Advantages and Disadvantages of a Group - Essay Example

Introduction Forming a group to complete a particular task is important, and may lead to failure or success of a project. It is important, therefore, to understand a group, its processes and its dynamics. In order to write a report of the Sustainable Change project, a group of four members was necessary. Three members were available at the start with the fourth member joining us at a later stage of the group progress. This essay examines the group through its development and reports on the observed advantages and disadvantages of completing the task as a group, the occurrence of disruptive behaviour including social loafing in the group and how this behaviour changed over time, the characteristics of an effective group exhibited in our formation, our goals setting process as well as the rewards, resources, stages of our group progress, and my original perception of the group and how that changed. Advantages and disadvantages of a group The group highlighted various advantages and disadvantages of completing the project tasks as a group. One of the advantages is a wider base of knowledge, skills, values and opinions. The members’ diversity of knowledge and skills was significant in compensating each other’s weaknesses (Blair). They were also motivated by the fact that they would achieve greater results as a group, well beyond the potential of one individual. Everyone aimed and agreed towards getting a grade of at least a distinction. The exchanging of ideas was a stimulus to explore concepts that one would not have considered. Moreover, the group allowed members to gain more knowledge and experience through interactions in negotiations and in the steps of achieving our goals. Finally, a group give greater output and better solutions as opposed to an individual because of the broader range of knowledge, skills and ideas. A group also presents some disadvantages. The disadvantages include conformity, completion, lack of objective direction at some point, social loafing, and time constraints. There was a tendency for members to want to match up to the consensus in the group. In spite of interaction being important for the group, it was not possible at first because most members felt awkward. The members were mostly polite and formal and an initial attempt by one member to motivate the group was unsuccessful. The group also failed to chose a leader, which could be attributed to competing ideas and interest. Note that a leader is instrumental in giving direction to a group (Napier & Gershenfeld 1989, p. 32). In fact, there was no clarity on the project and a fourth member was missing. Working as a group had also the limitation of a relatively slow pace as compared to working as an individual (Luft, 1984, p102). Members had to convene in meetings at specified time, sometimes failing to make it on time, and thereby slowing our discussions. Disruptive behaviours and change Behaviours such as social loafing and conformity are not healthy for a group. Social loafing was witness on some responsibilities. Since the group did not have a leader and administrator, their responsibilities ought to have been shared among the group members. However, only one member made efforts in directing the group and performing administrative tasks. Conformity was seen in some members taking the position of others; or rather, members had remarkably equal thoughts without much exploration to other possibilities. Nonetheless, these behaviours changed. Member put a concerted effort in attending to tasks, and engaged objectively in coming up with solutions. This change could have been triggered by clarification of the group’s tasks and the allocation of responsibilities to everyone (Parker 2008, P. 127; Justice & Jamieson 2006, p. 120). Understanding the groups function allowed members to respond objectively (Wood, 2004), while the interaction and openness among members improved the working environment since members were at ease with each other (Wood, et al. 2006 p. 268). Characteristics of an effective group Our group exhibited characteristic of an effective group. The efforts of each member were directed towards the same goals and tasks. Members took up their roles seriously and assisted one another in various hurdles. The working of the group was efficient. This was facilitated by good communication among members (Justice & Jamieson 2006, p. 120). All information was conveyed to everyone, and every member reported on their progress to the group. Issues such as late attendance were communicated on time to allow other members to continue with the group’s activities. Group’s activities were recorded and documented. Time management was also impressive. On top of arriving in time during meeting and discussions, members gave quick responses and feedbacks to various issues of the group’s tasks. Cooperation was high among members. Albeit the differences of members in terms of cultural background, opinion and personality, we focused on issues that would solve the group’s tasks. The members were motivated all through, and agreed to maintain that motivation by promising themselves a reward at the end of the project. The reward was a time out together in a dinner party. The group was also able to utilize the available resources effectively. Resources for the group The group had various resources at disposal. Each member had a skill to add to the capacity of the group to tackle the project at hand. Member 1, for instance, was good at leadership roles and took the initiative of directing the group through its creation and tasks. This member also kept records of the group proceedings and progress, and kept the group informed on relevant matters. Member 1 and member 2 were also motivators and possessed great analytical