Classification, Culture and Joining of Groups - Term Paper Example

? Group Group A group refers to a small number of individuals who have a shared identity, shared frame of reference, as well as shared objectives. It is commonly agreed that members of a group have a similar function or mission and that the interaction between them is closer and follows a different pattern, than in temporary or brief encounters. There is no precise description of how many members consider as a group, but the dynamics of interaction change substantially if the group has more than about ten members. In practice, groups usually have between three and eight members. Classification of Groups Groups are classified as either formal groups or informal groups. Formal groups, are created as mechanisms within a wider society and supported by structures and power relationships within that structure. Their role tend to be clearly defined, their membership restricted and their control over resources limited. Formal groups include project teams and committees, boards of directors as well as boards of examiners. Informal groups are loose and more irregular in their behavior and constrained by rules and expectations. They are usually based on friendship and shared beliefs about how things should be done. It is usually in small groups that new ideas are tested, and innovative solutions are explored (Brown, 2011 P. 89). Moreover, it is usually within these informal groups and networks that real power resides within organizations, and the importance of this fact is widely recognized in the literature on social network theory. Context of a group work The context of group work varies considerably, and it obviously depends on whether the group is formal or informal, the agenda for setting it up as well as the task or tasks that it sets out to address. In contrast, the process of group work tends to develop a regular form whatever the group has been set up to reach. There are various features of the group activity such as active participation, task as well as consideration. Active participation means everyone in the group takes part in some way. However, some participants obviously have a more interactive approach than others do. A member may contribute actively to the group action by body language, facial expression and the thoughtful use of silence, as well as by verbal expression. Specific task on the other part refers to a defined and focused set of objectives. All group members must understand and agree on the objectives at the outset of the task; otherwise, the group quickly becomes dysfunctional and frustrated. Lastly, reflection means that the group members include experience into their shared responsibility through an explicit process of discussion, questioning, evaluation and self-reflection. Refection is an essential aspect of profound learning. Popularity of group work Organizations of all sizes and shapes recognize that the achievement of successful outcomes, whatever those outcomes might be, is based on three fundamental lessons learnt over some 50 years of trial and error in various fields of research and training. These lessons include process (how something is done) affects the outcome (the results or the product). Another is in general terms (but for serious exceptions) teams are more successful than individuals are. Lastly, group member participation leads to greater responsibility and success (Elwyn et al, 2001 P. 118). These principles govern a complete spectrum of activity from management (total quality management, continuous quality improvement), to teaching (problem-based learning, learning sets) and research methods (action research, exploration of perceptions and opinion testing). The rise in popularity of group work in educational settings is part of the liberation approach to teaching and change. This approach also proposes that the subject matter should be of direct relevance, that participation is a necessity and that the whole person needs to be involved so that learning is widespread and lasting. Educationists are increasingly using groups to ensure that individuals participate actively in the learning and problem solving tasks. Techniques for group work An author by the name Jacques describes three broad categories of group techniques. These include techniques concerned with cognitive objectives such as knowledge, problem solving, analysis, evaluation. Another is a method concerned with experimental objectives, which include producing creative solutions, linking the emotional and the academic, as well as seeing new relationships. Lastly, are techniques concerned with social objectives, which include developing individual or group recognition, developing communication skills, as well as breaking down interpersonal barriers. Joining groups Schein an author has suggested that people join groups for one of three reasons. This includes achieving shared objectives such as those mutually agreed by the members. The second reason is to achieve personal objectives such as those not explicitly agreed by other members. Lastly is to work in a group such as addressing a social need through the group process (Frey et al, 2009 P. 146). Whether an individual is an opponent or passionate supporter of the psychoanalytical approach to relationships in groups will with no doubt recognize the strong social and emotional dimensions of the group experience. What