Group Influence - Assignment Example

 Group influence Part I My attendance in the meeting was granted upon request to attend the monthly meeting. The meeting incorporated all group members from the top level to the subordinate level. The group was a charity organization and its creation and composition was voluntary. However, the group has grown significantly incorporating different power levels: from the leader or group manager, to members playing the role of activism. The group mission had an objective to aid immigrants access the privileges as required by the constitution. The group is based their community and most of its operations are aimed to change the perception of the community on immigrants and minority races. The meeting was held in hall. The hall provides a space that can host a large quantity of people. The sitting arrangement was one in which speakers were provided with an opportunity to address members since the number of group members is large. Groups provided with specific responsibilities were sited in one position. From this position, pointing out issue was an easy task. The group comprised of 120 members. However, the number represented registered members. Other guests had been invited as speakers and also the meeting involved persons interested in joining the group. Group members were of all genders, race and age. Moreover, the group does not limit membership regardless of their social affiliations. The mission shared is one that would ensure minority groups in the society access privileges as required by constitution. The mission is based on the realization that minority groups are racially abused and denied basic human rights. The goals of the organization are to ensure the society perceives with equality all society members regardless of their cultural affiliations. The duration of the group is long term. The group is of 10 years experiencing growth in both members and corporate funding. Moreover, the organization has long term goals considering that minority groups are part of the society. The monthly meeting was based on an agenda to provide feedback of the programs conducted in the month and provide suggestion on the next activities. In addition, the meeting introduced new members to the society. The order of the group was conducted by the master of ceremony who prepares a speaker list before the start of the meeting. Prior to the meeting, any member is allowed to point out suggestions or complains that would be addressed. The stricture of the group commenced from its founders who acted as leaders. From the leaders, different departments are created. The departments are prided with leaders who act as per the instructions provided by the group leaders. All group members act as facilitators. The group is made functional by its members. Each member is provided with a particular task and mandate. The collection of members ensures that objectives are achieved. In regards to funding, corporates are major facilitators. Individuals also take part in the funding process. The meeting was created in order to address the events of the coming month. The group had organized an activism rally. Members were allocated to different sections mandated with different tasks. From each selected groups, members shared suggestions and recommendation that could be incorporated in the activity. Additionally, members could develop activity requirements and plan on how record high relevance. Leaders provided information of specifications and mission to be completed. Communication in the organization was horizontal. All group members could easily communicate with leaders and department heads. In addition, ideas were generated by all members and deliberated for relevance and effectiveness. However, role and responsibilities were assigned by group leaders. The communication strategy used enabled the organization to have a unified status. Members could easily participate in the communication process which makes it easier to understand suggestions and requirements by all members. All members in the group shared the same identity. Similar to most charity organizations, the group membership was voluntary as only interested people signed up. Moreover, most members in the group were affiliated with a minority group. This proved that members shared the same identity. In addition, the group activities were also voluntary and members took part to support the charity organization. Members are never influenced by group thinking since they are aware of their requirements as part of the organization. Addition, members share similar interests and motive. In the group, individual attitudes were made more charitable as they felt they are part of a change required in the society. The common interests shared by all members made the organization effective and made its performance exemplary. Members also share a common chemistry which increases the ease to work and come up with operational strategies. Part II The creation of groups is based on particular norms. In an argument by Goffee & Jones (2013) a group is based on its ability to share common mission, objective and goals. The authors define groups as organization that comprise of more than two persons (Goffee & Jones, 2013). The same definition is shared by Evan (2006) who is of the assumption that groups comprise of a cluster of person who share a common want. The composition of the group is based the performance and responsibility of all members. For instance, four people may have a mission to rebel against an activity by a corporate. The creation is based on the ability of all members to realize that change is needed on that particular front. In addition, each member will have a responsibility to take part in activities as required by the objective of its formations. In regards to formation, a group may be formed by an individual and then seek the participation of other members. It may also be created through a collective collaboration of many people. One major determinant of the group is the reason for its creation and mechanisms to achieve its stated missions. Evan (2006) is of the assumption that the formation of a group requires similar attitudes shared by all members. The author also points out that the uniformity of the mission statement is responsible for the creation of a group (Evan, 2006). In relating the norm of formation to the group analyzed, it is observable that the organizations hare the common want to eradicate racisms. All members share the same objectives as enrolment and participation is involuntary. In addition, the creators of the group had the same objective as a mission statement. Society members who share the same social values and interests