005). This is a period where the group gets to know each other. The second phase is storming where the group experiences the highest level of disagreement. The managers conduct the naming process where the members of the group indentify with other members, the group gets to performance and in this stage the members get involved and perform their roles. The importance of team building include improving group member’s relationship, reduction of chances of confusion within the group; thus, improving communication within the group. Team building encourages positive working environment and confidence at work. A lot can be achieved through group dynamics than through individual work. Though, for effective production within an organization, the organization should remain focused and ell organized in terms of group dynamics. The study of the group is in itself a clear indication of the move by the management to work closely with the employees- the major reasons why the company is in existence. This can be justified from the loyalty of the members of the Leeds section to the management, which, without a doubt is a collaborative effort between the employees and the employers. Conclusively, it is justified to argue that the management of the organizations must continually take part in sensitizing group confidence and motivation in its employees, so that they get comfortable while conducting various tasks in the organization (Hogg & Williams, 2000). References Belohoubek, et al., 2001. Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams. Team Performance Management, Vol. 7, No. 7/8,123-134. Cherrington, J., 2004 Managerial Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ettin, M., 1996. Do you know where your group is? Development of a group-as-a-whole compass. Part I. Group, 20, 57–89. Frey, W., 2004 "The Figurative & Interpretive Standpoint on Group Dynamics." Small Group Research 35, No. 3: 277–316. Greenberg, B., 2000 Conduct in Organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Hellriegel, E., 2004 Organizational Behavior. New York: John Wiley. Highhouse, S., 2002. ‘A history of the T-group and its early applications in management development’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 64: 277-290. Hogg, M., & Williams, K., 2000. From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 81–97. Jung, D., & Sosik, J., 2002. Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 142, Issue 1, 5-23. Katz, P., 2003 The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Levine, X., &Kerr X., 2008. The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 39–52. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D., & Weingart, L., 2001. Maximizing Cross-Functional New Product Teams’ Innovativeness And Constraint Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, 779-793. Luthans, G., 2005 Organizational Behavior. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Mangold, G., & Miles, S., 2002. The impact of team leader performance on team member satisfaction: the subordinate’s perspective. Team Performance Management, Vol. 8, 113-121. Marcus, D., 1998. Studying group dynamics with the social relations model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 230–240. Moritz, S. E., &Watson, C., 1998. Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 285–298. Robbins, H., 2007. Fundamentals of Managerial Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schaller, M., & Conway, L.,1998. Methods for the measurement of consensual beliefs within groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 241–252. Read More