Not All Groups Formed May Become Effective - Research Paper Example

Behavioral Studies Not All Groups Formed May Become Effective A group could be defined as two or more people who interact with one another, possess similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity (Argris, 2010). There are two types of groups: primary and secondary groups. A primary group is a small group of people sharing personal and lasting relationship. They spend most of their time together and collectively engage in a wide variety of activities. Conversely, a secondary group is a large group which involves formal as well as institutional relationships. Most secondary groups are short term. Thus, most organizations adopt workgroups or teams for various purposes. In the recent times, increased diversity in the workplace has perpetuated the desire for workers to work cooperatively and collective in groups in pursuit for accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives. Even so, not all groups that are formed in an organization become effective. Apparently, group effectiveness has become integral in most organizations today. This has bolstered the significance of group effectiveness skills which include proper interpersonal communication skills, ability to diffuse conflicts, teamwork, appreciation for diversity and negotiation skills, among others (Campion, Medsker & Higgs, 2001). There is increased prevalence of organizations to adopt work groups or teams aimed at curbing a full gamut of challenges that have marred today’s business environments. As much as most groups work, a good number of them are not usually effective. The may be attributed to a plethora of reasons. Indeed, some groups lack or posses a low unity of purpose. So to speak, a group that is not committed to a common objective or a group whose objectives are not meaningful to each and every member of the group may not be effective at all. According to Argris (2010), such a group may be characterized by low performance as the members have no collective obligations towards achievement of common objectives. More often than not, Poor relationships among a group may also render the group ineffective. In this regards, a group whose members maintain poor relationships with each other within and outside the group, may not effectively achieve their goals. Such a group may be prone to conflicts and this may lower the commitment of members to the group and have adverse effects on ultimate performance. Lack of proper delegation of responsibility may also cost a group’s effectiveness. As such, if the members to a certain group are not assigned to specific responsibilities with the aim of enhancing a smooth flow of activities the group, the group is unlikely to perform. Thus, the prevalence of overlapping of duties and arising of conflicts are also heightened. Conversely, some of the groups formed are characterized by lack communication. How group members communicate with each other has direct implications on the performance of that group. There are always tensions as people are not in a position to freely express their ideas and their feelings as well (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Members do not get the opportunity or the platform to discuss on matters affecting the group. Such a group may not perform and thus, it becomes ineffective. A group whose members lack the prerequisite skills to perform their specified duties and responsibilities may not be effective as well. As such, it is important to ensure that a group that is formed incorporates members who are competent enough to perform their delegated tasks. Therefore, technical, functional, problem-solving as well as interpersonal skills are an important ingredient of an effective group. References Argris, C. (2010). Organizational Traps: Leadership, Culture, Organizational Design. New York: Oxford University Press. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. A., & Higgs, C. A. (2001). Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel psychology, 46(23), 823-850. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997, June 14). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Retrieved from http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.abstract Cognitive Dissonance in an Attempt to Change Attitudes Cognitive dissonance delineates a feeling of discomfort which results from holding two conflicting cognitions in the mind simultaneously. The cognitions include values, ideas, beliefs and emotions among many others. It is a theory developed by Leon Festinger in 1957 (Robbins & De Cenzo, 2010). Consequently, cognitive dissonance has been one of the most influential theories applicable in the quest to change people’s attitudes towards various aspects. This paper gives the description of cognitive dissonance in this attempt to change attitudes. According to Festinger, when people are in a state of dissonance, they may feel surprise, anger, embarrassment, dread or embossment (Fincham & Rhodes, 2006). This theory holds that, people possess a motivational drive aimed at reducing dissonance. This could be done thorough altering the existing cognition by adding new cognitions so as to come up with a consistent belief system. It could also be done through reducing the significance of any one of the existing dissonant elements. A perfect example to illustrate cognitive dissonance is the situation whereby a person is in conflict between wanting to smoke, and being aware that smoking is indeed unhealthy. Such a person may attempt to change the feelings regarding the fact that they will suffer health consequences of smoking (Fincham & Rhodes, 2006). Alternatively, the person may opt to add the consonant element by holding that smoking is worth some short term benefits. As such, the general basis of cognitive dissonance presents when a person is biased towards a given decision notwithstanding the fact that other factors favor another alternative. More often than not, people tend to exhibit a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. Thus, people usually engage