How Management Works within Groups such as the ICE - Literature review Example

The first thing that needs to be examined is the theory of groups, because this will help understand how management works within groups such as the ICE. Wright (2010), states that there are phases that each group goes through, which marks how the members interact with one another through time. In the beginning, the group is marked by the individuals fears and anxiety about the group, which is related to Rothwells emotional group culture. These fears and anxieties are based upon the fear of rejection from other group members, and it is up to the leaders to facilitate each individual member’s entrance into the group. Individual members may feel that perhaps the group will not accept them, or accept their views; that perhaps they are not good enough at the given activity, and that others will be better than they are; and that there may be unwanted competition. These fears may be allayed by making sure that each group member works at the same competency, and that competitiveness, skill demand and instruction complexity are minimized (Wright, 2010, p. 211). The middle phase of the group is where the group settles in and becomes more comfortable with one another, and they become emotionally invested in the group. The individuals settle into status and roles within the group. Each member has a better idea of his or her place within the group, and each individual member feels more confident to individualize him or herself – whereas at the beginning of the group, the members felt a need to be similar to one another, in the middle, differences are celebrated. The individual group members bond by sharing personal information that they would not have shared before. Opinions are given more freely (Wright, 2010, p. 214). The last stage of the group is marked by a return of insecurities and fears, only now these insecurities and fears are coalesced around the feeling that the group is ending, and the ambivalence that is felt when this is at hand. It is also marked by openness in communication, presumably because the group is coming to an end, so the members may feel able to speak more freely. This openness may result in tension, regression and fights (Wright, 2010, p. 207). The ending of the group may be made more harmonious by emphasizing the fact that the members are free to express their ambivalence about the group ending, and to talk about how the group changed them (Wright, 2010, p. 221). Group Leadership As far as group leadership goes, there are certain traits that leaders should possess. One type of leader is the servant leader, who puts aside his or her own self-interest in favor of the interests of those being led. These leaders are altruistic; are able to provide emotional healing to those who fail; are wise, in that they have a good grasp on any given situation that faces the group and knows how to handle these situations; have an excellent ability to persuade others; and understand how their organization impacts society, and are able to use their organization for positive societal means (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010, p. 5-7). Another type of leader is the transformational leader, who is able to “enhance their followers performance beyond the personal and leaderships expectations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). This leader is able to identify each individuals personal needs; is able to elicit creative and innovative thinking among the led; is able to assist the followers through task that they might have thought to be impossible; and is able to inspire a “charismatic admiration and emulation of the leader” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). These leaders use a system of punishment, rewards and pre-emptive actions to solve group problems (Thomas, 2010, p. 10). Trust is another aspect of ethical leadership. According to Strike (2007), trust is essential for building the community. Communities “exist to enable cooperation aimed at the achievement of certain shared goods” (Strike, 2007, p. 17). In communities, cooperation is more important than competition. The success of the educational community in question is contingent upon how successful the parts of the whole are integrated and successful in their own right - “success of each contributes to the success of all” (Strike, 2007, p. 17). Essential to keeping the community together is solidarity, which means that the community is functioning as a unit, and each member is committed to the goals of the community and the other members of the community. Trust is essential to this process because, when it disappears, solidarity does as well (Strike, 2007, p. 18). Trust is also essential in inspiring others. According to Harris (2005), people are willing to climb any mountain, circumvent any obstacle for a trusted leader. Trust builds commitment. It is “derived from people watching walk after hearing us talk. Trust is invariably spoken with our mouths and travels through our ears, but is is only proven through our eyes. By proving themselves in their followers eyes, leaders are able to reach the hearts of those they would seek to lead” (Harris, 2005, p. 8). Similarly, Jung and Avolio (2000) state that trust is what makes a transformational leader effective. This is because the transformational leader is leading through a period of transition, which results in fear, anxiety and frustration. Trust in the leader is essential to lead through the transitional period, and help the followers overcome their apprehension, and overcome obstacles. They foster this trust by demonstrating concern for the followers needs, honoring previously made agreements, demonstrating capability in achieving the vision set forth, and by showing that they are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the organization (Harris, 2005, p. 8). Many school principals are in the position of transformational leaders when the schools are going through a period of transition or improvement. Also, when the leader trusts the followers to make their own decisions, this builds trust for the leader as well (Harris, 2005, p. 8). These leaders use a system of punishment, rewards and pre-emptive actions to solve group problems (Thomas, 2010, p. 10). One of the trust concepts discussed in Fullans book is that of relational trust. Relational trust “facilitates the development of beliefs, values, organizational routines, and individual behaviors that instrumentally affect students engagement and learning” (Fullan, 2003, p. 42). Relational trust aids schools by facilitating school professionals taking on new and uncertain tasks that are essential to reform, and “facilitates public problem solving within an organization” (Fullan, 2003, p. 42). Because instructional improvements require teachers to solve problems jointly, relational trust aids this process. Relational trust is the underpinning for social control in a school-based community. Day to day work is