Overview of the Group, Including the Type, Size, Composition and Purpose of the Group - Coursework Example

Group work Theory and Practice 2 Student Name: Institution: Date: An introductory summary Groups are composed of different individuals. It is also important to note that groups have specific identities that different from those of its individual members. It has been noted that individuals within the group demonstrate their behaviors and values, attitudes as their identifiable patterns that are accepted by the group members. The idea of conformity has been considered important in a group, without it no groups can be formed. On the other hand, group work cohesiveness, commonly referred to as the group members’ attraction to one another as well as the desire for members to continue being uniquely identified by the group has overtime been considered a significant element of the group dynamics. Norms are perceived as a set of behavior standards required in a group and are shared by all the members the group. Therefore, norms are used to control unwanted social situations, individual and group behaviors (Frey & Wolf, 2004). For this case of a group visited, the level of cohesion, a discussion of the norms, the stage of development, the group’s dynamics, leadership abilities and focal conflicts as well as the overall effectiveness of a group involved in software development will be assessed. An overview of the group, including the type, size, composition and purpose of the group The recently visited group was in the field of software development teamwork. It was formed by the computer science students who received complaints from the new students that traveling to specific universities for application is time consuming. Since the computer science students needed a topic for their final project that was required to complete their undergraduate degree, they agreed to form a group of eight people among them four boys and girls to develop a universal online application system for undergraduate students. Although the software develop group were aware that online application systems have already been developed in certain universities across the world, their main objective was to introduce a universal online application system through which the new applicants can submit their details especially scanned academic papers and email address. This could enable the new applicants to get all the feedbacks or updated status of their application in specific universities. The group also agreed that after developing and successfully testing the system, could be sold to different universities that would prefer to link it on their main website. The students presented the plan for their project to their course coordinator who approved it and recommended them to work on the project. The students organized themselves as research assistants who took the role of data collection, system requirements analysts, system designers and programmers for coding the system. The implementation and validation as the last stage of their system development was initially agreed among the members to be shared role across the group. The group also appointed one of their members as their group leader to oversee their project. Formation is a critical phase of the group development and management. Therefore, careful considerations must be given on the size and composition of a group. Davis (1998) examined that the most appropriate size for a group depends on the nature group members and the tasks to be accomplished. Davis noted that group of 2-3 people can work better for the less experienced members and shorter tasks, while a group of 4-6 can be relevant for the more experienced members and the larger tasks. A small group is advantageous over the bigger group because of its reduced chances of freeloading and minimal cases of conflicts among the group members. On the other hand, group composition raises a concern of whether the group members need to be the same or varied ability. It also involves determining whether the grouping can be random, haphazard or simply systematic. However, the responses to the above questions can be determined only if the purpose of the group as well as its context of working is clearly stated (Davis, 1998). For the case of the software development group, in an interview with the group’s leader he reported their group size was too big and this resulted into other members especially the ladies not contributing productively to the tasks assigned. The group leader also reported that their grouping was systematic. An assessment of the level of cohesion in the group For the software development group, the group leader reported that initially the group was very cohesive but when the ladies completed their stage of data collection and requirements analysis, they begun to avoid the meeting. This caused the level of cohesiveness and cooperation to go down. Group cohesion shows a sense of belonging, solidarity, attractiveness and inclusion for its members. Cohesiveness is achieved as a result of the different forces acting on group members that keep them to stay in the group. Therefore, members develop therapeutic alliances based on the sense of belonging and being accepted which in turn creates multiple relationships such as member-to-leader, leader-to-member and member-to-group (University of Queensland, 2001). In the software development group, it is only on the ladies side that the member-to-leader relationship is not stable because the female members feel that the group leader is very strict on them, and thus they assume not fully accepted in the group. Generally, cohesion may start to develop during the early stages of group development but at the operation, it is considered as a crucial facilitative element of a group process. Burlingame and others have