Understanding Human Behavior in an Organization - Essay Example

Understanding human behavior in an organization Student’s name Course Institution Date Group behavior Introduction This paper analyses two groups; support groups and decision making, using group behavior concepts and theories, identifying their similarities and differences and identifying destructive and functional group behavior. The paper examines how to apply certain theories of groups and group dynamics in analyzing groups in an organizational setting. Firstly, it briefly describes a “group” and “group work” in regards to group work theory. Following this, it looks at group development stages using Tuckman’s theory. Definition Groups refer to two or more persons, interdependent and interacting with an aim of achieving a particular objective. Group behavior stems from the triggers that make it effective. As different groups interact, each group develops its own unique characteristics, including roles, cohesiveness, structure, processes and norms. Resultantly, groups may compete or cooperate with other groups, which may end up in conflicts The two group types analysed in the paper are; support groups and decision-making groups. I was involved with the support group, which aimed empowering youths become better individual in the society, and alleviating crimes. The decision making group used in this paper originates from my observation of organizational structures and decision-making of my Parent’s company. Support/participant driven groups This type of group provides emotional support to participants. The emotional support helps the participant in achieving goals or overcoming obstacles. Support groups include grief and loss groups, safety counts and survivors of sexual assault. Decision making groups As the name suggest, these group’s key mandate is to make decisions regarding various issues. They include community planning groups, management teams, board of directors and committees. Reasons for joining groups People join groups for several reasons such as security, self-esteem, status, goal achievement and power. In a group, individuals reduce the insecurity associated with “being alone”, therefore, making them feel stronger, be able to resist threats and be less doubtful. Being part of a group may also be important in that it provides status to all its members. In addition to transmitting status, groups also provide feelings of self-worth to its members. Group membership makes it possible for people to achieve things that may not be possible if handled as individuals. There is always a need to pool knowledge, talent or power when attempting to complete some tasks (Douglas, 1995). Stages of Group formation/development Tuckman’s theory suggests five fundamental stages of group development Stage 1: Forming Fundamentally referred to as joining or engaging, this stage is characterized by significant testing as well as trials and errors. Initial member concerns included support and openness, hence manifested by low sharing of thoughts, experiences and feelings as well as lack of cohesion. At this stage in the group’s life, members are most likely to feel anxious, frustrated, inadequate and isolated. Key features of the group at this stage include an internal appraisal as well as identification of how each member belongs to the group. Additionally, there are emotional threats among other members who feel dominated by members who appear “stronger”, thus there is alienation. There is less oppression at this stage as individuals seek to create a comfort zone. Knowledge and understanding of group members’ emotions and feelings are essential for effective structuring towards a suitable group outcome. For example, the support group was set up to hearten social interaction as well as personal development (Maass, 2000). The decision making group aimed at formulating effective decision for the company’s performance. Obtaining awareness of these group stages enabled both groups to structure initial encounters to be fun, relaxed and enjoyable. This encouraged members to attend frequently. In addition to this, it offered effective communication promotions, which allowed members to know each other and gain confidence. At the forming stage, the group convenes due to a low or minimum conflict. The conflict is low because everyone in the group tries to establish their individual roles, as well as the personalities of fellow group members. In this stage, the group tends to agree neutral, as it takes form and begins to steer to the unknown. Once the group overcomes the feelings of uncertainty associated with the first stage, it begins to explore boundaries and roles actively (Benjamin, Bessant & Watts, 1997). Stage2: Storming At this stage, members of a group begin confrontations as they vie for group roles that make them feel valued and provide a sense of belonging. Consequently, group members start asserting their personalities hence experiencing inter and intra group conflicts. Aggression and resentment are also prominent at this stage and thus, if leaders are unresponsive to individual and group needs, the conflicting situation becomes destructive to the group’s development and existences. At this stage, there are high potentials of individuals quitting the group while for some, the group’s pressure may become a strain, leading to them abandoning the group. There are also high chances of exhibiting oppressive behavior as every member vies for their preferred roles and releases frustrations gained in the forming stage. It is necessary to discourage oppression within a group while understanding the necessary degree of conflict in the group’s development (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). In the support group, a rebellious streak among the youths characterized this stage. The youth directed this rebellion towards adult leaders, who denied the youth official representation. During this stage, group members tested group boundaries as members explored how far the group would allow them to go and what the group could tolerate. A few individuals challenged these testing behaviors as they viewed as unfair and jeopardy to the group’s future activities. The decision making group’s storming phase was dissimilar (Tindale, 1998). My parents, who were the proprietors of the company, became leaders, hence managing several group activities. This ensured minimal conflicts especially for roles as they appointed suitable individuals for several roles and posts. In addition to this, the group utilized a centralized information flow, enabling members to receive accurate information, and preventing oppression and direct member conflicts. The storming stage is characterized by active efforts to influence other people, chaos and conflict instances (Robbins, Judge & Boyle, 2008). Stage 3: Norming At the norming stage, both groups began working constructively to achieve the identified tasks. Groups begin to formulate roles and allocate them to group members. With this allocation, some members may disagree with the roles allocated to them, while others may accept their roles. It is common for sub-groups to emerge during this stage. As in the case of the support group, an intra youth leadership group emerged to facilitate distribution of roles to youths. This also happened in the decision making group, where a sub advisory group emerged to investigate role allocations and group leadership. During this stage, the group is most likely to formulate and cements its norms, which help in identifying acceptable and intolerable behaviors. The support group easily settled into the formulated norms, however, its co-leaders challenged some of the adopted roles, as they perceived them to be obstructive. Stage 4: Performing Groups at this stage perform excellently due to the definition of roles. Consequently, the group turns into a team and positively challenges the group’s decision. The group has overcome the discomfort of the previous stages and it begins having a general feeling of unity. The performing stage for the decision making group facilitated the realization of the group’s objectives, as members worked in cohesion, tackling all the appointed tasks, and coming up with effective decisions. Stage 5: Mourning Termination is the last stage in a group’s life. At this stage, some group members usually feel a certain extent of dependency, hence making it a stressful and unhappy occasion for them. Typical responses to this stage include denial, need expression, regression, evaluation, recapitulation and flight. There are potentials for some group members to oppress others, as they look for scapegoats to blame for the group’s need to end. Group leaders should minimize this by constantly focusing ad refocusing on the group’s end as well as celebrations of achievements. Within the decision making group, it was easy for the leaders to formulate strategies to minimize the consequences of the group’s termination. This group had structured its life span to a specific time scale from its onset. In addition to this, the group maintained a countdown chart, which indicated the expected end of the group’s interaction. Like the youth support group, the decision making group marked its end by a celebration and presentations, whereby relatives and friends were invited. This ensured that the end, for both the groups were smooth, without it coming as a surprise. Group behavior heavily influences decision, especially in an organizational setup. Decision-making refers to the process of arriving at a judgment or decision by groups or individuals, through deliberation. When people are engaged in a close group and their need for unanimity overrides their motivation to seek alternative causes of action, they are in a state of groupthink. People in a groupthink situation are more likely to exhibit signs of defective decision making, which result to poor policy outcomes, as compared to groups where people maintain identity despite being in a group. To understand a particular group’s behavior, it is necessary to understand its structure, elements, communication patterns and status differentials. The structure of a group refers to its internal framework, which describes the group member’s relationship with one another. As in the case of the youth support group, the sponsors of the group assigned community leaders to lead the youth group in discussions. In addition to this, they appointed youth leaders from different regions, who were mandated by representing the youths from their respective regions. On the contrary, the decision making group had representatives from different company departments. Each department appointed a representative to air their grievances and offer feedback at the end of every group session. A group’s fundamental elements include its values, norms and roles. Roles refer to the group’s inclination to contribute, interrelate and behave in specific ways. Most groups define roles through role differentiation, where each member of the group is assigned a specific function. The support group’s key role was to streamline youths in every region represented. Because of this, the sponsors appointed roles depending on individual’s positions and functions in their community, as well as expertise in empowerment issues. The decision making group ‘s role was to come up with effective decisions to enhance the company’s