orderly, yet the teachers still experience autonomy and support for their efforts. Fourth, relational trust makes teachers more committed to the school and its mission, therefore are more willing to work hard and put in extra effort in improving the school (Fullan, 2003, pp. 42-43). The school principal is the most likely person to establish this trust by developing trusting relationships with teachers and by exhibiting relational trust as a personal attribute. The four dimensions or criteria of relational trust are “respect, competence, personal regard for others, and integrity”(Fullan, 2003, p. 43). All of these dimension are necessary to sufficiently establish relational trust. The dearth of any one of these dimensions seriously undermined the trust between the principal and his or her teachers and staff (Fullan, 2003, p. 43). Relational trust is most crucial when the subject is school improvement. Teachers, when a school needs to be reformed, often must take on extra work like “engaging with colleagues in planning, implementing, and evaluating school improvement initiatives”( Fullan, 2003, p. 62). Reform also asks that the teachers confront conflict. Teachers in this situation may question why they are doing this extra work and dealing with these excessive conflict, and relational trust provides a basis for change. When there is a culture of relational trust, teachers understand that improvement is needed and do the extra work because it is “the right thing to do” (Fullan, 2003, p. 62). A shared vision is another important aspect of leadership. This means that the vision of the manager is the vision of the team, and every member of the team shares this vision. There are several factors in creating this sense of shared vision. The first factor in creating a shared vision is by acknowledging the strengths of individual members, and by acknowledging each individual members personal vision of the organization at its best (Senge, 1990, p. 212). Essential to this is composing a team, as opposed to a group. Plenart (1995) tells the story of team building in Malaysia. His team was composed of a mix of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus who, initially, did not understand one another at all, and there was a great deal of resistance to open communication. Plenarts challenge was to create a team out of these disparate people. He found that, after much time and patience, and much work in avoiding culturally offensive occurrences, the team was strong and vital because of the fact that each member of the team brought a different perspective, and this generated innovative ideas (Plenart, 1995, p. 290). This method – acknowledging personal visions and strengths, and allowing them to be a catalyst for the organizations vision - is in contrast to the typical way of creating a vision, where the manager comes up with a vision, and this is transmitted from “on high” down the line. This is problematic, as such a vision is ephemeral if the managers just write it down, transmit it, then forget about it. Such is the case with the man who was made an example in Senges book. When asked about his companys vision, he said that he already formulated this and moved on, and, when asked what the vision was, he could not remember. He was apparently too busy to truly get his people committed to the vision (Senge, 1990, p. 213). And, simply transmitting the vision to others does nothing to promote their own personal vision. Promoting the personal vision of the organizations members requires testing and inquiry. It also entails the leader asking for help from the members of his organization who are under him. This makes people invested in the vision, and feel like they own a piece of it (Senge, 1990, p. 213-214). It also enables organization members to give their ideas, that gives the potential to have vision bubbling up from the bottom up. A special kind of leader is able to transmit shared visions in this way. There are two kinds of leaders who have the traits to foster this. One type of leader is the servant leader, who puts aside his or her own self-interest in favor of the interests of those being led. These leaders are altruistic; are able to provide emotional healing to those who fail; are wise, in that they have a good grasp on any given situation that faces the group and knows how to handle these situations; have an excellent ability to persuade others; and understand how their organization impacts society, and are able to use their organization for positive societal means (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010, p. 5-7). Another type of leader is the transformational leader, who is able to “enhance their followers performance beyond the personal and leaderships expectations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). This leader is able to identify each individuals personal needs; is able to elicit creative and innovative thinking among the led; is able to assist the followers through task that they might have thought to be impossible; and is able to inspire a “charismatic admiration and emulation of the leader” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). These leaders use a system of punishment, rewards and pre-emptive actions to solve group problems (Thomas, 2010, p. 10). Because these leaders are able to really work with their members, and understand them and assist them through seemingly impossible tasks, these are leaders who will be able to foster shared vision among their organizational members. Senge also talks about seven attitudes towards a vision. At the top is commitment – the people in the organization want the vision, and will do whatever it takes to make it happen – even creating new laws or structures to make it happen. Just under that is enrollment – the members of the organization want it, and they will do whatever it takes within the already existing structures and laws to make it happen. Then, under this are the compliance categories. There is genuine compliance, where members of the organization see and understand the vision, and agree with it, but are not really invested in it because they do not really share the vision. But they follow the “letter of law” and do everything that is expected of them and more. With formal compliance, the members of the organization see the benefit of the vision, and do what is expected, but do not go above and beyond the call of duty. Then grudging compliance – the organization members do not see the vision, do not understand it or agree with it, goes along with it because they do not want to lose their jobs. They do what they need to, and no more, and complain about it the whole way. Then, you have non-compliant people – they have the attitude that the vision is not theirs, and they do not want to go along with it, and they dont. Apathy is where people really dont care either way – they are not for the vision, they are not against it, they just want to get their paycheck and leave (Senge, 1990. pp. 219-220). Read More