noted that creating cohesion within the early stages of the group development is associated with the ability of the group members to manage conflicts that normally occur at the operation stage. They argued that the group is considered cohesive unit if trust has been determined, conflicts and negative feelings are expressed in a clear manner as well as worked through. Therefore, it is worthy noting that highly cohesive groups but poorly led are associated with low productivity. Thus, highly cohesive group is comparable to time fail within the managerial hands. It is only in the hands of management that the low cohesive group can be considered to be safe. Factors such as agreeing on the group goals, personal attractiveness, favorable evaluations, frequency of interaction as well as inter-group completion increase the level of group cohesiveness (Burlingame et al. 2002). A discussion of the norms those are evident in the group Norms are informal understandings that govern the group’s behaviors. Basically, norms have two major dimensions, a concern with the level of behaviors exhibited and the ability of the group to approve those behaviors. The group members of the software development were required to show maximum cooperation and behave maturely in every stage of software development. The group agreed that in so doing, each sub-group will be able execute tasks assigned successful. Researchers have argued that if team norms particularly those that are more demographically different from the main work group changed, then group norms became highly cooperative and viewed as a function of contact with different members. The group’s efficacy in its capability to perform well can be impacted through different intercultural variables including collectivism and task uncertainty. It is important to note that norms are required to promote a high level of social control, for example, social norms helps to assess the kind of behaviors that the group deems critical to its existence (Heywood & Oystein, 1999). An assessment of the stage of development the group is currently in The software development group is in the norming stage because members were observed cooperating and deciding on how they could test and validate the online application systems. One of the group members insisted they should ensure that their system will address the intended problems. They agreed to carry out system validation to identify faults or assess whether if each subgroup executed its tasks successfully. Norming, this is the group development stage in which the members are seen settling into cooperation and collaboration. In this stage, members are highly cohesive and they feel to have group identity as well as solidarity (Rickards & Moger, 2000). A discussion of the group dynamics and any problems the group is facing From the normative point of view, group dynamics indicates how groups are expected to be in terms of their organization and conducts. Group dynamics should be assessed based on the internal nature of groups, their forming abilities, structure and processes as well as the effect of the groups’ functions on individual members. Individual coalitions have been considered as a key dimension of the group dynamics (Stockton et.al. 2004). Generally, the software development group is well organized and the members have handled their assigned task carefully. This is because members were grouped in the sub-groups based on their level of skills and knowledge in software development. However, high level of absenteeism among the female members is the only problem that the group is currently facing. An analysis of the leadership of the group The two major ways through which leaders can affect the performance of their groups include, the manner in which they select the group members and the approaches they adopt to affect the members. Tactics such as use of minimal delegated leader tittles, elimination of special offices for certain group heads and reducing major differences within bonuses and privileges are important in creating team-oriented climates. Empirical studies indicate that team members become highly satisfied with their leaders, the level of absenteeism among them reduces and they perform better only when they feel that are treated fairly. However, leaders are required to be consistently clear and decisive whilst working through with different people or diverse teams in different environments (Wageman, 2001). In the software development group, the group leader was the only delegated leader title and no offices were considered. Therefore, members were grouped as research assistants, requirement analysts, designers and programmers based on their level of skills and knowledge those areas. Despite the few cases of absenteeism among the ladies who complained their group leader was so strict to them, the minimal delegated titles without offices for the sub-groups created a favorable team-oriented climate for the software project. Hackman & Wageman (2005) examined that team leaders involve in many and diverse kinds of behaviors required to promote team effectiveness. Such activities include structuring the team as well as providing its purposes, organizing for the needed resources for their teams and removing group roadblocks that can impede the work. Therefore, effective leaders support individual members to become stronger in their personal contributions to their respective teams. Leaders who are able to teach and share the glory through acknowledging the success of a group as well as win the trust of their particular team members become more effective in leading their groups. An analysis of any focal conflicts that occurred and the way they were handled In the software development group, conflicts arose from the ladies because they handled the initial stages