Group behaviour in organisations
Major causes of group conflict
Conflict is a disagreement between two or more parties who perceive that they have incompatible concerns. 1) Intrapersonal Conflicts 2) Interpersonal Conflicts 3) Intragroup Conflicts 4) Intergroup Conflicts 5) Inter-organization Conflicts 6) Intra-racial Conflicts 7) Inter-racial Conflicts 8) Inter-gender Conflicts 9) Inter-class Conflicts 10) Inter-regional Conflicts 11) Inter-cultural Conflicts 12) International Conflicts Two Views of Conflict: (1). Traditional View: Conflict is bad and should be avoided (2). Contemporary View: Conflict is neither inherently bad nor good but is inevitable and structurally induced FUNCTIONAL CONFLICT: Intergroup conflict that enhances organizational performance 1) Enhanced psychological maturity 2) Increased problem awareness 3) Increased self- and other awareness 4) Increased exchange of information and knowledge 5) Improved decision processes 6) Increased innovativeness and creativity 7) Enhanced motivation and morale 8) Decreased tensions Changes within Groups: 1) Increased group cohesiveness 2) Increased loyalty to the group rather than to the organization 3) Rise in autocratic leadership 4) More task-oriented (2). DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT: Intergroup conflict that leads to the decline of organizational performance a) General Organizational Consequences: 1) Increased stress and burnout 2) Reduced organizational performance 3) Reduced morale and job satisfaction 4) Reduced loyalty to organization 5) Waste of resources and time b) Dysfunctional Changes between Groups: 1) Increased hostility and distrust 2) Distorted perception 3) Negative stereotyping 4) Decreased communication FURTHER CAUSES OF CONFLICT: 1) DISTRUST - Lack of trust among individuals; lack of trut of another company/ organisation 2) HELPLESSNESS - Because views and decisions are never accepted; the organisation is too powerful. 3) INJUSTICE - Mistreatment by another individual; or mistreatment by the organisation. 4) SUPERIORITY - One person thinks that he/she is better than others; one organisation thinks it is better than another. 5) VULNERABILITY - A position or job is under threat and needs defending; there is uncertainty and fear about the future. 6) TASK CONFLICT - When group members disagree over shared tasks. 7) PROCESS CONFLICT - When members disagree over the way in which something should be done. 8) PERSONAL CONFLICT - This can happen when two people do not like each other.
Team roles (Belbin, 1993)
Dr Meredith Belbin identified nine roles that are needed in a team. Usually, some team members will perform more than one role, or in large teams, there can be duplicates, since not all teams have exactly nine people in them. 1) Co-ordinator/ chairperson 2) Shaper 3) Plant 4) Implementer 5) Team Worker 6) Resource Investigator 7) Technical specialist 8) Monitor/ Evaluator 9) Finisher/ Completer 1) CO-ORDINATOR/ CHAIRPERSON: Calm, confident, steady, an impartial leader who encourages members to contribute, sums up group feelings and expressions, and keeps the group focused. Clarifies group objectives, sets the agenda, establishes priorities, selects problems, sums up and is decisive, but does not dominate discussions. 2) SHAPER: Energetic, driven achiever who concentrates hard on team goals and who pushes the group towards decisions and actions. Gives shape to the team effort, looking for pattern in discussions and practical considerations regarding the feasibility of the project. 3) PLANT: Innovative, creative and an excellent thinker who contributes insight, new ideas and criticisms that lead to new solutions. 4) IMPLEMENTER: A practical hardworking organiser who attends to detail and everyday tasks. 5) TEAM WORKER: Diplomat who helps keep up team morale, provides emotional support, offers advice and shows care. 6) RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR: An outgoing, adaptable communicator who makes external contacts and seeks information to bring to the team; tends to start things rather than finish them. 7) TECHNICAL SPECIALIST: An expert who provides the team with specialist knowledge and experience. 8) MONITOR/ EVALUATOR: Takes a hard, logical approach to ideas and analyses in an unemotional, sober manner; interprets but does not inspire. 9) COMPLETER/ FINISHER: An orderly, conscientious planner who worries about last details in order to follow through ideas produced and often abandoned by non-completers. Can worry too much and not leave things alone.
Group dynamics
Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group (intragroup dynamics), or between social groups (intergroup dynamics). The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behavior. Factors governing a group's formation and development, structure, and interrelationships with individuals, other groups, and the organizations within which it exists. INTRAGROUP dynamics (also referred to as ingroup-, within-group, or commonly just 'group dynamics') are the underlying processes that give rise to a set of norms, roles, relations, and common goals that characterize a particular social group. Amongst the members of a group, there is a state of interdependence, through which the behaviors, attitudes, opinions, and experiences of each member are collectively influenced by the other group members.
