Group Cohesiveness, Social Influence and Decision-Making - Coursework Example

Running Head: Teams and Leadership Teams and Leadership The organizational design will be crippled and inadequate when the concept of a team is not incorporated in it and a team is sensitive for a presence of a leader. Since teams continue to be vital aspect of an organization, an understanding on how to enhance their success should be a primary objective. Identifying areas of improvement is good place to start—the most prevalent of them is leadership. According to research, many team leaders relentlessly exert a disproportionate effect on the success or failure of organizational work teams. These made leadership a pressing concern that top management cannot afford to ignore. Ideally, a leader is capable of creating a vision for the organization and has the ability to inspire the people around him. However, these important traits are usually not present in leaders at a very high level. Most leaders in practice in most practice are working at a demanding operational level that requires a specific set of knowledge and skills—and therefore the virtuous traits are often ruled out. It will be very helpful of to consider leadership in management. It will serve in the best interest of the organization (Trent 2004). Group Cohesiveness Forming the right team is crucial in attaining success in the performance of tasks because research shows that the composition of a team and the complexity of the tasks are directly related to performance. This was of particular concern the study of Higgs, Plewnia, and Ploch (2005). The authors used the Belbin Team Role model to operationalize team diversity and used questionnaires to assess task complexity and performance. The results of the study demonstrated that there is a clear relationship between team compositions (which is related to diversity), complexity of task and team performance. Complex tasks are positively related to a diversified team. However, it is negatively related for straightforward tasks. This implies that it will be beneficial to consider the complexity of the task when forming a cohesive team. The mix of the individuals is important because the talents of a diversified group are more likely to cover wider tasks. The degree of complexity will give clues on what will comprise the mix of individuals to be included in the team in terms of diversity of personal traits. These insights will provide a helpful framework in establishing high performance teams. There is also correlation between team constraint and team performance. Constraint is defined as the quantitative measure that pertains to the pattern of connections between contacts in a personal network. It was observed that when employees are oriented as a part of a team, members of the team do not easily leave behind the relationships they have had with other people. Rosenthal (1997) also noticed that there exists a pattern of connections that team members have in their personal networks. These patterns also affect the performance of the team. Therefore, there was gathered sufficient evidence that personal networks are important to team performance which in turn supports the notion that differences in social networks do explain performance variations. Social Influence and Decision-making A cohesive group is also determined by how decisions are being made. Decisions are made largely for organizational changes and organizational learning. Organizational learning is anchored in structural and cultural facets. The former provides focus on the organizational learning mechanisms--the institutionalized structural and procedural arrangements used by to collect, analyze, store, disseminate, and use information that is relevant to the performance of the organization in a systematic manner. On the other hand, the cultural facet focuses on the shared values. In the absence of the aforementioned mechanisms, cultural facets are likely to be enacted as rituals rather than as means for real learning (Popper and Lipshitz 2000). There is a significant relationship between the organizational culture, group dynamics and decision making. These aspects are most important to consider in organizational changes. The study of Lucas and Kline (2008) examine cultural and group level factors that significantly influence a group’s decision making in the context of organizational change. It was found that major themes that counted were the culture of mistrust, differing occupational cultures, changing psychological contracts, power differential between groups, and leadership. It was therefore concluded that when initiating change efforts, it should be taken into account that culture can either be facilitators or hindrances; so various aspects of culture need to be adequately assessed. Areas of group and organizational learning can be better understood by identifying group and cultural phenomena--aspects that influence the response of members of a group to organizational change. It is important to be aware of the characteristics unique to the organization and its culture (Lucas and Kline 2008). Decision making is a function of various elements and the most —the most impactful of which is the culture. While the goal congruence of the principal and agents in the organizations are usually moderated and influenced by management control systems in place, there other factors that these controls systems cannot completely control and culture is among them. Al Bahar, Peterson, and Taylor (1996) studied culture as a factor for decision-making in the context of the decision-making behavior of training managers in Bahrain. Around 21 interviewee managers