individuals experience when they are in a group can be as beneficial as what they say. The skilled facilitator identifies, control and direct the emotions of the members to help them to achieve shared objectives. Group behaviors There are three types of behaviors that taking place within a group. This includes task behavior, which is oriented to attempting to reach the group’s defined mission. Task behavior include stating goals, defining problems, proposing how to proceed, seeking and exchanging opinions or information, combining, improving and building on these initial suggestions as well as seeking or taking decisions. The second behavior is group behavior, which is oriented to helping the group to survive and prosper. Group behavior includes establishing trust and mutual support, encouraging appropriate contributions from all members, resolving differences between members as well as setting and enforcing standards of behavior. Lastly is the Individual behavior, which is oriented to the needs and interest of the individual, and may interfere with the group process. This behavior includes blocking, dominating other members, displaying verbal or physical aggression, withdrawing from the group, seeking help or knowledge, forming pairs of cliques as well as grumbling or badmouthing members outside the group. Group size Observation studies of naturally occurring groups with high levels of interaction between members have demonstrated that these groups typically contain two or three individuals, and rarely involve more than five or six. One reason that has been provided is that people get confused by groups that are larger than six members, since the number of possible relationships rises sharply as each new member joins. The number of people that any one person can observe, communicate actively with and be involved with being about seven to eight (Fujishin, 2009 P. 78). It is no accident that this is the normal maximum number of people usually invited to share a communal meal with the aim of maintaining one conversation at any given time. It is impossible to manage large groups for any significant period, and members tend to think that their personal control over the group process diminishes rapidly above the minimum of five to six people. Group Culture Broadly, social communities are either individualists or collectivists, and the broader cultural organization in which the group operates can influence the behavior that goes on within the group. People in the individual’s cultures tend to see themselves as autonomous decision makers. Those in collective cultures are more likely to seek the views of others, and to see themselves as interdependent; their decision making process will be more consultative. Although it would seem logical for groups to be more likely to form in collective cultures, it seems that the opposite is true. Individualist’s cultures have loose arrangements and fewer fixed commitments, and so individuals belong to a larger number of groups and more intergroup linkages are formed. People in collective cultures, on the other hand, belong to fewer groups, but have stronger loyalties. Groups in collective cultures have been shown to have higher levels of conformity and more clearly visible group norms (Hamermesh, 2002 P. 149). An organization’s culture is essentially determined by four variables, individuals who work there, the organization’s broad goals and how it plans to achieve them, how the organization is made up, and what technical facilities are available together with external pressures. Power Culture It this culture, the group organization, holds entrepreneurial values and is built around a charismatic leader. The central influence of the leader spreads through the group, mainly through informal communication process. There are few binding rules, and the formal group structures are rare. Control is exercised mainly by the selection and deployment of key individuals and influence is achieved mainly through group power via charismatic and informal channels. Task Culture In this culture, the groups within it are oriented towards doing a job or completing a project. The appropriate recourses and the right level of the organization are identified and then left to go on with the task. This organization tends to be extremely flexible, and group oriented, with groups continually being formed for purposes and disbanded once the job is completed. Power is defined mainly in terms of knowledge or expertise relevant to the task rewards are given based on the results, and the top management via the allocation of individuals and resources to tasks exercises control. Handy suggest that an individual will find the task culture where the market is aggressive, where the merchant life is undersized, and where the velocity of reaction is essential. He cites advertising agencies and management consultancies as examples of successful task cultures with group work activities. A task organization is at least in theory, flexible and highly responsive to change, but Handy warns that it runs into problems when individuals have to be rationed. Groups within the organization are forced to compete for recourses, and top managers find themselves imposing control via old-fashioned means. The task culture is inherently unstable and tends to change to the role or power culture where the recourses are limited. An increase in size of the group pushes