Decision Making AnThd Problem Solving, Communication In Groups - Essay Example

Decision Making and Problem Solving: Communications in Group Client’s Name Professor’s Name Subject Organizations are susceptible to issues and problems that require various degrees of decision-making. There are also situations that allow the organization to make a wide range of decisions ranging from the most mundane to the most complex in order to gain strategic footing. The ability of the organization to make decisions and solve problems determines their probability of success (Powell 298). Consequently, their ability to solve problems reflects how individuals that are responsible for the decisions communicate with each other to solve the task (Seidl & Becker 13). Thus said, communication in the organizations is very important. It is an indispensable part of the decision-making process (Powell 304). Decision-making and problem solving are typically approached on a rational level (Clemen 113). Not only is the rational approach easy to implement, it also allows organizations to keep track of the decision and repeat the whole process if they are successful (Mowday & Sutton 200). But decision making in organizations usually does not occur individually. Organizations are composed of numerous individuals in different divisions that have different roles and functions which, when taken together, is focused towards the goals and objectives of the organization. For example, the role of the accounting manager which is to properly allocate the funds of the organization is different from the role of the machine operator but they are working towards the same goals which are the success of the company. Because of the different roles, functions, and interests of individuals and groups within the organization, decision-making and problem solving processes become complicated. Despite the advantages of using management tools that facilitates objective decision making process, organizations still face some issues concerning effective and efficient communication. As organizations are becoming less and less homogenous these days, meaning people comprising the organization are no longer from the same locality or culture or sexual orientation or perspective, communication process in the decision making becomes more and more complex (Rodkin 41). To analyze this complexity, it is necessary to discuss how group communication affects decision making and problem solving processes. It can be argued that the main source of issues on communications in organizations is the strong presence of diversity in the workplace (Keyton 41; Brewster et al 98). Diversity is the gathering together of everyone in the organization having different sets of values and background and yet aiming at the same set of goals (Johns 390). With diversity comes the need to understand individual differences and put these differences together to form strong and cohesive business strategies that gives competitive advantage to the business organization. This means that a successful organization can be able to handle communication barriers between and among individuals from different backgrounds in order to be able to make decisions and solve problems coherently. But communication in groups with heterogeneous members is a complicated process (Beardwell & Claydon 56). According to Edwards & Rees (20), one of the most challenging issues faced by modern-day organizations is misunderstanding (or miscommunication) in the workplace brought about by cultural diversity. Issues in internal communication, in turn, affect decision making processes (Clemen 110). People from different countries flock in countries with strong economies to find jobs, settle, and achieve economic stability so it is natural for workplaces to have workers from various countries having cultures and social practices different from each other. More often than not, misunderstanding occurs frequently when workers from different socio-cultural backgrounds rub on each other the wrong way, or do not understand each other when communicating resulting to discomforts and inefficiencies in the workplace (Keyton 106). Organizations are composed of formal and informal social networks that constantly interact with each other (Johnson & Johnson 389). Formal social networks are networks formed by the organization to operate certain functions. These formal social networks include the accounting department, change management teams, labor unions, and the sales force. Informal social networks on the other hand are social networks formed by individuals and groups on personal and/or casual levels. Some types of informal social networks in organizations are friends, casual acquaintances, and employer-employee relationships. Organizations find it a necessity for those within the organization to form social relationships. Positive interaction and communication within the organization increases the probability of having objectives met because of the increased number of positive influences and motivations for the people involved (Rodkin 198). The basic element of social networks – the dyads - is composed of two entities or two individuals interacting with each other and sharing perspectives, views, and emotions with each interaction (Brewster et al 165). The more frequently individuals interact with each other the more assimilation of characters becomes successful (Powell 299). According to Siedl & Becker (195), successful group cohesion occurs if both parties in a dyadic interaction have semblance of harmony with the third partyWhile facilitating social interactions in dyads is relatively easy, interactions involving large number of people are hard to control and manage. Successful interaction depends highly on commonality of views and perspectives within these social networks. The more similar perspectives are, the easier assimilation of characteristics becomes (Edwards & Rees 209). People with similarities are drawn to each other. This explains why it is easy to find various informal social networks in organizations composed of people from different areas of the organization whose functions do not necessarily coincide. As interaction between social networks occurs, ideas, perceptions, and characters are brewed and exchanged as interaction between social networks occurs. In a way, the collective behaviors of social networks within organizations define organizational behavior. As individuals within the organization interact with each other to form social networks, this in turn form larger social networks composed of similarities in one or many aspects, and the general behavior of the organization is affected by how these large groups feel towards certain issues. As a consequence of such commonalities, individuals belonging to the group may give preferences to other members of the group when conflict occurs within an organization. Sociologists who have done experiments by placing individuals who do not know each other in a room found out that these people create small groups whom they share some degree of commonality, thus the in-groups. Consequently, individuals that do not belong to the in-group are considered as out-groups. People who are in-group tend to go together and fight for each other (Mowday & Sutton 220). For example, if an African American will be hit by a Caucasian workmate, regardless of who is at fault, African American colleagues will try to fight for him whose racial profile is similar to them and brand the act of the Caucasian as discriminating and unethical. A diverse workforce can easily misunderstand each other because of the differences in culture and social practices they have. Conflict can easily arise in any informal and formal social networks in the workplace for the simple reason that one individual misunderstand the other. In terms of problem solving and decision making, any form of miscommunication within the group can be a serious threat (and most probably counterproductive) to the goals and objectives of the group. With the inability of the group to cohere through a thorough and systematic use of communication, decisions are difficult to make and are equally difficult to implement (Gore et al 929). Similarly, problem solving becomes a very difficult task. When individuals within the same group fail to connect, either because of the communication barriers or because of other issues, group cohesion becomes weaker and is more susceptible to disintegrate. When a group needs to create important decisions or solve complex problems, the lack of strong coherence within the group would cause the group to fail its goals and objectives. Taken in the long run, the inability of individuals within a group to successfully communicate deters any form of progress. The discussions above highlight three important things. First, workplace diversity is a neutral concept which can both be a competitive advantage or a potential problem for the organization. The outcome depends largely on how the organization addresses the issue of diversity in its domains. Second, communication plays a crucial role in neutralizing the negative effects of workplace diversity. As individuals learn to adapt to the culturally-dictated verbal and nonverbal communication within the group, tension can be resolved or avoided. Lastly, organizations that are able to take advantage of the features of highly diverse workforce are most likely to become successful and productive in problem solving and decision making activities. This is because a diverse workforce offers equally diverse perspectives and is very effective in relating to an equally diverse market The success of a particular organization depends on (a) the ability of the organization to resist both internal and external factors from changing its target goals and (b) on its flexibility to adjust to circumstances brought about by these uncontrollable factors. Communication is one element that plays a huge part in the organization’s success. The interaction and communication process between individuals and social networks within the organization, when better understood, can hold the key to strategic problem solving and decision making. As sociology points out, group interaction creates similarity and similarities create groups (Salas, Stagl & Burke; Mowday & Sutton). The larger these social networks are, the more complex communication becomes. References Beardwell, J and Claydon, T. Human Resource Management: A contemporary Approach. 2007. FT Prentice Hall Brewster, C, Sparrow, P and Vernon, G. International Human Resource Management, 2007 2nd Ed. CIPD Clemen, R. T. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Duxbury Press. , 1996. Edwards, T, & Rees, C International Human Resource Management: Globalization, National Systems and Multinational Corporations, 2006: FT Prentice Hall Gore, J., Banks, A., Millward, L., & Kyriakidou, O. Naturalistic Decision Making and Organizations: Reviewing Pragmatic Science. Organization Studies. 2006. Vol. 27, No. 7, 925–942 Johns, G. The essential impact of context on OB. Academy of Management Review. 2006. 31, 386-408. Johnson, D. & Johnson F. Join Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Pearson. Keyton, J. 2006. Communication Research: Asking Questions, Finding Answers. 2nd edition. Boston, Mass. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Mowday, R.T. & Sutton, R.I.. Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology. 1993. Vol.44, 195-229. Powell, Walter. 1990. “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.” Research in Organizational Behavior. 12:295-336. Rodkin, D.M., The Art of Student and Group Development Theory, SAACURH Conference 1999 Seidl, D. & Becker, K. Organizations as Distinction Generating and Processing Systems: Niklas Luhmann’s Contribution to Organization Studies. Organization, 2006. Vol. 13, No. 1, 9–35 Read More

