A Case Study on a Work Team in Electronics Company: A Treatise on Organization Behavior - Research Paper Example

? A Case Study on a Work Team in Electronics Company: A Treatise on Organization Behavior Introduction This essay will present an investigation of behavior in a work group for an electronics company. This particular work group is composed of eight employees and their supervisor, formed one unit of an electronics company. It was called the ‘the instrument team’. An observer acquainted with the procedures of electronics manufacturing would discern nothing unusual in the activities and surroundings of this group. Its model is to be located in virtually any electronics issue in the United States.1 Continually the employees worked at their machines producing different components for assembly into functional products. As a compensation for their jobs, the employees were reasonably well paid and their immediate environment was agreeable. Nevertheless, beneath the surface of harmonious procedure and valuable effort, a human drama was occurring. The drama was life itself. Because the heart of social behavior and the job procedures was the unconscious attempt of people to bring structure and coordination into their capably disorganized work activities2; the unconscious pursuit for means of building a prosperity to human relationship outside the conditions of carrying out a task; and the unconscious pursuit for creativity, accomplishment, and sense in work life in spite of the current conflicts of employees and management, untrained and trained, layman and specialist.3 The success in this drama is the ability of workers to build organized human associations out of a group of people. In contrast, its failure is the misuse of human creativity where individuals able to do a lot are obliged to do so little.4 The objective of this essay is to show through explanation and analysis how social organization emerges from the network of non-work and work behavior. Second is to explain the reason this social organization is very valuable to the individuals concerned and to the organization for which they work. Nevertheless, this essay will also demonstrate that social organization can become ‘stagnant’ not until leadership is used to defy the potential flexibility of people and their group. This essay is mainly for active managers and others who are involved with issues that emerge in small work teams. It is widely recognized that the social reality for the employee in manufacturing exists in the environment of his/her work team.5 Within this setting s/he attains contentment or encounters frustration of his/her necessity for meaningful task and affectionate social ties.6 Managers in their everyday task may become responsive to the presence of small work teams as social organizations when they try to initiate change and experience opposition or resentment; or when they become involved in issues of efficiency and experience hostility to processes intended to enhance productivity.7 It is at these aspects where the rational, purposive features of business appear to conflict with the rigid facts of social organization that the actual introduction of conduct in work teams becomes apparent.8 Unless managers first recognize the social role and structure of work teams, there will be a weak foundation for successful communication concerning the vision and mission of the organization. This study was conducted in an electronics group, one manufacturing unit of a budding organization. Eight men and their manager composed the group. The interesting aspect of the work team, and the one which caught the attention and curiosity of the author was its high level of diversity. Aspects distinguishing one individual from another were to be located in the workers’ social backgrounds and their tasks. Given this delineation, the author created the major question for this study: What was the root, if any, for the development of a productive group? This main question was especially relevant in view of the fact that the task itself required modest need for cooperation, but instead stressed individual effort. The factors in the work context and in the group composition appeared to reinforce the forces for social disintegration: ‘a ‘dust heap’ of individuals unrelated to one another’9. Otherwise, the author expected to discover a highly troublesome group of employees, divided into factions perhaps developed along racial or occupational lines. However, the ‘instrument team’ was able to overcome this social disintegration. The social organization of the ‘instrument team’ had these features: 1) A definite structure: Ties had grown to a point where in general people genuinely belong to the group. Individuals are clear on what to expect from one another. They had familiarized themselves to diversity. 2) A unified structure: Aside from being definite, the group’s social structure was unified. 