performance. Thus, every individual’s roles were determined by position in the company, position in different department and expertise in organizational development. Groups also have norms, which are the informal rules that regulate the behaviors of group members. The group’s norms represent expectations of each group member and represents value judgments regarding suitable behavior various social situations. A group’s values refer to the group’s ideas and goals that operate as the group’s guiding principles (Brown, 2000). A communication pattern is the way information flows within the group, and cab be either decentralized or centralized. A centralized communication pattern refers to a situation where information tends to come from one source, flowing to the rest of the group members. On the contrary, decentralized communication lets group members share information directly between one another. Centralized information ensures accuracy of information passed though it tends to be slower compared to the decentralized. Lastly, status differentials refer to the dissimilarity in status between group members. Several factors determine a group member’s status within a group including age, occupation, ethnic origin, gender and expertise. In addition to this, status differential affects the group’s forbearance of the member’s violation of norms as well as the amount of pay a member receives. There is a common presumption that when individuals or groups face repeated tasks, groups perform better, especially in task-specific information. Groups are capable of processing high information load; hence have high decision consistency as compared to an individual acting, especially in intellective tasks. Traditional economic theory fails to address the effects of the nature or type of decision maker. Social choice and public choice theories address group decision making though concentrating on the perspective of aggregating individual perspective into group decision, the rules applicable to decision-making groups and how such rules shape the decision-making process outcomes. However, public choice theory barely deals with the resultant differences between group decision and individual decision. It also looks into ways in which group interaction and communication change the individual choices by imitation, learning and other dynamics. The structure of economic easily explains the neglect of the impact of the type of decision individuals have on actual economics decisions. Decision tasks are characteristically interactive in experimental economics. This means that the decision tasks exhibit good judgment characteristics as well as intellect (Masterson, 2000). In the two groups, there were conflicts, especially in the storming and performing stages. These conflicts came up due to some destructive behaviors. These dysfunctional group behaviors include; Withdrawal- this is a tendency by some group members to remove themselves from group activity, decision making and discussions, or blatant refusal to participate. As in the case of the decision making group, at the Performing stage, some members who felt that the group leaders paid little attention t their contribution withdrew from group discussion. This called for a discussion into the importance of valuing the contribution of all members (West, 1996). Domination- This is a tendency of some group members to consume much of group time to express self-opinions and views as well as using powers to take control of group discussions with no regard for other member’s contributions. In the support group’s storming stage, the youth felt that the elders in the group were dominating them, by refusing to offer them roles. However, the decision making group did not experience much domination. Digressing- this is the member’s tendency to steer the group away from its primary objective by introducing stories or rambling. Discounting- This is disregarding or minimizing individual’s opinions and suggestions. This may take place in form of insults camouflaged as jokes. Discounting was common in the support group, when youths disregarded contributions from other youths whom they viewed as less important in the group. Rushing- this is a tendency of encouraging members to move on to other issues without completing previous tasks. In view of this, there are other behaviors that are constructive, and which all groups should recommend. These include; Inspiration- encouraging members to participate in order to progress and enlivening members to increase their interest in attending discussions. Both the decision-making and support groups were active in inspiring their members, and this ensured the groups maintained life to completion. Cooperation- this is displaying interest in other people’s perspectives and opinions, and a willingness to act and adapt, in order to facilitate the group’s growth. Process checking- This refers to the habit of questioning the group on process issues including decision methods, agendas, discussion topics, time frames and information use. Harmonizing- Encouraging group collaboration and cohesion. Group interactions and behavior facilitates groupthink, a type of thinking associated with cohesive group interaction. Groupthink theory represents three symptoms; group overestimation, close mindedness and pressures towards uniformity (Stewart, Manz & Sims, 1999). Overestimation of the group This symptom includes two other symptoms; a) Illusion of invulnerability- This refers to the extreme optimism that encourages the group to take extreme risks with limited consideration of a negative outcome. This symptom includes overestimation of the group’s potential, success and ability to come