This means that a successful organization can be able to handle communication barriers between and among individuals from different backgrounds in order to be able to make decisions and solve problems coherently. But communication in groups with heterogeneous members is a complicated process (Beardwell & Claydon 56). According to Edwards & Rees (20), one of the most challenging issues faced by modern-day organizations is misunderstanding (or miscommunication) in the workplace brought about by cultural diversity.

Issues in internal communication, in turn, affect decision making processes (Clemen 110). People from different countries flock in countries with strong economies to find jobs, settle, and achieve economic stability so it is natural for workplaces to have workers from various countries having cultures and social practices different from each other. More often than not, misunderstanding occurs frequently when workers from different socio-cultural backgrounds rub on each other the wrong way, or do not understand each other when communicating resulting to discomforts and inefficiencies in the workplace (Keyton 106).

Organizations are composed of formal and informal social networks that constantly interact with each other (Johnson & Johnson 389). Formal social networks are networks formed by the organization to operate certain functions. These formal social networks include the accounting department, change management teams, labor unions, and the sales force. Informal social networks on the other hand are social networks formed by individuals and groups on personal and/or casual levels. Some types of informal social networks in organizations are friends, casual acquaintances, and employer-employee relationships.

Organizations find it a necessity for those within the organization to form social relationships. Positive interaction and communication within the organization increases the probability of having objectives met because of the increased number of positive influences and motivations for the people involved (Rodkin 198). The basic element of social networks – the dyads - is composed of two entities or two individuals interacting with each other and sharing perspectives, views, and emotions with each interaction (Brewster et al 165).

The more frequently individuals interact with each other the more assimilation of characters becomes successful (Powell 299). According to Siedl & Becker (195), successful group cohesion occurs if both parties in a dyadic interaction have semblance of harmony with the third partyWhile facilitating social interactions in dyads is relatively easy, interactions involving large number of people are hard to control and manage. Successful interaction depends highly on commonality of views and perspectives within these social networks.

The more similar perspectives are, the easier assimilation of characteristics becomes (Edwards & Rees 209). People with similarities are drawn to each other. This explains why it is easy to find various informal social networks in organizations composed of people from different areas of the organization whose functions do not necessarily coincide. As interaction between social networks occurs, ideas, perceptions, and characters are brewed and exchanged as interaction between social networks occurs.

In a way, the collective behaviors of social networks within organizations define organizational behavior. As individuals within the organization interact with each other to form social networks, this in turn form larger social networks composed of similarities in one or many aspects, and the general behavior of the organization is affected by how these large groups feel towards certain issues. As a consequence of such commonalities, individuals belonging to the group may give preferences to other members of the group when conflict occurs within an organization.

Sociologists who have done experiments by placing individuals who do not know each other in a room found out that these people create small groups whom they share some degree of commonality, thus the in-groups.

Read More