Groupthink (Janis, 1972)
Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of "mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment". Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink: 1) Illusion of invulnerability -Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. 2) Collective rationalization - Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. 3) Belief in inherent morality - Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. 4) Stereotyped views of out-groups - Negative views of "enemy" make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. 5) Direct pressure on dissenters - Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group's views. 6) Self-censorship - Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. 7) Illusion of unanimity - The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. 8) Self-appointed 'mindguards' - Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group's cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes. Decision experts have determined that groupthink may be prevented by adopting some of the following measures: a) The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member b) The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset c) Each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups' deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on the associate's reactions d) One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis. The outside experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members. e) At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil's advocate (to question assumptions and plans) f) The leader should make sure that a sizeable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of rivals' intentions.
The decision-making process (Wedley and Field, 1984)
PRE-PLANNING for decision making leads to solutions of high quality, acceptability and originality. Pre-planning involves choosing a style of leadership, whether to involve others, how to gather information, who to contact and how to generate alternative solutions.
Team-building
Process of enhancing the effectiveness of teams
Teamwork
Teamwork has many advantages: • A greater variety of complex issues can be tackled by pooling expertise and resources • Problems are exposed to a greater diversity of knowledge, skill and experience • The approach boosts morale and ownership through participative decision making • Improvement opportunities that cross departmental or functional boundaries can be more easily addressed • The recommendations are more likely to be implemented than if they come from an individual
Group polarisation
Tendency of groups to make decisions that are 'more risky' (after Stoner, 1961 - originally 'risky shift' phenomenon) than an individual would make. If an individual makes a mistake then he/she can be held solely responsible. But if a group makes a decision then the responsibility (if it goes wrong) can be diffused among the entire group. Bottger and Yetton (1987) suggest that individuals within the group can be trained to avoid poor decisions. For example, the levels of expertise, experience, competence and diversity of team members are important in group decision making and productivity. Having a trained 'facilitator' for example, resulted in many more ideas generated in groups than in those who didn't have one.
Group development (Tuckman, 1965) (FSNPA)
The FORMING - STORMING - NORMING- PERFORMING model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. He added a fifth stage, ADJOURNING, in the 1970s. 1) FORMING: The team meets and learns about the opportunities and challenges, and then agrees on goals and begins to tackle the tasks. Team members tend to behave quite independently. High dependence on leader for guidance and direction. Little agreement on team aims other than received from leader. Individual roles and responsibilities are unclear. Leader must be prepared to answer lots of questions about the team's purpose, objectives and external relationships. This is also a good opportunity to see how each member of the team works as an individual and how they respond to pressure. 2) STORMING: Decisions don't come easily within group. Team members vie for position as they attempt to establish themselves in relation to other team members and the leader, who might receive challenges from team members. Clarity of purpose increases but plenty of uncertainties persist. The team needs to be focused on its goals to avoid becoming distracted by relationships and emotional issues. Compromises may be required to enable progress. The Storming phase can become destructive to the team and will lower motivation if allowed to get out of control. Some teams will never develop past this stage. Supervisors of the team during this phase may be more accessible, but tend to remain directive in their guidance of decision-making and professional behavior. The team members will therefore resolve their differences and members will be able to participate with one another more comfortably. The ideal is that they will not feel that they are being judged, and will therefore share their opinions and views. Normally tension, struggle and sometimes arguments occur. 3) NORMING: Agreement and consensus largely forms among the team, who respond well to facilitation by leader. Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted. Big decisions are made by group agreement. Smaller decisions may be delegated to individuals or small teams within group. Commitment and unity is strong. The team discusses and develops its processes and working style. There is general respect for the leader and some of leadership is more shared by the team. In this stage, all team members take the responsibility and have the ambition to work for the success of the team's goals. The danger here is that members may be so focused on preventing conflict that they are reluctant to share controversial ideas (groupthink). 4) PERFORMING: In this stage, people can work independently, in subgroups, or as a total unit with equal facility. Their roles and authorities dynamically adjust to the changing needs of the group and individuals. Stage four is marked by interdependence in personal relations and problem solving in the realm of task functions. By now, the group should be most productive. Individual members have become self-assuring, and the need for group approval is past. Members are both highly task oriented and highly people oriented. There is unity: group identity is complete, group morale is high, and group loyalty is intense. The task function becomes genuine problem solving, leading toward optimal solutions and optimum group development. There is support for experimentation in solving problems and an emphasis on achievement. The overall goal is productivity through problem solving and work. 5) ADJOURNING: When the task is completed successfully, its purpose fulfilled; everyone can move on to new things, feeling good about what's been achieved. From an organizational perspective, recognition of and sensitivity to people's vulnerabilities in Tuckman's fifth stage is helpful, particularly if members of the group have been closely bonded and feel a sense of insecurity or threat from this change.