the organization towards a role culture, although radical decentralization and careful strategic planning may allow size to increase without an excessive increase in bureaucracy (Nijstad, 2009 P. 97). Rapidly changing technologies require a task or power culture, but routine and programmable tasks may be better suited to role culture. Role cultures are also beneficial where there are clear economies of scale. An organization whose goals are expressed in terms of quality standards for a product or service is well suited to a role culture as monitoring, and accountability are readily implemented. Goals are expressed in terms of economic growth and are best served by the group‘s efforts. Groups with a strong need for good culture will be comfortable in the role culture. While those with a strong need for individuality and creativity will prefer a task culture, and those with a need to establish their identity may seek a power culture. In general, task cultures require high input in terms of human recourses. Groups that work within an organization can be affected by the success or otherwise of their parent institution. Organizations in decline often generate inter-group rivalries for recourses and generate a climate of spiraling protectiveness and limited communications between departments. Facilitating a Group Facilitating a group is not the same as leading it, nor is it a halfway house between acting as a group leader and participating as an ordinary member. Although a facilitator is often thought of as someone external who helps a group, it is by no means impossible for groups to provide facilitation. However, most people do not possess the skills needed to facilitate groups, usually because they have never benefited from a neutral analysis of group dynamics. Furthermore, if the group is inexperienced, it may not have the level of maturity needed to allow one of its own members to take on the facilitator role, even if internal members can perform a suitable individual. Both participants and leaders must actively engage with the content of the group’s task. They must contribute views, express opinions, make suggestions and shape the proposed group products (Ringer, 2002 P. 182). Facilitators should be as neutral as possible about content issues, which is why internal facilitation can be awkward, particularly if an individual in a leadership position tries to facilitate a group. Leaders who attempt to convey neutrally will always be distrusted. Conversely, facilitators who take positions on content issues within groups will lose their authority to manage the group process. Although the benefits of groups are well recognized, there are also common and significant problems that can severely limit their productivity. It is more common to be involved in groups that occasionally become dysfunctional and wholly ineffective. However, it is more common to be involved in groups that have predictable problems of interpersonal relationships. Even when it is not overtly dysfunctional, a group’s ability to concentrate on the real issues can drift. Role confusion, misunderstandings, power rivalries, difficulties in achieving consensus, and lack of commitment to agree actions are almost universal features for working in groups (Sawyer, 2008 P. 136). Facilitation focuses on resolving these problems and ensures that the process enables problems to surface where necessary. Facilitation should also allow the correct resources and information to be available to ensure that the group’s decision-making is of the highest possible quality. Conclusion When groups come together, they inevitably do so in a wide social, cultural and organizational context. When groups go right, this is often not only the right group processes are taking place, but also because the right people have come together for the right reasons to address an appropriate task, and they have the right support from the right stakeholders. Perhaps, given the wider framework and the temperament of the task, the group should have been formed at all. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the head managers to be keen to make the group work successful. Reference list Alle-Corliss, L., & Alle-Corliss, R., (2009). Group Work: A Practical Guide to Developing Groups in Agency Settings. USA, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Brown, N. (2011). Psychoeducational Groups. USA, NJ: Taylor & Francis Elwyn, G, & Greenhalgh, T, & MacFarlane, F. (2001). Groups: A Guide to Small Group Work in Healthcare, Management, Education And Research. New York, NY: Radcliffe Publishing. Frey, N., Fisher, D. & Everlove, S. (2009). Productive Group Work: How to Engage Students, Build Teamwork, and Promote Understanding. USA, NJ: ASCD Fujishin, R. (2007). Creating Effective Groups: The Art of Small Group Communication. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Hamermesh, M. (2002). Group Theory and Its Application to Physical Problems. USA, NJ: Courier Dover Publications Nijstad, B. (2009). Group Performance. USA, NJ: Psychology Press Ringer, T. (2002). Group Action: The Dynamics of Groups in Therapeutic, Educational, and Corporate Settings. New York,NY: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Sawyer, K. (2008). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books. Wehrfritz, B.A. (2006). Finite Groups: A Second Course on Group Theory. USA, NJ: World Scientific. Read More