StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Cohesive Work Groups - Essay Example

Summary
This essay "Cohesive Work Groups" discusses group cohesion that now benefits the fulfillment of both the organizational objectives as well as personal objectives. Personalities can be enhanced with this team dynamic component and organizations are using it as a valuable tool for achieving corporate objectives amidst international operations and stiff competition…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER97.2% of users find it useful
Cohesive Work Groups
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Cohesive Work Groups"

Running Head: essay Cohesive work groups of the of the of the Introduction With widespread use of technology and innovation in marketplace, organizations had to revisit their traditional business practices. Revamping the human resources management function became the first priority where person-performance relationship gained prominence. Researches establish the positive effects of individual competencies on individual performances (Shin & Park n.d) but with the changing landscape of business activities, cohesion in groups became the talk of the town. Group cohesion now benefits the fulfilment of both the organizational objectives as well as personal objectives. Personalities can be enhanced with this team dynamic component and organizations are using it as a valuable tool for achieving corporate objectives amidst international operations and stiff competition. Group development Cohesive work groups start with the development of basic groups and teams involving stages called forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. The first two levels of team development, namely the forming and storming are characterized by high uncertainty and conflicts amongst team members. This is so because initially, the goals of team formation are not clear to the members and liking is also not developed. Chances of hostility and withdrawal of members are high during these two stages. Cohesion in groups creeps in during the norming stage when members actually identify a sense of belongingness, shared goals and their identification in the group setting (Figure 1). Comradeship develops in the group with understanding of responsibility and contributions by members. Tasks and duties become clear in this stage as well as two-way communication channel and feedback system gets explicit. Figure 1- Team Development Wheel: Cooper & Boyd, 1996:34 Cohesion defined Cartwright (1968:91) defines group cohesion as “the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group”. This definition involves team spirit, interaction, belongingness and bonding. Forsyth (1999:9) made cohesion more specific by adding the elements of “unity, oneness and solidarity” into its definition (Figure 2). Figure – Source: www.istadia.com/article/GAINMOREGolf/444 Characteristics of cohesion further include: Cohesion is found to improve in conditions of pressures, difficulties and threats. Members spending more time with each other generally improve cohesion in groups. Smaller and specific outcome built teams are found to have greater cohesion. Not explicit but teams with high success content history has greater cohesiveness intact. Cohesive work groups Cohesion in groups produces a dual effect with individual and group perspectives. Shin & Park (n.d) conclude that at individual level, group cohesiveness has a negative or adverse effect on competency-performance relationship. This is because highly cohesive groups are characterized by strong ties where individual competencies do not find vent to be showcased. This limits the individual growth of the member and also the contribution towards the group. However, at the group level, it has a positive or favourable effect due to the fact that people tend to monitor the performance of other members along with their own. This gives rise to collective competencies and thus, increases group participation and productivity. Benefits of group cohesion Group cohesion results in manifold advantages to both the individual members and to the organization as a whole (Petress 2004). Its numerous benefits are enlisted as below: For group members Member adjustment and satisfaction Elements of satisfaction, compatibility and rapport are intense in cohesive work groups which make the work settings and environment healthier than non-cohesive work groups. This is because the psychological level of members in such groups is in consensus and liking has been developed among them. Thus they respond to each other in a positive manner and become more adjustable to group dynamics. Higher motivation Motivation is a function of monetary, psychological, social and personal elements. Apart from monetary, cohesive work groups supply all the other motivation components to the group members which work as a binding link between the members, group and the organization. Reduced anxiety and tension Anxiety and tension crop up when members feel uncertain of their duties, want to compete with their peers or are insecure of their job or position. With cohesive work groups, both the personal and group objectives share a similar platform and as such, members are reported to have lesser anxiety and tension. With supportive working, they are able too handle stress situations better and easier. Greater acceptance of goals and decisions Unlike non-cohesive groups, members of cohesive groups do not try to influence their counterparts