Problems of Groupwork Aspects - Case Study Example

Case Study Name: Institution: Case Study The current case study explores some groupwork aspects evident in a psycho-education group, led by John. The group is in its third week after formation and it started experiencing some problems although it functioned well initially. During the first weeks, group members had maintained silence over the group’s functioning, leaving John to decide about and direct activities of the team. Despite his main role being that of an informer, lack of participation by other members of the group forced John to act as the sole planner of the group. However, in this week, members have started feeling a sense of discomfort about John’s behavior. Their concerns show that they are unhappy with being told what to do. The study explores some of the problems facing the team, possible causes of the problems, initial phases of development of the team, contracting and structure, power issues, balance between task and maintenance roles, and leadership interventions required to resolve the problems. Group’s Functioning The psycho-educational group seems to have various problems, which are limiting its ability to function effectively. Ineffective communication emerges as the major problem preventing proper functioning of the group (Thomas, 2002). There is no effective communication between group members, as the members do not contribute their efforts or ideas in group’s activities. Moreover, the group leader does not communicate effectively with the members because he chooses to ignore their concerns, often dictating to the group what needs to be done and how it should be done. The group also faces problem of power balance, with every member expressing a desire to have control over the group functions. For example, one of the group members observes that they do not appreciate being lectured every day, demonstrating the desire by members to be actively involved in planning and deciding group’s activities. The team members as well as their leader seem confused about their roles in the group, which limits group cohesion essential to ensure proper functioning of the team. For instance, John (as the group leader) confuses the quietness of the members during initial days of the group for their unwillingness to participate in making of group’s decisions. As a result, he dictates to them all activities and functions, even choosing to ignore the issues the members raise during one of the group’s discussions. Probable Causes of Dysfunction To a large extent, the condition of John’s group bears much of the blame for the existing dysfunction. The group is in its third week after formation, implying that the members have not effectively acquainted themselves with each other and responsibilities of the group (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). As such, the group members rely more on formal roles established during formation of the group, which remains the major cause for the dissatisfaction among some of the members. For example, during creation of the group, John (the leader) was given responsibility of informing his followers of skills and approaches to deal with their lives. However, he has expanded the responsibility to include dictating to the members all what needs to be accomplished in the group, making some members dissatisfied. Moreover, members of the group seem not to understand their roles in the group because they do contribute to its functioning, choosing to blame John for not allowing them to participate in making of decisions and plans. Another possible cause of the dysfunction may be lack of trust among the members. As the group is in its initial stages of development, the members have not completely developed trust among themselves. As a result, they may be unwilling to contribute to functioning of the group, fearing that this may expose their weaknesses to other team members. Another probable cause may include lack of teamwork skills, which may be preventing members from working collaboratively to achieve group’s objectives (Aman et al., 2007). Stages of Group Development Creation and development of groups occur through different stages, essential for development of cohesion and working relationships. Although there are various models that have been proposed, development of John’s group seems to borrow greatly from the Tuckman’s model, which also remains the most common framework in groupwork practice and theory (Miller, 2003). Tuckman postulated that groups develop through five distinct phases: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. John’s group seems to have survived through the first stage and now is in the second phase of development. During group formation, different individuals come together to work collaboratively towards common objectives. Being strangers to each other, members at this stage focus more on establishing working relationship, with majority of them acting cautiously and seeking guidance about how to carry out group’s tasks (Miller, 2003). This was evident in John’s group during the first weeks of group’s functioning. Members relied entirely on John for almost every aspect of the tasks performed by the group. They remained silent at all discussions, leaving John to guide them through the groupwork and ways to accomplish group’s objectives. However, the group seems to be transitioning from the formation stage to the storming phase. Singh (2009) observes that various conflicts or disagreements between group’s members characterize storming in development of work teams. As the group matures and members know each other, they may start showing dissatisfaction with how the group operates. Some members may disagree with the leader or other members on the way the group operates, usage of group’s resources, and process of making decisions in the team. The members may come out openly to express their personal differences and dissatisfaction with the power of the leader, often affirming their individual desires over group’s interests. John’s group has started showing some of these characteristics, an indication that it is in transition from the first phase to storming. For example, there is a feeling of uneasiness among some group members. To illustrate their dissatisfaction about power of the leader, one of them tells John that they do not appreciate being told what to do every week, a position supported by a second member who expresses their stance when John ignores the point made by the first member. Role of Contracting and Structure In any teamwork, contracting and structure of teams play essential role of assisting members to develop a common sense of purpose. Contracting refers to the process by which group members find a mutual ground among the different individual expectations in form of psychological contract, which stipulates expectations of members and their leader. Contracting helps team members to participate in the process of establishing group objectives or goals, the work procedures that will guide their participation in the group, individual duties and responsibilities of every member, and work organization in terms of location and time, among other factors. In this context, it can be argued that the major role of contracting in groupwork involves developing and assisting members to understand the structure of the group. On the other hand, the group structure plays the role of creating an affective environment that promotes group cohesion and enhances group performance. Team structure refers to the fundamental norms, roles, and interrelationships among members that characterize and systematize groupwork (Reference for