The of Groups - Case Study Example

Introduction The study of groups, particularly of work groups who are employed in organizations, has opened up a wider research on the different types of groups along with the factors and processes that contribute to their performance and success, such as hierarchy, task roles, responsibilities of group members, communication, and group norms, to name a few (Stempfle, Hubner and Badke-Schaub, 2001). Groups can be considered as systems that work and exist in a particular environment. This said environment, such as a company and its departments, often provides the group with the necessary resources and expects positive outcomes in return. Groups are normally established around a specific task as the accomplishment of the group’s objective is the members’ main concern (Chang and Bordia, 2001). When a group does not succeed in accomplishing its goals and their efforts do not lead to the expected outcomes, they may meet challenges and threats during this process (Ilgen, 1999). The working group’s environment then motivates the members to create a structure and undergo processes that will allow the group to effectively function and perform. Group Formation Over the years, group formation and development has been shown to focus on the processes of group life. Through linear progressive models, five stages of group formation and development were identified (Chidambaram and Bostrom, 1996). First is the ‘mobilization’ stage with which the members of the group are starting to know each other, eventually building more personal relationships. Second is the ‘confrontation’ stage wherein conflict starts to occur, owing to various reasons such as rival leadership roles or merely of interpersonal behavior. Once the group emerges with one sole leader, it moves onto the next stage which is called the ‘coming together’ stage where behavioral norms and group cohesion are created. Group standards are being set for the members while roles are determined. The next stage, ‘behaving as one’ stage, shows that clarity of roles has been established with the members functioning in a more cooperative and effective manner. Finally, members enter the ‘mourning the past’ stage is when they realize that they are at the end of their task accomplishment and sense of loss is felt for the separation of the social system that they have formed. I believe that the first and second stages were the most challenging phases of this process for our group; we barely knew each other and we were only beginning to know each other more. Certain challenges such as adapting towards each other’s behavior or accepting each other’s ideas were all difficult to handle; nonetheless, these made us all more aware and understanding of each other, thus, successfully moving on to the next three stages. Group Identity Group identity refers to the members’ sense of bring united with the group, and is composed of a cognitive element of belonging, an affective element of being emotionally attracted, and a behavioral element of combined efforts in working towards a shared goal (Ashforth, 2001). I do believe that feeling a sense of belongingness to my group and becoming emotionally attracted is a process with which I will need more time to adjust to. It is particularly challenging to identify with my group members when there are certain factors to be considered, such as differences in opinions or culture-related issues. According to Vogel, Davison and Shroff (2001), individuals who identify more with their groups are more likely to demonstrate better performance. Moreover, identifying well with the group leads to increased levels of trust, confidence, and cooperation (Fiol and O’ Connor, 2002). In agreement to these statements, I can say that, through my experience, I was able to express myself better and exert more effort when I started feeling more comfortable around our team members, and when I felt that I really belonged. During our first few meetings, I was always uncertain of whether I should say certain things, express my ideas, or become involved in decision making. Eventually, after the adjustment period, I gained more confidence and trust in both myself and in my team members, thus an improved level of performance. Additionally, it has been noted by Tajfel and Turner (1986), through the social identity theory, that individuals become more motivated when their uncertainties are significantly reduced. People normally want certainty and confirm their behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions when they identify with group members. As I have mentioned, I was even more encouraged to work harder and perform better with my teammates when we were all able to get to know each other and become connected through our actions, beliefs and shared goals. Easily exchanging information with my group members definitely helped reduce the level of uncertainty among us. In relation to this, Fiol and O’Connor (2002) have stated how certain factors, such as dynamic cues and dress codes to name a few, can help individuals in further understanding each other, and in placing more trust and confidence. Moreover, because I gained more confidence when identifying with the others, I began to consider my team as one of the biggest elements that contributed to my improved performance and self-identity, supporting the statement of Lewis and Sherman (2003) who noted that because self-esteem is increased among employees out of their group membership, they are driven to view their team members as the greatest factor in maintaining self-identity. Group Communication According to Frey (1999), group communication can be comprised of both task-related and social elements. Moreover, it has been described by Keyton (1999) as the “verbal and nonverbal messages that create the social fabric of a group by promoting relationships between and among group members” (p. 192).Through face-to-face communication, there