3) The accomplishment of a leadership role: Leadership from the group had surfaced within its social structure. There was an actual requirement for a leader to assist people on the job and to function as a potential mediator as well. 4) Agreement with the goal of the group: The use of leadership and the structure of the team were in agreement with the task for which the team was assigned to. In the sense that it gave protection and stability for members and was in harmony with the objectives of the organization as a whole, the group played the role of a productive unit. The outcome of the social organization of the team was quite positive in its ability to bring structure and order to the social ties of the group of individuals with diverse social backgrounds and job position. The issue which should be taken into account is this: the reason organized relationships emerge instead of the ones characterized by conflict and disorder. What enabled the development of a productive social organization? The following sections will resolve these issues. Factors Preventing the ‘Instrument Team’ to Develop Effective Social Organization Generally speaking, limiting factors which prevent a work team from building an effective social organization are those which have a tendency to hamper or hold back communication and interaction.10 These limiting factors are classified into three: (1) limiting factors originating from the work’s technological structure; (2) limiting factors originating from the leader’s behavior; and (3) limiting factors originating from behavior of people insufficiently ready for membership in a group.11 Limiting factors originating from the work’s technological structure In the ‘instrument team’ the needed pattern of interaction required by the task was employee-manager. It has been observed that teamwork was not a condition for the task. However, technological structure of task was not a root of limitation for the team. Although the formal interaction pattern needed by the task was employee-manager, it did not, in contrast, restrict interaction. Employees were not disobeying job requirements by interaction with other employees. Because this was a task unit, an employee mostly prepared his/her own work activities or organized a task in close proximity to other employees. Interaction was easily initiated and did not impinge upon the task at hand. Employees were also quite mobile. In accomplishing a task, an employee should have to go back and forth to the storeroom and to other machines. The noise of the machine was not that loud to hamper effective communication. Moreover, assisting and providing tools, although not particularly obliged, were not prohibited or in breach of job requirements. There was no proof that the employees engage into conversation to the point of failing to completing their task. Interactions were short and broadly dispersed among the employees. As have been observed in studies of small groups, individuals willingly interacting build positive ties toward each other.12 Out of favorable emotion and interaction, leadership and group structure develop. Without them, individuals would have a tendency to remain quite secluded.13 In a condition of isolation, researchers have found out circumstances ready for opposition and doubt, specifically among a group of individuals with such broad differentiations14 in background as the employees of the ‘instrument team’. The members of the ‘instrument team’, although not mutually dependent through the task, were not restricted in their interactions, or in building a productive association. Some other forms of manufactures enforce rigorous restrictions on interactions. The issue raise is how to discover means of avoiding the problems. As has been mentioned earlier, the formal leader’s behavior can be a major factor in surmounting limiting factors originating from the job’s physical features. Limiting factors originating from the leader’s behavior The next group of limiting factors which have a tendency to generate negative circumstances for productive social organization of work teams emanate from the behavior of the work team’s formal leader. The relationship between subordinate and superior, and group members and leader is a questionable one. People are trained socially for their reactions to individuals in authority from their experience of the relationships between teacher and student, parent and child, and other connections between superior and subordinate.15 Similarly, people are trained socially to act in particular manner when in a powerful position. At this point, the author is interested in formal leaders’ behavior as a potential source of limitation on the team. The behavior of the formal leader becomes a root of limitation to a team when (1) the leader disobeys severely group standards of how a leader should act; and (2) the leader builds an edgy environment for members of the group. During interviews with the members of the ‘instrument team’ they often cited experiences in work teams and relationship with formal leaders. From these interviews the author was able to discern several similarities in what the members of the group expected in their manager’s behavior: (1) A manager should not show authority, annoyance, or humiliate a member; (2) A manager should be cordial and treat his/her subordinates as equals; (3) A manager should be humble; and (4) A manager should avoid showing favoritism in job assignments and referrals for pay increase. The manager of the ‘instrument team’, in his hands-off style of leadership, acted mostly according to the norms 1 and 4, at times according to norm 2, and certainly not according to norm 3. A tense climate for individual group members did not exist in the team mainly due to the fact that the manager acted in accordance to the first norm and also because his detachment did not stop the employees from looking for and giving each other emotional assistance. The employees would have acquired further gratification through obtaining emotional assistance from the manager, but they were capable of assisting one another instead. The impacts of the behavior of a formal leader are a matter of extent, thus, instead of levels of weaknesses or strength. Due to the symbol of