Business, 2012). Thus, the structure helps members to understand their respective roles as well as roles of other members, enhancing role clarity and eliminating group conflicts associated with role ambiguity. Moreover, the group norms clarify behaviors that members should demonstrate while carrying group activities, which reduces cases of antisocial or immoralities that may hinder good performance of the team. Inter-member relationships on the other hand enhance effective interactions, essential to ensure efficient and effective communication and exchange of information among the members. To some extent, the current dysfunction within John’s group stems from the failure by the group to contract during development of the group. If they would have contracted, the members would have had the opportunity to participate in establishment of the team structure and as such, they would understand clearly their roles and group norms as well as interact effectively. Task and Maintenance Balance John’s psycho-educational group seems to have an imbalance between task and maintenance roles, which is partly an underlying reason for its dysfunction. In teamwork, every member is expected to play a role and the manner in which members identify and carry out their group tasks influences the team’s functioning. In teamwork, a role comprises of a set of habitual behavior that the group expects of every member. Some of the roles represent functional tasks intended to direct and drive the members towards accomplishment of common objectives. Other roles born out of individual interests of members represent dysfunctional tasks as they hinder performance of the workgroup. Some the roles within the two categories involve task roles, while others are categorized as maintenance roles. Task roles include those direct and propel members towards accomplishing group objectives and goals, while maintenance roles refer to those roles intended to help members develop and sustain effective interpersonal relations. As such, a balance between maintenance and task roles remains essential for proper functioning of the team (Reference for Business, 2012). According to Singh (2008), maintenance roles serve as the framework that supports or promotes task roles, which serve to ensure effectiveness of teamwork. The latter creates an effective climate characterized by good communication, respect, and information exchange. In turn, these characteristics minimize conflicts and power struggles in the group, allowing members to focus on task roles essential for effective accomplishment of common objectives. In the case of John’s group, john seems to have forgotten about maintenance roles within the group, as he focuses much on task roles. He even ignores one of his team members, prompting other members to show a sense of dissatisfaction about how the group is operating. To some extent, the other members seem unwilling to promote maintenance roles because they chose to remain silent over the three weeks the group has been in operation, leaving John to direct group activities. Thus, the important maintenance and task balance required for workgroups seems lacking in the psycho-educational team. Power Issues Largely, the sense of uneasiness surrounding John’s team reflects a case of power issues within the group. Group members seem unhappy with the power of John as the group leader. Although the members expect John to serve informative role, John has taken every role in the group. He solely comes up with goals, objectives, work procedures, and other activities and functions of the group. He does not seek opinion, ideas, or information from group members, a situation that has greatly contributed to the sense of discomfort among team members. John’s failure to respond to a request by one of the members prompts other members to openly express the discomfort, with one of them rising to tell John that if he is not willing to listen to them, they are also unwilling to listen to him. Leader Interventions John (as the team leader) can apply some strategies to resolve the problem surrounding the group because he bears much of the blame for the dysfunction. First, he needs to change his role from a manager to a leader by playing the role of a facilitator rather than that of a dictator (Black, Oliver, Howell, & King, 2006). This will enable him to facilitate operations and activities of the group, influencing and empowering his group members towards common goals of the team. In this way, he can be able to earn respect and trust of the members, which will encourage them to support him team activities. Lack of participation being the principal reason for the discomfort, John needs also to give an opportunity to members to participate in making of group’s decisions. He needs to engage them in developing structure of the team, including identification of roles, working relationships, and norms. This will create and maintain an effective group cohesion as the members will develop a sense of belonging and acknowledgement in the team (Damen, B. Knippenbarg, & D. Knippenberg, 2008). Moreover, active involvement of all members in every aspect of the team will enable members to understand clearly their roles, common responsibilities, and roles of other members, which will minimize power struggle currently facing the group. The strategy also presents an effective way to ensure balance of task and maintenance roles in the group, essential for effective functioning. Conclusion Ineffective communication emerges as the major problem preventing proper functioning of the group. The group also faces problem of power balance, with every member expressing a desire to have control over the group functions. To a large extent, the condition of John’s group bears much of the blame for the existing dysfunction. The group is in its third week after formation, implying that the members have not effectively acquainted themselves with each other and responsibilities of the group. These issues show the group to be transitioning from the formation stage to the storming phase. John (as the team leader) can apply some strategies to resolve the problem surrounding the group because he bears much of the blame for the dysfunction. First, he needs to change his role from a manager to a leader by playing the role of a facilitator rather than that of a dictator. Lack of participation being the principal reason for the discomfort, John needs also to give an opportunity to members to participate in making of group’s decisions. References Aman, C., Poole, G., Dunbar, S., Maijer, D., Hall, R., Taghipour, F., & Berube, P. (2007). Student learning teams: Viewpoints of team members, teachers, and an observer. Engineering Education, 2 (1), 2-12. Black, J.A., Oliver, R.L., Howell, J.P., & King, J.P. (2006). A dynamic system simulation of leader and group effects on context of learning. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (1), 39-56. Damen, F., Knippenberg, B.V., & Knippenberg, D.V. (2008). Affective match in leadership: Leader emotional displays, follower positive affect, and follower performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 (4), 868-902. Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30 (2), 269-287. Miller, D.L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Studies, 20 (2), 121-134. Reference for Business. (2012). Group dynamics. Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Gr-Int/Group-Dynamics.html Singh, K. (2009). Organizational behavior: Text and cases. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Thomas, G. (2002). Effective classroom teamwork: Support or intrusion? London: Routledge. Read More