To Maintain Itself and to Perform Its Task - Term Paper Example

Groups exist in an organization to enhance its effective and efficient operation. This paper entails an analysis of the effectiveness of groups in relation to its task and its process. The author of this paper argues that group effectiveness is only achieved when there is a balance between the group task and the group process. Functionalist theorists believe that every group has two main goals. The first is to maintain itself and the second is to perform its task. In order to attain these goals there are certain actions which the group must perform (Pavitt 1998). This view highlights the opinion of the author that both maintenance and task behaviors are necessary for effectiveness of the group. Similar to the functionalists view, Blair (1997) emphasizes two important issues in the operation of groups. These are ‘the task’ and the problems involved in completing the job as well as ‘the process’ of the group. For Blair 1997 the process comprises ‘the mechanisms by which the group acts as a unit and not as a loose rabble.’ He argues that without this process the value of the group may be destroyed but proper management of this ‘process’ would lead to tremendous benefit to the organization. Although Blair 1997 stressed the ‘process’ dimension of the group he did not deny nor endorse equal weighting to the task dimension of the group. On the other hand, Benne and Sheats (1948) identified three categories of roles allocated to the members of groups, namely, group task roles, group maintenance roles and individual roles. Group task roles refer to the relevant task of the group. Group maintenance roles refer to activities which keep the group together. Individual roles refer to individuals ‘attempt to satisfy their own needs and desires’ (Pavitt 1998). While task and maintenance roles assist the group in achieving its goals, individual roles act negatively against the group accomplishing these goals (Pavitt 1998). Based on Benne and Sheats’ findings one can implicitly deduce that the more successful group would incorporate maintenance and task roles. Interestingly, Blair 1997 begins his analysis of group effectiveness by presenting a synopsis of the first group created as the biblical creation story of the interaction between Adam and Eve and the serpent. He concluded that conflict in groups began from this time and has progressively gotten worse. Conflict occurs when the task and maintenance demands are in opposition to each other. Thus, task problems would usually result in maintenance problems (Pavitt 1998). For example a group may be assigned the task of completing an assignment within a give time. This group may experience difficulty in staying on schedule to complete the task. At the same time, this group may have problems in terms of helping a particular member to remain sane by having discussion about the member’s personal problems. Conflict therefore would occur between the group’s task of completing the assignment and the group’s maintenance behavior of taking time out from the schedule to listen to a member’s problems. Not only does conflict occur when a group’s task and maintenance behaviors are in opposition but also when there are changes in a task. This is because a change in task could result in a change in the hierarchical relationship of group members causing problems in the maintenance behavior of the group (Pavitt 1998). However, if the members were to focus solely on the maintenance task of ensuring the group stays together then the degree of accuracy in the performance of the task would be sacrificed. Bales (1950) referred to this back and forth movement from maintenance problems to task problems the ‘equilibrium problem’ (Pavitt 1998). The author of this paper considers Bales concept of ‘equilibrium problem’ as the need to strike a balance between its maintenance and task behaviors. In the development of a group Tuckman 1965 identified four stages (Blair 1997, Pavitt 1998). These comprise forming, storming, norming and performing. Tuckman also believed that there were both maintenance and task phases which ran relatively concurrently with each stage of the group development (Pavitt 1998). In the initial stage, forming, the members are in the process of trying to figure out each other. Thus, there is great uncertainty and testing of the waters. ‘Testing and dependence’ is the title designated by Tuckman for the maintenance phase of the forming stage. This phase involves uncovering acceptable behaviors for group interaction. The task associated with this first phase is ‘Orientation’ which is an attempt by members to define the task and the means for getting it done (Pavitt 1998). The second stage, storming involves conflict due to power struggles and therefore requires a concerted effort to get on the task. The second phase of storming involves the maintenance phase of ‘Development of intragroup conflicts.’ This phase refers to the division in the group due to interpersonal concerns and the defiance to the budding interpersonal structure. The task phase is termed ‘Emotional response to task demands’ and involves ‘resistance to attempts at influence, conflict between individual orientations and task demands’ (Pavitt 1998). The penultimate stage of norming involves the actual achievement of a goal. The group at this stage has begun to form themselves into a cohesive unit. Members begin to listen to each other, thus enhancing maintenance behaviors (Blair 1997). Tuckman termed the maintenance phase of norming ‘Development of group cohesion.’ At this juncture in the group development there is acceptance of the group’s arrangement for interpersonal interactions. The task phase is ‘Open exchange of relevant interpretations’ and involves members expressing their views on the group’s problems (Pavitt 1998). Whereas in the previous stages the degree of support by members of each other was limited Blair 1997 contends that the final stage of performing entails members supporting each other as well as the decisions that are made by the group. Tuckman claims that at this phase ‘optimal levels are finally realized-in productivity, quality, decision making, allocation of resources and interpersonal interdependence’ (Pavitt 1998). In the final stage ‘Functional role-relatedness’ is the maintenance phase. Members use their well-established structure for relationship to resolve interpersonal concerns. The task is ‘Emergence of solutions’ in which there is positive effort to finish the task. Throughout Tuckman’s analysis of the phases of a group Tuckman has consistently pointed to task and maintenance behaviors hence one can implicitly conclude that a group needs both maintenance and task behaviors in order to be effective. In light of the fact that a group’s performance is directly related to its effectiveness should groups then focus on the performance of their task versus an in depth analysis of their process? Blair along with the Michigan State University Extension writer argues that the process is equally as essential as the task. The group process is defined as ‘a series of changes which occur as a group of individuals form into cohesive and effective operating unit’ (Blair 1997). Understanding of the process causes the acquisition of the two main sets of group skills. These skills comprise managerial skills and interpersonal skills (Blair 1997). Once more one can assume that the managerial skills are needed to ensure quality output which pertains to the task behaviors and the interpersonal skills are needed to maintain the group as a unit. Pavitt notes that when groups have simple tasks it is easy for members to understand them and so members do not have to take much time to discuss the task. In such a case the ‘process’ would not have a significant impact on performance. However, when the task is complex members may have some difficulty understanding it and would therefore need to spend a great deal of time discussing the issue. In this scenario the process is critical to the performance of the group (Pavitt 1998). Further data has been found to substantiate this author’s claim of the necessity for a balance between the process and the task. Since 1994 the Michigan State University Extension published an article detailing that a group struggles to obtain a balance between its assigned task and the relationship amongst the members of the group. The end result of an emphasis on task is a neglect of the people, thus, the eventual outcome would be unsatisfactory for the organization as a whole and also for the individual members of the group. In particular there would not be adequate support for the solution by all members of the group. In contrast, overemphasis on the group relationship at the expense of the given task may result in an unproductive outcome. The task may be left undone whilst the group deals with interpersonal affairs. Such a group would be considered unproductive. In productive groups people listen to each other. They discuss and not shout ideas across the floor. In less effective groups, members do not listen to one another. The agenda and therefore the discussion, the problem solving strategies and decision making are ad hoc. Some members may feel they are of little value because their ideas are not counted whilst only one or two persons do all the talking. The mere act of listening to each other enhances the group process which in turn improves the performance of the group. However, Kreitner (2006) as well as Hill and Jones (2006) purports that it is possible for a group to be hindered in its opportunity to perform at its maximum when there is the existence of groupthink, that is, the desire of members to maintain the cohesiveness of the group by overriding their right to give alternative suggestions. Cohen and Bailey (1997) reviewed research published from 1990 to 1997 on groups in an organizational setting. Their focus was on dimensions of effectiveness within a group. Thus, they concluded that team or group effectiveness is ‘a function of task, group, and organization design factors, environmental factors, internal processes, external processes, and group psychological traits’ (Cohen and Bailey 1997 p.2). The effectiveness of teams was classified into three main categories. Firstly, effectiveness was assessed by the quantity and quality of outputs of the organizations that is the performance of the organization. A second measure of effectiveness was the attitudes of the members and third measure was the ‘behavioral outcomes’ (Cohen and Bailey, 1997 p.3). For Cohen examples of performance effectiveness include factors such as ‘efficiency, productivity, response times and customer satisfaction...’ Attitudinal measure include ‘employee satisfaction, commitment and trust in management. Behavioral comprise ‘absenteeism, turnover and safety’ (Cohen and Bailey 1997, p.3). Is the group’s output related to the group process or the group’s input variables, where input pertains to the personality and other qualities of the group members (Pavitt 1998)? The jury is still out on this question and therefore we, the consumers can only work with what has so far been discovered and that is the group’s output is directly related to its process. Theorists have so far been unable to challenge the interaction between the group’s process and task. Many of the theorists observed in this study stressed the importance of both maintenance and task behaviors. No author gave precedence to one type of behavior over the other. Thus, one can implicitly conclude that a balance between a group’s task and maintenance behaviors would lead to the effective performance of the group. References Blair, G. (1997) Groups that Work. 03 Jan 2008. http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art0.html?http://oldeee.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art0.html Cohen, S. and Bailey, D. (1997) ‘What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, 23, 3 239-90. FindArticles.com. 03 Jan.2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4256/is_n3_v23/ai_20147089 Kreitner, R. (2006) Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Michigan State University Extension. (1994) Group Effectiveness: Understanding Group Member Roles http://web1.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modii/ii719202.html Pavitt C. (1998) Small group Communication: A Theoretical Approach (Third Edition) 04 Jan. 2008. http://www.udel.edu/communication/COMM356/pavitt/chap8.htm Senge P. (1990) Definitions: Systems, Systems Theory, Systems Thinking, Tools. Free Management Library. 04 Jan. 2008. http://www.managementhelp.org/systems/systems.htm Hill C. & Jones G. 2006, Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach, Seventh Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Read More