participated in the study to complete the study’s two inventories: one focused on the training culture and the other concerned with decision criteria that are used in selecting people for training. There were two scales of measure identified and referenced with. The first is the organizational rationale which pertains to the extent to which training decision making is a result of organizational needs. The other measure is coined as the social rationale and therefore reflects the extent to which training decision making stems from the mores of an Arabic culture. The study later proceeded to suggest that Arabic culture can be mediated by variables like nationality of ownership and sector of the economy. Firing, Karlsdottir and Laberg (2009) studied the social influence in decision making in the context of military leadership training. The authors aimed to develop a renewed understanding of social influence in the military through a close examination and exploration of the officers decision-making processes during stressful situations. The authors believe that developing self-awareness is a central leadership capability in authentic leadership. The unconventional methodology for the study was conducted during wintertime in Norway. Half-naked and blindfolded cadets on a wharf were offered by their officers the choice of jumping or not jumping into the icy ocean. There occurred a qualitative exchange and dialogue that reflected the decision-making processes of the cadets and explored their reasons for making their decision until they finally came to a decision of whether to jump into the icy water or not. Most cadets jumped. This shows that these people preferred physical inconvenience over social inconvenience. Study also showed that officers are highly influenced by their group and the military organization. This study was later adopted by the Royal Norwegian Navy, and is under consideration by the Army and Police in Norway. Institutions deem that the test will be helpful in tapping into the cadets thinking in action and will provide knowledge about the individual self and social influence relevant to growth as leaders. The paper goes to establish that in decision making, the influence of social factors cannot be understated. Moreover, considering social influence as a potential drawback in decision making is helpful to improve self-awareness as a central leadership capability of authentic leaders in operations. For Bailey and Alexander (1993) decision-making is a function of organizational social cues (OSC), decision framing, and justice on managerial decision making. The OSC is composed of the ethical and unethical aspects and framing pertains to the gain and loss. Justice conditions (fair/unfair) were subjected to manipulation within a managerial in-basket exercise. The results of the study suggest that OSC and the experience of fairness or unfairness significantly has a huge influence in the ethical decisions of managers. It is also noted that ethical OSC resulted in significantly more ethical decisions. Managers who also experienced fairness in justice condition made significantly more ethical decisions. Importance of Leaders Group cohesiveness is important and a driver for such cohesiveness is an effective relevant leader. The leader has evolved into a new form to meet the modern day’s demands. An examination of the evolution of principalship in the United States from the 1960s to the modern days would suggest a pattern. During these former parts of these periods three roles of the managers emerged and subsequently exerted influence on the principalship. The first one is the program manager. A few years passed and a redefinition of the manager’s roles and responsibility spurred the movement from a program manager to an instructional leader. The evolution of the mentioned roles in administrative practice if contextualized in the light of the developments in the environment will suggest that the type of leader being sought nowadays is a transformational leader (Hallinger 1992). Teams More Effective than Workgroups For a long-term perspective teams are more beneficial to have compared to workgroups. Dummies.com (2010) explained that although all teams are forms of a work group, not all work groups are teams. Moreover, calling a team or a workgroup a ‘team’ does not make it a team. There are several factors that needs to be considered and several indicators that need to materialize before a team can be a true formed. One way of breaking down this scrutiny is by examining how workgroups functions. Generally, workgroups function in three levels: dependent-level work group, independent-level work groups, and interdependent-level work groups. Dependent-level work groups are usually the traditional work unit or department groups that have the leader as the boss. The boss is working closely with each person’s accomplishment of his own tasks assigned to him under a dependent-level department. In other words, the boss is in-charge of the do’s and don’ts on the job of his employees. The habit of employees helping each other or covering for one another rarely occurs and if done, it is usually under the direction of the supervisor. As a result, most of the most problem solving, work assignments, and other decisions affecting the group would be directed from the supervisor. In a short-term a dependent-level work group will perform well. However, due to separate operations and the direct supervision of the supervisor, such work group will find it hard to thrive in the long-run. This is because such work group is only good as far as maintaining the status quo or keeping the current effective operations. However, as