Group cohesiveness
There are different ways to define group cohesion, depending on how researchers conceptualize this concept. However, most researchers define cohesion to be task commitment and interpersonal attraction to the group. Cohesion can be more specifically defined as the tendency for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. This definition includes important aspects of cohesiveness, including its multi-dimensionality, dynamic nature, instrumental basis, and emotional dimension. Its multi-dimensionality refers to how cohesion is based on many factors.
Decision-making model (Vroom-Yetton-Jago, 1988)
1) AUTOCRATIC - you make the decision and inform others of it. There are two separate processes for decision making in an autocratic style: Autocratic 1(A1) - you use the information you already have and make the decision Autocratic 2 (A2) - you ask team members for specific information and once you have it, you make the decision. Here you don't necessarily tell them what the information is needed for. CONSULTATIVE - you gather information from the team and other and then make the decision. Consultative 1 (C1) - you inform team members of what you're doing and may individually ask opinions, however, the group is not brought together for discussion. You make the decision. Consultative 2 (C2) - you are responsible for making the decision, however, you get together as a group to discuss the situation, hear other perspectives, and solicit suggestions. COLLABORATIVE - you and your team work together to reach a consensus. Group (G) - The team makes a decision together. Your role is mostly facilitative and you help the team come to a final decision that everyone agrees on.
Strategies to resolve conflict (Thomas, 1976)
1) AVOIDANCE: The avoiding style is uncooperative and unassertive. People exhibiting this style seek to avoid conflict altogether by denying that it is there. They are prone to postponing any decisions in which a conflict may arise. People using this style may say things such as, "I don't really care if we work this out," or "I don't think there's any problem. I feel fine about how things are." Conflict avoidance may be habitual to some people because of personality traits such as the need for affiliation. While conflict avoidance may not be a significant problem if the issue at hand is trivial, it becomes a problem when individuals avoid confronting important issues because of a dislike for conflict or a perceived inability to handle the other party's reactions. 2) ACCOMMODATION: The accommodating style is cooperative and unassertive. In this style, the person gives in to what the other side wants, even if it means giving up one's personal goals. People who use this style may fear speaking up for themselves or they may place a higher value on the relationship, believing that disagreeing with an idea might be hurtful to the other person. They will say things such as, "Let's do it your way" or "If it's important to you, I can go along with it." Accommodation may be an effective strategy if the issue at hand is more important to others compared to oneself. However, if a person perpetually uses this style, that individual may start to see that personal interests and well-being are neglected. 3) COMPROMISE: The compromising style is a middle-ground style, in which individuals have some desire to express their own concerns and get their way but still respect the other person's goals. The compromiser may say things such as, "Perhaps I ought to reconsider my initial position" or "Maybe we can both agree to give in a little." In a compromise, each person sacrifices something valuable to them. For example, in 2005 the luxurious Lanesborough Hotel in London advertised incorrect nightly rates for £35, as opposed to £350. When the hotel received a large number of online bookings at this rate, the initial reaction was to insist that customers cancel their reservations and book at the correct rate. The situation was about to lead to a public relations crisis. As a result, they agreed to book the rooms at the advertised price for a maximum of three nights, thereby limiting the damage to the hotel's bottom line as well as its reputation 4) COMPETITION: People exhibiting a competing style want to reach their goal or get their solution adopted regardless of what others say or how they feel. They are more interested in getting the outcome they want as opposed to keeping the other party happy, and they push for the deal they are interested in making. Competition may lead to poor relationships with others if one is always seeking to maximize their own outcomes at the expense of others' well-being. This approach may be effective if one has strong moral objections to the alternatives or if the alternatives one is opposing are unethical or harmful. 5) COLLABORATION: The collaborating style is high on both assertiveness and cooperation. This is a strategy to use for achieving the best outcome from conflict—both sides argue for their position, supporting it with facts and rationale while listening attentively to the other side. The objective is to find a win-win solution to the problem in which both parties get what they want. They'll challenge points but not each other. They'll emphasize problem solving and integration of each other's goals. For example, an employee who wants to complete an MBA program may have a conflict with management when he wants to reduce his work hours. Instead of taking opposing positions in which the employee defends his need to pursue his career goals while the manager emphasizes the company's need for the employee, both parties may review alternatives to find an integrative solution. In the end, the employee may decide to pursue the degree while taking online classes, and the company may realize that paying for the employee's tuition is a worthwhile investment. This may be a win-win solution to the problem in which no one gives up what is personally important, and every party gains something from the exchange.