is an increased opportunity for observing the behaviors of team members and developing social relationships (Nardi and Whittaker, 2002). Being able to talk and interact with my group has certainly allowed me to understand them better and bring down all potential barriers. We communicate a lot whether we are interacting because we want to get our work done (formal or informal meetings) or simply because we want to socialize (eating together). I believe that through understanding comes acceptance, and accepting each other will allow us to effectively function with each other and create positive outcomes. Consistent to my experience, findings of O ‘ Leary and Cummings (2002) conclude that communicating more regularly decreases the chances of group members to disperse. Furthermore, an increase in communication can lead to a higher level of trust among individuals (Staples, 2001). Group Trust As Lipnack and Stamps (1997) stated, trust refers to the confidence and belief placed on the integrity and reliability of a person or group. However, this may demonstrate a behavior with which risks are taken when trusting an individual; therefore, in trusting people, there is the feeling that the one trusted will not take advantage of the other. Interpersonal trust that exists between team members has been referred to as a psychological state that is comprised by the intention of accepting vulnerability that is based upon one’s expectations of the behavior and intention of others (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer, 1998). Through my experience, I found it very hard to place my trust on our team members, especially during our first days of getting together. However, as soon as we were able to improve our communication and interaction and we started openly helping each other out and being confident in ourselves and in each other, it became easier to trust and rely on them in attaining our goals. Because we were able to increase our level of trust in each other, it significantly contributed to how we worked and performed each day. Kramer (1999) also considered similar factors as he stated how trust can yield positive effects, with employees being encouraged to contribute more time and attention to the group’s objectives, share more helpful information, and perform ‘extra-role’ behaviors. In agreement to this, findings of Galvin, McKnight and Ahuja (2001) showed how team members who fully trusted each other become more involved and cooperated with their activities than those who were less trusting of each other. Interpersonal trust can be classified into two- cognition-based trust or affect-based trust. Cognition-based trust refers to the trust that is based upon the competence and previous records of the individual being trusted while affect-based trust may consist of emotional attachments between two sides who express concern and care for the interests and wellbeing of each other. The trust that exists between our team members, I believe, is more of cognition-based trust as we rely on each other for the level of skills and knowledge that we demonstrate. Though we have been given numerous opportunities to develop social relationships with each other, we are more concerned of the accomplishment of our work objectives, the main reason as to why we were put together in the first place. We are also concerned of each other’s welfare; however, this concern is mainly developed due to the need that we have to finish all our tasks. Group Cohesiveness Cohesiveness in groups is often believed to be a multidimensional concept that includes group pride, commitment in tasks, and positive interpersonal attraction (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). Cohesiveness can both be an outcome or an influence of group process (Mullen and Cooper, 1994). Numerous studies have found out that that cohesion can significantly affect performance of individuals. In a cohesive group, members placed more effort when working on a task in order to compensate for a less capable member, compared to non-cohesive groups (Karau and Williams, 1997). Moreover, positive interpersonal cohesion can help facilitate the efforts of group members and improve performance; research has also indicated how group cohesion can help retain group members over a long time (Forsyth, 1999). Therefore, developing group cohesion can help in establishing bonds and loyalty between members, as well as positive behaviors toward the tasks which are accomplished by the group together. Being in a small group, it is easier to develop group cohesiveness among us owing to the fact that we can rely only on each other. It is simpler to recognize our roles, work for our goals and become committed to tasks as we listen to and trust each other while making decisions together. Group Roles and Task Distribution Work groups are generally confronted with goals and tasks that are shared among the members. Subtasks are assigned to each other and are referred to as “task roles”, and the distribution of task roles in a group is known as “task role distribution” (Stempfle et al, 2001). Group roles are not only predefined; rather, they are also further established through member interaction. Every group role will place demands on the individual who is entrusted with this responsibility. Naturally, group members differ when it comes to their skill profiles; for instance the study of O’Neill, Allred and Baker (1997) indicated that there are four main categories of skills namely (1) interpersonal and teamwork skills, (2) basic academic skills, (3) higher order thinking skills, and (4) personal characteristics and attitudes. Provided that the necessary tasks and skills in workplaces today are very diverse, it may seem most likely that only a small number of working individuals possess all the exceptional skills required for all areas. Rather, what is evident in many circumstances if that majority of individuals demonstrate