industries continually require innovation, this type of workgroup will find it hard to succeed (Dummies.com 2010). The other type of work group is the independent-level work groups which is the most common form of work groups on the business scene. Same with the dependent-level work group, each person is responsible for his or her own main area. However, the supervisor or manager does not act as a controlling boss. Instead, employees work through their own assignments with general direction and minimal supervision. This type of work group is present in research scientists, sales representatives, accountants, police officers, lawyers, librarians, and teachers such that these people converge in one department for the purpose of finishing a common overall function, but almost everyone in the group works fairly independently. The presence of a managerial support and guidance will make these groups perform better (Dummies.com 2010). The ‘team’ comes in the form of Interdependent-level work groups. In interdependent-level work groups, members rely on each other on the completion of the tasks. Having their own roles and on some occasions sharing responsibilities will result in a more coordinated effort in producing an overall product or set of outcomes. This interdependence indicates that a team has already been created such that the adage the sum is greater that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A notable disadvantage is that an independent work group is easier to put up than an interdependent group because in order for groups of independent assignments to work as a team, a significant amount of time will be required. However, if teams will capitalize on their interdependence as they move into high-functioning and high-producing state, there is a greater probability that they will outperform all other types of work groups. Therefore, an independent group can be considered a quick fix but a team will be long-term in nature (Dummies.com 2010). The success of the group is usually based on its final results only without any regard to how the final result was achieved. For most parts, a group may use equal parts discussion, argumentation as well as peer pressure in order to arrive at a certain consensus. For example, in a trial jury the foreperson plays as the role of the leader with an ultimate goal of turning 11 other opinions into a unanimous decision. Due to the fact that the jury members do not know each other personally, there is an apparent absence of a need to build a team dynamic. Therefore a trial jury is more of a group than a team and the decision process for a verdict is the outcome of group cooperation (Wisegeek.com 2010). In comparison, a team does not rely on "groupthink" in coming up with conclusions. A good example for real world team dynamic are accident investigation teams where each member of the team is assigned a certain aspect of the accident. The members use the individual skills of the team members in order to come up with a cohesive result. A team member may function as a facilitator for the process, but his role is not necessarily that of a leader (Wisegeek.com 2010). Note that building a group may take a few minutes but forming a real team may take years. If a member walks out of the group when his services are no longer needed, the group may still continue to function very well. On the other hand, the absence of a member of the team will greatly hamper the operations of the whole team (Wisegeek.com 2010). Conclusion The contemporary setup and environment for businesses required a new form of structure for delivering relevant and timely outcomes. Beyond meeting figures and targets, the need for transformational leaders have already emerged—those who will influence a team to be better as a whole and meet desired outcomes. There is also a shift in favor towards an interdependent workgroup or in a shorter term, a ‘team’. References Al Bahar, A.A., Peterson, S.E. and Taylor, W.G.K. (1996). Managing training and development in Bahrain: the influence of culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(5) p.26 - 32. Bailey, J. J. and Alexander, R. A. (1993). Organizational social cues, framing, and justice: effects on managements ethical decisions. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1(2), p.133 - 160 Differences between Work groups and teams. (2010). Retrieved on March 7, 2010 from http://as.dummies.com/how-to/content/differences-between-work-groups-and-teams.html Firing, K. Karlsdottir, R. and Laberg, J. C. (2009). Social influence in military leadership training. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(8), 709 - 721 Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of american principals: from managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3). Higgs, M. Plewnia, U. and Ploch, J. (2005). Influence of team composition and task complexity on team performance. Team Performance Management, 11(7), 227-250. Lucas, C. and Kline, T. (2008). Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning. The Learning Organization, 15(3), 277- 287. Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000). Installing mechanisms and instilling values: the role of leaders in organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 7(3), p.135-145. Rosenthal, E. (1997). Social networks and team performance. Team Performance Management, 3(4) p288 - 294. Trent, R. J. (2004). Team leadership at the 100-foot level. Team Performance Management, 10(5) p.94 - 103 What is the Difference Between a Team and a Group? (2010). Retrieved on March 7, 2010 from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-team-and-a-group.htm Read More