of software development, data collection and requirements analysis. Therefore, they thought that it was necessary for them to be absent during the days they did not have work to do. This created misunderstandings between the ladies and their male who claimed that they had been handling too much work as well as the ladies and group leader who became stricter on them. The group leader reported the matter to their course coordinator who settled the issue by warning the ladies that if they do not take their work seriously and attend all the meetings for the software project, they could be dismissed from the project and not considered for graduation. The typical difficulties encountered with the group work and that cause conflicts among group members include unfavorable internal group dynamics, assessing the group work without acknowledging the existing differences in the individual contributions, marginalization of the members of a group and excessive among work assigned to specific individuals in the group. It is important for the group leader to make effective balance between the group and individual work. This would help to avoid conflicts associated with lack of fairness in assigning team work. Tasks need to be designed in a manner that can enable all group members to contribute effectively towards the achievement of the group’s goals and objectives. Research shows that tasks that require co-operation in order to be completed successfully are always executed effectively. Therefore, group leaders must ensure that care is given on task assigning to group members so that each one of them handles equal amount of tasks with others (Woolley, 1998). An assessment of the overall effectiveness of the group So far in this norming stage that the software development group is currently in, it could be noted that the group was generally effective in its performance. However, the group members especially the ladies who seemed to have finished their part because it was handled at the earliest stage of the software development needed to remain focus until the end of the project. The group should increase their level of cohesiveness and cooperate till the end of the project that was in progress. Hack, Richard (1998) argued that there is no unique solution required to create group effectiveness. He concluded that the leader has the power to create conditions that can enhance group effectiveness. The conditions that the leader is expected to control include, ensuring a more compelling direction that the group should follow in order to work effectively, designing and creating an enabling group structure to ensure that his or her group operates within the required and supportive context. Leadership and group dynamics aspects such as cohesiveness have a positive impact on the overall performance of a group. Given today’s environment in which groups are developed on the surface-level dominated with diversity issues such as race and gender differences weaken the overall effectiveness of a group. On the other hand, deep-level differences of diversity such as attitudes and values make the group stronger. Normally, effective groups can be identified as being dependable, able to target and focus on direction and the set goals. Such groups also make reliable links between different parts of their work. By focusing on team effectiveness, all the team members work to improve their teams through sharing different views from the members concerning their performance and the specific areas that may need improvement. A number of studies on the effective group performance reveal that team effectiveness works well with a small team size of about 5 to 7 members (Cuseo, 1999). Based on the case for software development group that comprises of 8 members in which half of them are ladies, it is true that a small team size works effectively than a large team size. This is because conflicts only arose from the ladies who constituted half of the group size. Therefore, the days that the ladies were absent it means that the project was not attended to effectively. References Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A & Johnson, J. (2002). Cohesion in the group psychotherapy. Practical guide to effective psychotherapy relationships. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Cuseo, J. (1999). Cooperative Learning as opposed to the Small-Group. Group Projects their critical Differences. Cooperative Learning, 2 (3), 5-10. Davis, B. (1998). Collaborative learning through Group work and Study teams. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Frey, L & Wolf, S. (2004). The Symbolic view of Group Dynamics, Research based on Small Group, 35(3), 277–316. Hackman, R. (1998). The impact of task characteristics on group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(2), 162-187. Hackman, R & Wageman, R. (2005). Important role played by Team leaders. The theory of team training. Academy of Management Review, 26, 37-74. Heywood, J & Oystein, A. (1999). The social norms and their encounter Preferences. Leisure Sciences, 21(2), 133-144. Rickards, T., & Moger, S., (2000). Inspiring leadership processes within the project team development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model, British Journal of Management, 4, 273-283. Stockton, R., Morran, D & Clark, M. (2004). Monitoring the group leaders' intentions. Group Dynamics, 8, 196-206. University of Queensland (2001). Group Assessment–student on group-based tasks and issues. Retrieved April 30, 2013 from, Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders promotes self-managing team effectiveness. Organization Science, 12, 559-577. Woolley, A. W. (1998). How intervention content and the timing on group task affect performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 30-49. Read More