to impose their views and opinions on other members. This gives rise to a unanimous decision making process whereby the members are willing to accept the responsibilities and task entrusted upon them. For organizations Higher productivity The onus of transforming the inputs into outputs with maximum optimization and minimum wastage rests on organizations and this feat is achieved when the human resources are competent, skilled and intertwined. Cohesive work groups outperform their counterparts in the level of output delivered as the members work on the foundations of unity, belongingness and group pride. This infuses passion, dedication and determination into the tasks which ultimately leads to higher productivity and profitability for organizations (Peterson 2007). Supportive workplace environment Balance between the work and personal life of employees is essential to maintain the required level of motivation, dedication and linkage between personal and organizational goals. For this purpose, organizations have to encourage the formation of cohesive work groups identified by greater attraction, liking and mutual trust. Such a supportive environment at work helps develop the creative instincts of employees and extracts the best out of them. Negativities of stress, ambiguities and change-averseness are also avoided by forming cohesive work groups. Inculcation of a learning organization Contrasted to cooperative learning, cohesive work groups are characterized by collaborative learning environment. Cooperative learning is based on lectures and is majorly product or specific outcome oriented. On the other hand, cohesive work groups given vent to collaborative learning whereby shared practices are born and an in-depth understanding of subject takes place within the group. It results in a process oriented approach with constructivism and active learning components attached. With such a setting, group members can also develop entrepreneurship. Individualism Individualism in layman terms refer to groups or teams with personal and loose goals. The reach of such goals is limited to immediate family, friends and relatives. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions define individualism as completely opposite to collectivism whereby societies are intact with cohesive nature, loyalty and unquestioning exchange of help and relations (Clearly Cultural 2009). Individualistic work groups are also categorized on the behavior demonstrated by its members as (Ghosh 2004): Horizontal individualistic rely more on self-sufficiency and are more focused towards their own status and achievements. Vertical individualistic are competition oriented and fight with others in the same position and status for distinction. Horizontal collectivist focuses on their group contributions and place emphasis on common goals. Vertical collectivist even sacrifices their personal objectives to sustain the group dynamics and common goals. They might be holding different positions and statuses within the group but this does not have a bearing on their group cohesiveness. Thus, comparing the above two domains, it is clear that while individualism places greater impetus on self-reliance and fulfilment of personal objectives, group cohesiveness is more focused towards fulfilling shared goals and objectives. Individualism in this sense does not apply to present business scenarios where culturally diverse workforce is in motion. Individualistic attitude restricts team members to open up, share their views, ideas and opinions and brings skirmishes into group working. While individualism limits the scope of learning for a team member, it also places hindrances in the way of better functioning by organizations and getting proactive and responsive to market changes. Conclusion Groups in business resemble a family setting in a society. While social norms, values and beliefs serve as the binding threads in a societal framework, groups become cohesive and tightly linked with the forces of attraction, liking and unity. Cohesiveness enters into a group development if the standards of performance are set high during the norming stage. With businesses crossing geographical boundaries and functioning in diverse cultural settings, importance of cohesive work groups gains prominence because of the connection, success rate and satisfaction levels for both the individuals and the organizations. References Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of Group cohesiveness. In Shin, S.Y & Park, W.W. (n.d). Moderating effects of group cohesiveness in competency-performance relationships: a multi level study. Journal of Behavior Studies in Business. Clearly Cultural. (2009). Individualism [online] available from [accessed 5 Jan 2010] Forsyth, D.R. (1999). Group Dynamics.3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Ghosh, A. (2004). Individualist and Collectivist orientations across occupational groups [online] available from [accessed 5 Jan 2010] Peterson, F.W. (2007). Predicting group performance using cohesion and social network density: A comparative analysis. [online] available from [accessed 5 Jan 2010] Petress, K.C. (2004). The Benefits of Group Study. Education, Summer. Shin, S.Y & Park, W.W. (n.d). Moderating effects of group cohesiveness in competency-performance relationships: a multi level study. Journal of Behavior Studies in Business [online] available from [accessed 5 Jan 2010] Read More
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us