skills with strong points in some areas and weak points in others (Stewart and Stasser, 1995). Not all distributions of group roles can be considered equally functional; if the group is primarily concerned with the accomplishment of their goals and tasks, then it should create a group structure with which different tasks are taken on by different members according to their own individual skills and strengths. When the roles assigned effectively matches the skills of an individual, it is most likely that the individual will successfully accomplish this particular task. As I have mentioned, the interpersonal trust that exists among our team members is cognition-based which means that we trust each other based on the level of competence that each has displayed. I can say that the task role distribution within our group is equally functional and effective. Carrying out the tasks that have been assigned to the most suitable persons has further allowed us to improve on our strongest points. Fortunately, during the time that we were grouped together, we were assigned with roles that we could effectively take. I showed satisfactory technical and academic skills, Member 2 focused more on her ability as a leader and motivated us, while Member 3 was better with his interpersonal and social capabilities.. A group which possesses diverse skills can positively address various tasks especially when these obligations are placed upon the most appropriate individual. Conclusion Work groups normally undergo certain processes that will mostly help in further developing their structure and aid in allowing members to perform better. I believe that group identity, group communication, group trust, group cohesion, group roles and task role distribution are of great importance when attempting to achieve the objectives of any group. Identifying with one’s group members and openly communicating with them may eventually lead to interpersonal trust among these individuals. Moreover, effective distribution of tasks among the members will enable them to perform and function better on their own and with each other. In our group, although it was challenging at first to place trust and confidence in each other, eventually, we openly accepted each other’s attitudes, beliefs and ideas through our frequent interaction, thereby leading to group trust. The trust that exists in our group, however, is based upon the reliability of each other’s skills and knowledge. Nonetheless, these group processes will eventually yield positive outcomes for the team when further enhanced through daily work and interaction. References Ashforth, B.E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: an identity-based perspective. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405 Chidambaram, L. and Bostrom, R.P. (1996), Group development (I): a review and synthesis of development models, Group Decision and Negotiation,6, 159-187. Fiol, C.M., and O’Connor, E.J. (2002). Identification in virtual teams: from imported to homegrown we-ness. paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Denver, CO. Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group Dynamics (3rd edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Frey, L. R. (1999). Introduction. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran,&M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. ix-xxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, J.E., McKnight, D.H., and Ahuja, M.K. (2001), Does experience counteract the effects of disposition and institution-based trust on project team cooperation? a cross-disciplinary model. Working paper, Indianapolis: Indiana University. Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations. Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 156–168. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. (2001). Emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99–130. Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran,&M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. Lewis, A.C., and Sherman, S.J. (2003). Perceived entitativity and the black-sheep effect: when will we denigrate negative ingroup members?. Working paper, Utah: The University of Utah. Lipnack, J., and Stamps, J. (1997).Virtual teams: reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. Canada: John Wiley and Sons. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227. Nardi, B.A., and Whittaker, S. (2002).The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In Distributed Work, eds. P. Hinds and S. Kiesler, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 83–110. O”Leary, M.C., and Cummings, J.N. (2002). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. Paper presented at The Annual Academy of Management Meetings, Denver, CO. O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Allred, K., & Baker, E. L. (1997). Review of workforce readiness. Theoretical frameworks. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. (Ed.), Workforce readiness. Competencies and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., and Camerer, C. (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. Staples, D.S. (2001). A Study of Remote Workers and Their Differences from Non-remote Workers. Journal of End User Computing, 13, 3–14. Stempfle, J., Hubner, O. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2001). A functional theory of task role distribution in work groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4 (2), 138-159. Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior, in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. S. Worchel and W.G. Austin, Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24. Vogel, D., Davison, R., and Shroff, R. (2001), Sociocultural Learning: A Perspective on GSS-enabled Global Education, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 7 (9). Retrieved on 6 August 2003 from http://cais.isworld.org/contents.asp Read More