are provided with an opportunity to operate to achieve uniform objectives. A group norm refers to the provision of responsibilities to members. In addition, a group norm dictates the mandate and division of authority between members. In an argument by Goffee & Jones (2013) the operation of a group are well managed if there are accurate and appropriate division of authority mechanisms. A group should be created in a setting in which authority figures are clearly identified. This is because most groups comprise of members with equal mandate. Members are provided with the opportunity to act on behalf of the group. This freedom may pose both negative and positive effects to the group. Platow, Grace & Smithson (2011) are of the assumption that the presence of a leader enables members to have respect on an authority figure. Additionally, members operate under the provision of the leader. This system is aimed at minimizing the autonomy level of members. Platow, Grace & Smithson (2011) point out that, too much anatomy provided to members may limit the effectiveness of the group to achieve its objective. The author further points out that an authoritative ensures relevance and objectiveness of the group (Platow, Grace & Smithson, 2011). In relating the analysis of the group norm to the focus group, the group had a clear power division. The group was headed by the creators. As the organization developed the group was divided into numerous departments. For instance, the group had the finance department, creativity, logistics and registration departments. Each department had a leader that conducted its operations. However, the leader acted under the provisions of the leaders. In general, the group leaders had a 100% control of the group. However, members are provided with an opportunity to provide information of group executives. In addition, the mandate of the executive was limited to only planning and creation and roles. In terms of conformity, a group should be created as required by the law. A group should be provided with legal provisions that should be adhered to. Firstly, a group should be registered and all its activities stated. The operations of a group should not be functional until legal approval is granted. Wilson & Wilson (2008)are of the assumption that it is advisable for a group to be registered and certified to ensure that its objectives are achieved. The authors further point out that legal framework are required to ensure the smooth carrying out of external operations (Wilson & Wilson, 2008). Conformity also requires the approval of all members. Mesoudi & Danielson (2008) is of the assumption that conformity among members is based on ethical and morality issues. In order to record success, all members should be able to agree with the operations and activities of the organization. Moreover, a group should take part in activities as required and preferred by all members. The group should not take part in racism or activities that may hinder the performance effectiveness of other group members. For instance, a group may embezzle charity funds at the disapproval of other members. This may cause disharmony among group members thus limiting the effectiveness of the group. In an argument by Mesoudi & Danielson (2008) considering that most groups are created involuntarily, operations should be carried out as per required by both the law and members. However, a group manager should limit the versatility level of the group with the objective to retain relevance. In my focus group, conformity was ensured. The group had a legal certification. The certification provided the freedom to hold public rallies and peaceful protests. In addition, they had the freedom to use public resources as they were part of the society. Through certification the organization ensured that legal requirements supported the efforts of the group. In addition, the state would sometime consider provision of resources as it was regarded as a functional social group. Its legality also increased chances for the group to receive funding from corporates as well as contracts to participate in social events. Additionally, members were also satisfied by the operations of the group. Activities in the organization were legal and ethical. This increased the effectiveness of participation by members. Moreover, the organization had a communication plan that aimed at increasing the connectivity by all members. This made it easier for members to relate to the group activities. In regards to social influence, groups should be able to acquire positive feedback from the community. This may easily achieved through taking part in activities aimed at improving the status of the community. For instance, a group may carry out a cleaning exercise in their community to sensitize the importance of a clean environment. In an argument by Goffee & Jones (2013) the social influence of a group determines its social perception. A positive social perception by the group allows for easier functioning of the group in the community setting. In an example, a group may take part in a demonstration to protest against a manufacturing company. The participation of community members will be of much significance. However, their participation will determined by the community’s perception about the organization. Wilson & Wilson (2008)are also of the assumption that a group should seek a positive social perception considering that the society dictates the ease at which it operates in the social setting. In my focus group, CSR were conducted on numerous occasions. The activities included cleaning the streets and ensuring that human rights of the community dwellers are not abused. These activities were achieved through mass action. For this reason, the group obtained positive social feedback. In addition, community members usually took part in mass action activities in support of the organization. From this support the group also increased the number of registered members more occasionally. References Evan, B. (2006). Productivity in public and nonprofit organizations. New York: M.E Sharp. Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (2013).Creating the best workplace on the earth. Harvard Business Review, 91(12): 99-106. Mesoudi, A. & Danielson, P. (2008). Ethics, evolution and culture. Theory in Biosciences127 (3): 229–240. Platow, M., Grace, D. & Smithson, M. (2011). Examining the Preconditions for Psychological Group Membership: Perceived Social Interdependence as the Outcome of Self-Categorization. Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (1). Wilson, D. & Wilson, E. (2008). “Evolution” for the good of the group. American Scientist 96 (5): 380–389. Read More