Decision styles
1) Autocratic (Directive/ Authoritarian): The group leader solves the problem using the information he possesses. He does not consult with anyone else or seek information in any form. This style assumes that the leader has sufficient information to examine all the relevant options and make an effective decision. 2) Information seeking (Consultative): When a leader does not possess sufficient information to make an effective decision, she needs to obtain it from others. She may simply ask for the input she needs without telling the others what the problem is. The leader then evaluates the information and makes the decision. 3) Participative (Democratic/ Collaborative): The leader explains the situation and provides relevant information to a group or individual, and together they generate and evaluate many alternatives. Another possibility is that the leader asks the group or individual to conduct a survey or an investigation and make recommendations based on the results. Finally, the leader evaluates the solutions or recommendations the group or individual has put forward and then makes a decision, which may or may not take these views into account. Negotiation: The leader explains the situation to the group or individual and provides the relevant information. Together they attempt to reconcile differences and negotiate a solution that is acceptable to all parties. The leader may consult with others before the meeting in order to prepare his case and generate alternatives that are acceptable to everyone involved. Delegation (Laissez-faire): Responsibility and authority for making the decision are given to the group or individual. The leader provides all the relevant information that he possesses. The leader's role then becomes that of facilitator or guide, but he does not attempt to force his opinions on the group. He should be prepared to accept and implement the proposed solution.
Characteristics of sucessful teams:
1) McGregor (1960): 11 2) Likert (1961): 18 (List in OB Psych Folder) 3) Zander (1982): 14 (List in OB Psych Folder) 1) McGregor: Characteristics for EFFECTIVE teams: 1. Informality; relaxed atmosphere; involvement; interest 2. Much discussion; high contributions 3. Understanding/acceptance of common aims 4. Listen; consider; forward ideas 5. Examine disagreements; dissenters are not overpowered 6. Consensus decision making; member feels free to disagree 7. Constructive criticism 8. Feelings and attitudes are aired 9. Awareness of decisions/actions; clear assignments 10. Leadership role undertaken by most suitable member 11. Frequent review of group operations Characteristics for INEFFECTIVE teams: 1. Formality; tense atmosphere; indifference; boredom 2. Domination by few; contributions often lack relevance 3. Not too concerned with deficiencies of the group 4. Unfair hearing; irrelevant speeches; members fear ridicule/condemnation 5. Disagreements are suppressed or conflict develops; large minority are dissatisfied; disruptive minority imposes its views 6. Lack of consensus; premature decision making; formal voting (simple majority) 7. Personalised destructive criticism 8. Feelings remain under the surface 9. Lack of awareness of decisions; unclear assignments 10. Leadership role is jealously guarded 11. Aims ill-defined and mis-understood; conflict between private aims and common aims exists
Four stages of team development (Woodcock, 1979)
1) THE UNDER-DEVELOPED TEAM: Feelings are avoided; objectives are uncertain and the leader makes the decisions. 2) THE EXPERIMENTING TEAM: Individuals listen to each other; they test each other out. 3) THE CONSOLIDATING TEAM: Tasks are clarified; objectives are agreed and procedures are proposed. 4) THE MATURE TEAM: Feelings are shared; individuals are flexible and working methods are comfortable.
Evaluation of Vroom-Yetton-Jago
1) The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership is quite mechanical, so mechanical that it may overlook subtleties, such as the psychological make-up of the leader, complexity of tasks, emotions of the group, vagueness of the terms (such as "importance" and "quality"), and dynamics. 2) There is an issue with the validity of the model; it hasn't been tested adequately. The force of decision maker is leader-oriented and there is inadequate attention paid to leader-led interactions. While there is a provision for decision-making ultimately for democratic participation, the emphasis is on decision-making and emanating initially from the leader. 3) Where is the provision that the group, itself, may want to initiate decision-making? Group dynamics can be quite complicated, and it is not always clear on how decisions should be made or whether one is required. Perhaps only a group interaction is needed. 4) While the model gives a specified decision-making procedure, there are situations in which there may not be enough time to apply the model, such as in emergencies or where there are other situations that constrain time. 5) Further, not every leader is predisposed or wanting to have a decision-making method thrust upon them. It is true that a well-defined procedure can help and be presented as an objective method, but it may be deemed too mechanical and a "one size fits all" straightjacket.
