Tactics Newcomers Tend to Be Discriminated From Term Paper
- Length: 5 pages
- Sources: 5
- Subject: Careers
- Type: Term Paper
- Paper: #54678284
Excerpt from Term Paper :
tactics, newcomers tend to be discriminated from existing members of a group in the course of learning. For instance, new sales employees in organizations tend to receive training within the department. In this period, they rarely interact with other group members they intend to join after the training. In informal tactics, newcomers learn while on the job. For instance, most restaurants socialize new waitresses and waiters by enabling them to work alongside experienced waitresses and waiters. Formal tactics have a tendency of leading to an institutionalized orientation while informal tactics would lead to an individualized orientation (Phillips, 2008).
In institutionalized role orientation, new entrants are taught how to respond to events in a similar manner just as all members of existing groups would respond to similar events. Institutionalized orientation supports conformity and obedience to existing norms, rules, and roles. Newcomers undergoing an institutionalized orientation have high chances of engaging in role taking as opposed to role making. This is because such an orientation insists on the importance of adhering to the existing ways of doing things (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2010).
In individualized role orientation, people are taught that it is desirable and acceptable to experiment and to be creative with changing how groups do things. Team members under institutionalized orientation could need to learn and follow the regular norms, rules, and roles. However, they recognize that such ways of controlling behavior have not been cast in stones and groups will consider changing them if they identify a more effective way of doing things. Individuals experiencing an individualized orientation have a tendency of engaging in role making as opposed to role taking (Beaumont, 2010).
When making use of individualized role tactics, new entrants are individually taught how to behave. Since learning occurs at the individual level, the learning experiences of each new comer tend to differ. In this context, new comers are motivated to behave differently while encountering various situations on the job. For instance, newcomers in a group of salespeople in a cosmetic company where everyone executes a defined task tend to be socialized individually by representatives of the company (Glasser & Mayadas, 2011). This ensures that newcomers develop the required knowledge regarding the type and line of customers it attracts.
The fundamental profit of a standardized orientation is likewise its principle threat: the homogeneity it generates around members of a group. If all group members have been standardized to impart the same way of looking at the planet and have the same solid allegiance to existing roles, norms and rules, the group could get impervious to change and fail to offer the wherewithal to produce innovative solutions for issues. The survival of an organization and the group relies on their eagerness and capacity to change according to the updates in the environments. Such changes include updates in client requests relating to the diverse qualities of the workforce and changes in technology and economic conditions. Groups like self-managed work groups, marketing departments and research and development groups, and organizations like customer items firms, auto organizations, and machine makers are prone to need to react to incessant updates in the business atmosphere (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2010). These organizations and groups can profit from an individualized orientation and might attempt to utilize individual, random, informal, disjunctive, variable and investiture tactics at whatever point possible. For instance, Microsoft tends to use these mechanisms to promote individualized role orientation. Microsoft takes this approach because the viability of the different groups in the association depends on the standardized individual conduct and the urge for members to generate new and innovative solutions to software issues.
Socialization helps groups attain the objectives they have created to provide reliable high quality reviews. It also advances new programming by helping them control their members' conducts. If a group needs its members to accompany built methods of doing things or offer proposals for approaches to do things another way, it ought to push the control over its members' conducts and actions keeping in mind the end goal to get this happen (Beaumont, 2010).
In order to fulfill objectives and perform at an elevated level, groups require both adherence to and deviance from standards. Group standards facilitate elevated levels of group performance depending on the degree to which the objectives are steady with organizational objectives. To expedite objective alignment, group members may also profit or be compensated when the group performs at an abnormal level and helps the accomplishment of organizational objectives. Group members learn norms, rules and roles through socialization as a process (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2010). Formal, collective, fixed, sequential, serial, and divestiture socialization strategies have a tendency to prompt an individualized role orientation. Individual, casual, variable, random, investiture and disjunctive socialization strategies have a tendency to expedite an individualized role orientation.
Chapter 11 Issues Discussion Topics:
Studies indicate that process losses involving motivation and coordination problems are a vital factor in the actual performance of a group that falls short of this potential performance. Problems in coordination tend to occur when numerous inputs and tasks involved in a product assembly are divided within members of a group. Then, their inputs are integrated to generate the output or the final product. For instance, if members of a team labor slowly compared to others, besides performing at a high level, the quality of the output is likely to suffer as some team members ought to rush to complete their roles in tasks in order to maintain their pace with the production schedule (National Research Council, 2009).
In a given study, a group of sales people experienced problems in coordination when trying to keep the dressing rooms and counters clean and tidy. Most times, when a salesperson predicted that certain customers were coming to the store, he/she selected articles that could appeal to customers. They achieved this by displaying the items on the counters or hanging them in the dressing rooms. Similarly, they left the clothes on the counters and in the dressing rooms after serving customers. While restocking the shelves and keeping counters neat were part of their role, salespersons avoided such tasks, as they never wanted to make mistakes of restocking clothes that co-employees had already selected for a customer. This coordination problem resulted in a situation whereby dressing rooms and counters were often cluttered (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2010).
The motivation of any group revolves around processing items. The group members are responsible in the production of items: all salespersons are always expected to serve customers. For example, sales persons are given commissions for volunteering to help with extra jobs with the hope that the salesperson would handle transactions. Groups face the challenge of effective performance (Beaumont, 2010). To address this challenge, managers ought to ensure they eliminate as much process losses as possible. This will help ensure that the actual performance of a group is equivalent to its potential performance. Managers eliminate all coordination issues be developing effective manufacturing procedures for items. This could be achieved by instructing all employees serve customers as required (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2010). Additionally, employees must be instructed to have an organized working place to attract more customers. The problem of motivation could be addressed if managers keep track of sales returns processed by sales teams. Managers can reward sales teams according after evaluating their individual performance.
Obviously, process losses in work groups are more common as they emerge from interpersonal difficulties among members of a group. This includes when employees start to blame each other for personality or work conflicts arise and managers must be cautious to such problems. Additionally, besides eliminating process losses that hinder a team from performing in accordance to its potential, managers must increase the potential performance of a team (Phillips, 2008). To heighten the effectiveness of a work team, managers are required to identify strategies…