authority connected to his function and all the circumstances past and present related to it, the leader is expected to generate a definite level of fear and tension in his relationship with the members of the group.16 If the level of tension is modest enough to allow quite open employee communication and relationship and mutual support, an opportunity is present to exhaust the common tensions which arise unintentionally in relations of work teams with its leader.17 Limiting factors originating from behavior of people insufficiently ready for membership in a group The last source of limitation hampering the development of a productive social organization is behavior of people who appear inadequately equipped for membership in a group. Although the deviant group member raises a risk to a work team, s/he also raises difficulties of wide proportions.18 To the level that members and leaders of a group furnish the assistance these people require, they support society as a whole.19 Primarily, this support includes viewing deviant members as individuals who require assistance rather than individuals who threaten the group.20 In addition, establishing a group environment which will enable testing and experimentation on the individual’s part in order for him/her to start ‘learning’ the forms of behavior or conduct which are productive in a group and the individual incentives of this behavior. Recommendations How can managers consider and apply in their practice these realities of the group? This study recommends that the major issue for management is to determine the circumstances which are most encouraging for permitting a group to decide for itself the arrangement which will gratify requirements for membership in a group. First, these circumstances involve a technological background which permits a definite level of employee interaction, cooperation on the job, and possibly an environment which develops ‘teamwork’ or cooperation in the job. Another setting favorable to effective social organization is a level of understanding or compassion on the first-line managers’ part. There is a wide array of evidence to indicate that employees’ social satisfactions are greatest in those groups which are managed by ‘person-oriented’ leaders.21 Nevertheless, what this essay indicates is that even the slightest adjustment to group mechanism on the leader’s part goes a long way in permitting a particular group to develop an arrangement that is agreeable to members. This bare minimum is composed of behavior which does not stop the emergence of informal leadership and which does not inflict psychological pressures on group members in their relationship with their leaders.22 To this point, this essay have perceived the issue for management as one of developing specific minimal circumstances which permit a group to work out a social arrangement or structure furnishing members a degree of social gratification. Wherever managers find out symptoms in work teams conflict, instability, and disintegration, it would be rational to think that something in the group setting is stopping it from attaining the minimum degree of success related to survival.23 Indications of social problems comprise substantial increases in the emergence of significant changes in productivity level, abrupt decline in work quality, accidents, work turnover, and absences. With the emergence of such indications, responsible managers should evaluate the specific groups concerned to determine the liming factors affecting the group. The basic instrument for evaluation is the interview with group members who perhaps would be quite willing to inform a concerned listener what is troubling them in their interactions at work. The procedure of searching and removing hindrances to the development of the group is a continuous procedure. Nevertheless, there is another entire sector in the management of work teams distinct from social gratifications of members which deserve thorough consideration and response.24 To alter our emphasis, we have to return to our ‘instrument team’ for a while. This essay have discussed how the ‘instrument team’ employees had been successful in building a quite productive social group in spite of the factors inclined toward conflict and fragmentation. The author has indicated that this outcome was what should be anticipated for other groups to fulfill as long as they are not functioning under situations of limitation. However, what was fulfilled other than furnishing social gratifications for group members? To what level were the employees ‘engaged’ in their tasks, and acquiring gratifications which emanate from some innovative or creative task? It is surprising when we give another glimpse of the ‘instrument team’ to stress that the task itself was a dynamic component in the group’s social structure just around assisting one another and providing tools. No proofs that the group was violating the minimum obligations of their tasks and adding dynamically to technical success were found. As a result, there was little to demonstrate in the mode of individual development and growth for the employee. How do we explain these submissive ties between the task and the employee? The conclusion of this essay is that although a group functioning in a quite positive environment can naturally offer social gratifications for members, it cannot independently become innovative nor can it guarantee the personal growth or improvement of its members. A number of favorable leadership roles are fundamental to satisfy these extra objectives. The issue is a lot wider than the