skills. The led the group in starting the group’s tasks and performed various analysis of the project efficiently. All the members were proficient in researching and reporting. With the resources and the traits discussed above, the group was able to set its goals. Setting goals The process of setting up the goals of the group was participatory. This involved generating several alternative interests and choosing the most priority concerns to address (Sharpe 2006). The nominal group technique, which allows all group members to participate in a process (Sharpe 2006), was used together with brainstorming to come up with the goals of the group. This was done at the initial stage of the group formation. Original Perception of the group tasks The perception of the group task was initially narrow. I had thought that the tasks involved only completing the Sustainable Change projects. Moreover, I viewed the tasks as unchallenging since we were four and that each person would complete his or her part effectively. However, this perception changed as the group progressed with its work. First, I discovered that the group’s tasks involved more activities than the scheduled activities of completing the project. These other tasks include administrative activities and leadership of the group itself as well as developing the group into a team. As opposed to a group, a team is characterized by interdependence for the overall performance (Katzenbach & Smith 1993, p. 88; Wood, et al. 2006). Thus, a group becomes a team when its activities involve assisting each other to achieve common goals. The second discovery was that the tasks were more challenging than anticipated. These occurrences can be explained through Tuckman’s five stages of group development (Wood, et al. 2006). Stages of group development according: Tuckman’s model Our group was characterised by various stages of development with each stage comprising various activities. These stages are summarised by Tuckman as the forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning stage (Davidson & Griffin 2006; Wood, et al. 2006). The forming stage is the first stage and involved members initially coming together to form the group (Wood, et al. 2006; Stone, 2006). This stage was characterised by avoidance of controversy and conflict and members drawing together the impression and information of each other. Often at this stage, individual members ask themselves various questions to see if they fit with the rest of the group members (Davidson & Griffin 2006). Members focused more on existing authority and occupied themselves with routines. The second stage was the storming stage (Wood, et al. 2006). This was marked by high tension and emotionality between members, with slight confrontations that were quickly resolved. The tension was caused among the emerging dyads or subgroup differentiation (Stone 2006). There was shift of the groups focus, and members began to comprehend each other personality and appreciate them in curving out strategy to work out the group’s tasks. The third stage is the norming stage (Wood, et al. 2006). The group was harmonized (Stone 2006), although the existing balance of forces is unstable. Nonetheless, members were determined to maintain this balance, with the group discouraging any deviation from the established direction (Davidson & Griffin 2006). Members appreciated, listened and supported each other, and it is at this stage the preconceived views were shed-off. The fourth stage is the performing stage (Wood, et al. 2006). This stage is characterised by organization, maturity and proper functionality of a group (Davidson & Griffin 2006; Wood, et al. 2006). The group was able to handle complex tasks and group issues. The structure of the group was established and members were motivated and satisfied by the group’s goals. Everyone understood well his or her responsibilities and made valued commitments to them. The final stage is the adjourning stage. This stage involves disbanding the group after the tasks are completed. However, our group has not reached this stage because the work is not yet completed. Conclusion This essay has reported on the activities and occurrences of our group since it was formed. Its advantages, disadvantages, disruptive behaviour by members and the resources available have been highlighted. There are also traits that make the group effective. The process of setting the goals, and my original perception of the group tasks have also been discussed. The essay summarises the group with the Tuckman’s five stages of group development. Nonetheless, the group has not reached the fifth stage because it is still handling tasks. Reference list Davidson, P & Griffin, R W 2006, Management, John Wiley and Sons, Australia. Justice, T & Jamieson, D 2006, The facilitator's fieldbook: step-by-step procedures, checklists and guidelines, samples and templates, AMACOM Div American Management Association, USA. Katzenbach, J. R & Smith, D. K 1993 The wisdom of teams: creating the high-performance organization, Harvard Business Press, Harvard. Luft, J 1984, Group processes: an introduction to group dynamics, 3rd edn, National Press Books, Michigan. Napier, R & Gershenfeld, M K 1989, Groups, theory and experience, 4th edn., Houghton Mifflin, Parker, G M 2008, Team Players and Teamwork: New Strategies for Developing Successful, 2nd edn, John Wiley and Sons, Australia. Sharpe, D 2006, Setting group goals, Montana State University Extension, Montana, 3rd October 2006, . Wood, J 2004, Organisational Behaviour: A Global Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, Milton, Australia. Wood, J, Zeffane, R, Fromholtz, M, & Fitzgerald, J 2006, Organisational behaviour: core concepts and applications, John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane. Read More