in a process referred to as dissonance reduction. In this regards, dissonance reduction may be achieved through three different ways. The first one is whereby people tend to lower the importance of one of the discordant factors. The fact that consonant and discrepant cognitions are weighed by their importance, it may be important to lower the importance of the various cognitions. The second way of achieving dissonance reduction is through the addition of consonant element. Thus, if two cognitions tend to cause a given magnitude of dissonance, the magnitude of the dissonance may be reduced through addition of one or more consonant cognitions (Buchanan, 2010). Thirdly, people achieve dissonance reduction through changing one of the dissonant factors. In the case where two cognitions are discrepant, one of the cognitions may be changed so as to make it consistent with the other. Alternatively, each of the cognition could be changed. However, this has to be done in the direction of the other. Be that as it may, cognitive dissonance may be used in promoting desirable behaviors among people. Conversely, it could be used in encouraging people to engage in various pro-social behaviors in a variety of contexts (Robbins & De Cenzo, 2010). Consequently, cognitive dissonance may be greatly applied in changing attitudes. Thus, if you want to change someone’s attitude, you could possibly attempt to create dissonance regarding that person’s attitude with the hope that the desired attitude change is likely to occur. References Buchanan, D. & Andrzeg, H. (2010). Organizational behavior. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Fincham, R., & Rhodes, P. (2006). Organizational behaviour. (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robbins, P. S., De Cenzo, D. A., & Coulter, M 2010, Fundamentals of management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Honey and Mumford Work Regarding Learning Styles Learning styles refers to the various approaches through which learning takes place. Thus, they incorporate the ways that a particular individual is presumed to learn best. Based on the idea of individualized learning styles, past research has proven that individual people may have preferred learning styles (Hames, 2007). Several scholars have carried out extensive research to ascertain this fact. Among them are Peter Honey and Alan Mumford who made significant adaptation to work previously done by Kolb’s. Thus, this paper outlines that works of Honey and Mumford with regards to learning styles. Much emphasis is placed on the four stages as well as the four learning styles theorized by the two scholars. Basing upon the work previously done by Kolb, Homey and Mumford established that learning is basically a process involving four steps (Robbins & Judge, 2010). In the first step, the learner is presumed to possess some concrete experience. In the second step, the learner tends to reflect on the experience. The third step involves the process whereby the learner explicates a more generalized principle basing on the experience. The final step is whereby the learner applies the developed principle to the real world. Consequently, the ultimate result of this application yields new concrete experiences. In addition to the four stages of the learning process, Honey and Mumford theorized four distinct learning styles: Activists, Theorists, Pragmatists and Reflectors. In this regards, each and every individual has a natural preference for any of these learning styles. Indeed, each individual prefer a learning approach that maximizes their own personal learning. Thus, pragmatists incorporate the individuals who are usually keen to try out new theories, ideas and techniques to ascertain if they actually work in practice. Such individuals are pragmatic in the sense that they get bored with long discussions. They prefer putting the learning into practical scenarios in the real world. They are more practice and prefer making practical decisions as well as solving problems. To these individuals, problems and opportunities are perceived as challenges. On the other hand, theorists refer to the individuals who prefer collecting and integrating information and data and use it to establish rather complex but logical solutions. These people are good at assimilating facts into coherent theories (Robbins & De Cenzo, 2010). Thus, they enjoy analyzing and synthesizing facts. They approach problems in a consistently logical manner. They prefer to understand the theory behind any action. Conversely, activists are those persons who enjoy new experience. Thus, they excel more when they are challenged and exposed to new experiences. Robbins and Judge (2010), describe activists as open-minded people who are enthusiastic about any new experience s, and are gregarious as well. Activists get bored with long-term consolidations. Even so, they also learn best by doing. Reflectors are people who learn better through observing and thinking about what has occurred. They prefer sitting back and pondering experiences. Also, they prefer collecting data and thinking about it, before jumping unto conclusions. More often than not, they consider experiences from different perspectives. According to Hames (2007), reflectors prefer taking backseats in discussions, conferences and meetings. This way, they get an opportunity to listen to other people before thy can make their own contributions. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that various people prefer different learning style. Honey and Mumford the learning styles into four distinct groups. Each of these groups is characterized by a various features that describe different learning preferences by different people. References Robbins, P. S., De Cenzo, D. A., & Coulter, M 2010, Fundamentals of management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Robbins, S., & Judge, T. A 2010, Organizational behaviour, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Hames, I. 2007, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Journal for Good Practice, 41(12), 123-168. Read More