impacts of managers’ behavior. Unless the entire management setting where in small work teams operate sustains discussion processes, the individual manager is limited and may be virtually incapable of introducing such a reform in management practices.25 In fact, this implies that standards of behavior for managers at all organizational levels should sustain discussion processes.26 If not, the individual manager who independently introduces such procedures in his/her group may be viewed as a ‘deviant’ leader and reprimanded as a result.27 Hence, the action issue is as of much interest to management who may be supposed to create and strengthen standards of management behavior. An excellent example of the hindrances to experimentation with innovative processes for supervising work teams when there is inadequate assistance in the entire management setting of the organization was discussed by Elton Mayo.28 After observation of and interviews with employees, the researchers had proposed methodical rest periods in a textile mill which was experiencing significant turnover and symptoms of low morale.29 In spite of an increase in efficiency or productivity and a drop in turnover, a manager who was indifferent to the study changed it and eventually dumped it. The initial circumstances of productivity and low morale reappeared. The head of the organization got involved and re-instated the experiment with positive impacts on morale and efficiency.30 However, without the needed knowledge and understanding on the management’s part, the study had been almost ruined and had generated severe uncertainties about expanding its core principle of management into other units of the organization outside the borders of this particular study.31 Suitable organizational reinforcement of discussion processes is important, but it should also go alongside the training of managers for skilled performance. It is outside the range of this conclusion to address in any degree the challenging issue of training. There is a great deal of testing in progress and this essay encourages everyone to become knowledgeable of the different models that are being experimented. Whatever the disparities in contemporary training models, several of the most striking approaches try to surpass mere oral ability about the groups’ leadership. They are trying to initiate change in the behavior of management through enlarged ability in evaluating the role and structure of groups, and the mechanisms of communication in personal contexts. They aim to build ability in listening and reacting to oral behavior in groups and to assist managers in becoming responsible and self-aware individuals. Conclusions The pursuit for new leadership and management styles looks for ways of renewing the challenge of individual development and growth for group members through meaningful and effective task. The attainment of social gratifications through interactions and relationships at work is a precondition for development and growth; however, social gratifications will vanish as well if the innovative capacity in a group is misused. With no challenge to a task, discontentment and tediousness eventually prevail. Several insightful scholars of the industrial period argue that the symptoms of tediousness have traditionally permeated contemporary life. As stated by Eric Fromm in his work entitled The Sane Society32: Today we come across a person who acts and feels like an automaton, who never experiences anything which is really his; who experiences himself entirely as the person he thinks he is supposed to be; whose meaningless chatter has replaced communicative speech; whose dulled despair has taken the place of genuine pain. Two statements can be made about this person. One is that he suffers from a defect of spontaneity and individuality which may seem incurable.33 At the same time, it may be said that he does not differ essentially from millions of others who are in the same position. Even though there could be debate over the source of this issue, its solution will perhaps rely on the personality or individual style of present-day leadership, especially of the small work team which is an individual reality at work. References Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. & Griesser, D. (2007) ‘Follower Behavior and Organizational Performance: The Impact of Transformational Leaders’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15+ Brief, A.P. & Weiss, H.M. (2002) ‘Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace’, Annual Review of Psychology, 279+ Diamond, M.A. (1993) The Unconscious Life of Organizations: Interpreting Organizational Identity. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Greenberg, J. (1994) Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miner, J.B. (2002) Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories and Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mowday, R.T. & Sutton, R. (1993) ‘Organizational Behavior: Linking Individuals and Groups to Organizational Contexts’, Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195. Rousseau, D. (1997) ‘Organizational Behavior in the New Organizational Era’, Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 515+ Sims, R.R. (2002) Managing Organizational Behavior. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Wilpert, B. (1995) ‘Organizational Behavior’, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 59+ Zaleznik, A. (1956) Worker Satisfaction and Development: A Case Study of Work and Social Behavior in a Factory Group. Boston: Harvard University Press. Read More