up with a viable solution. b) Belief in the natural morals of the group- In a group interaction, individuals tend to ignore their personal responsibilities, hence ignoring the moral consequences associated with their actions. Close Mindedness a) Collective rationalization- Collective rationalization refers to attempts by group members to withhold, discount or distort warnings or other vital information that could intimidate the group’s belief by persuading themselves as to the legality of the group’s position. In this situation, the group fails to consider other information that does not conform to its belief or those that may lead to alternative decisions. b) Stereotypes of out-groups- Groups tend to overestimate their powers and morality, hence underestimating the powers and abilities of their opponents and their opponents’ ability to interfere with their plans. Pressures towards uniformity a) Self-censorship-This refers to group member’s tendency to withhold their deviations or expressing their doubts from the evident group consensus. This reflects member’s preference to minimize the importance of their doubts and counter arguments. b) Illusion if unanimity- Group devices such as self-censorship create a unanimous environment, concerning the majority’s view of judgment. c) Direct pressures on group members who descend the majority’s proposed solutions, stereotypes, commitment or views. The pressure that the group exerts on dissenters as well as its norms makes it clear that it is opposed to divergent behaviors. d) Self-appointed mind protectors- Group members naturally take the responsibility of protecting the group from unpleasant information that may threaten the group’s existence or shared complacency. The groupthink theory is one of the variables that influence the quality of decisions that people in groups make. This theory suggests that poor decision products are the result of the symptoms of groupthink. However, groupthink does not always mean bad decisions. Even in a groupthink situation, the inherent biases as well as group consensus may lead to the development of effective solutions to apparent problems. Likewise, the group cannot avoid bad decisions by avoiding groupthink. Bad decisions are associated with other factors such as inadequate or lack of relevant information, poor judgment, inadequate decision-making time, unexpected actions and pure lack (Arrow & McGrath, 1995). Recommendations for improved group performance To facilitate issues of communication that may cause conflicts between groups and group members, groups can adopt negotiation strategies in order to come up with suitable resolutions that are beneficial to all members of each group. To ensure that groups and group members interact cooperatively with minimum conflict I order to achieve their objectives, groups may develop super ordinate goals. All group members approve such goals, requiring groups to cooperate. In addition t this, super ordinate goals increase a group’s cohesion by creating a “mutual enemy” Groups should also permit member exchanges, which let members to trade roles with other group members. This provides variant perspectives regarding issues and functionalities of the group. Groups should ensure there is a fair allocation of resources to all members in order to increase equal access to resources. This reduces conflicts and enhances cooperation within and between groups. To facilitate completion of work among groups that cannot work together, it is necessary for groups minimize the need for interaction between the two groups. However, groups may also use a “coordinating group”, which intermediates and communicates between the groups. To improve member relations within or between groups, groups may need to generate a common list of the group’s perception of other groups. Additionally, the group also lists how they think the other group perceives them. To prevent mis-perceptions, group leaders share these lists. This process facilitates intergroup team development. Conclusion Group behavior refers to the way two or more individual act when gathered together. A group is a gathering of people, aimed at achieving a common objective. This paper has looked into the concept of group behavior, analyzing two groups by use of group theories and concept such as the formation and elements of group behavior, as well as the functional and destructive behaviors in a group. References Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 373-411 Beebe, S. & Masterson, J. (2000). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices. New York: Longman. Benjamin, J., Bessant, J., & Watts, S. (1997). Making groups work: Rethinking practice. St. Leonards, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin. Brown, R. (2000). Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd Ed.). UK: Blackwell Publishers. Douglas, T. (1995). Survival in groups. Buckingham: Open University Press. Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2000). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (Seventh Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Maass, A. (2000). Measuring prejudice: Implicit versus explicit techniques. London: Sage Publications Ltd.. Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Boyle, M. (2008). Organisational Behaviour (6th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia. Stewart, G., Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1999). Teamwork and group dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Tindale, R. S. (1998). Theory and Research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press West, M. A. (1996). Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley Read More