Failings of Teams

Groups in Organizational Behavior Groups in Org Behavior Group and team behavior in a larger organization is a major subset of scholarly analysis and review. The author of this report is asked to review several articles relating to groups and teams in organizations. Each article must be peer-reviewed, must be no more than five years old and must be at least three to four pages long. For each article, it will be summarized, analyzed and given an overall verdict.

While group and team dynamics in a larger organization are still the subject of much review and debate, there are certainly some trends and outcomes to be seen in the literature reviewed for this brief article review listing. The first article, authored last year, looked at the effect of power on teams when wielded improperly or at least in a certain way.

Essentially, the article asserts that power dynamics extend from the larger organization and into a team's mental and psychological sphere and thus causes the leader or perceived leader of the team to exude and radiate power and this leads to intimidation and silence on the part of the members of the team. Per some secondary sources cited in the article dating as far back as 1988, this happenstance can be negatively associated with team learning and lesser performance.

The article asserts that having any sort of defined hierarchy in a team can lessen the potential positive outcomes seen as a result of that team's work together. Instead, the article asserts that an atmosphere of collaboration and teamwork is necessary for the team to get along and produce the desired results. It is not uncommon to have a person that is the general facilitator of the team but that is far different from any perception that the team leader has ultimate authority (Tost, Gion & Larrick, 2014).

It is true that hierarchy and power can influence just how much people participate in a group and why they do so. It would be necessary and proper to set the tone and make clear that everyone's input and contribution is expected and treasured and that is why the team was assembled.

Intentionally leaving the team in the hands of a person that is not experienced in leadership and/or teambuilding may placate the people that are concerned about power-grabs and intimidation but it would also negate a lot of the potential progress that the team could accomplish in the view of the author of this report. The next article reviews the other send of the spectrum, that being teams that are autonomous and multinational in nature.

It explores how external knowledge and autonomy combine to effectively undermine the progress and intentions of a team that is multinational or otherwise very diverse in nature. The reason external knowledge is such a big deal in this situation is that the teams are not tightly controlled and the amount of knowledge and progress they try to or do make external of the team environment can actually work against or at least instead of the progress of the team thus rendering it less effective.

The article notes that external knowledge can indeed help team dynamics at times but when it has too dominant or too contrarian of an influence, the results can be quite negative (Haas, 2010). The author of this report would agree that having a team that is very independent and autonomous can be problematic and indeed seems to pose the opposite to what is stated in the first article whereby teams are controlled too much.

As with most things, there needs to be a happy center where the team is controlled sufficiently from outside influences but they are also not intimidated into submission by the power dynamics of the group leadership or other factors that affect the group. The third and final article looks at what is known as social loafing.

Commonly seen more in student/college environments, social loafing is when a member of a group decides to remain disengaged and lazy when working in a group as compared to whey they are working on their own. Inevitably, this loafer misses meetings and/or simply does not do their part of the work. The rest of the group eventually will figure this out and they will generally cover the slack created by the loafer to uphold and maintain the grade for the group.

Of course, this tends to happen in work situations as well even though such a loafer could be punished or fired. Even further, there would be resentment and discord between the coworkers post-loafing (Schippers, 2014). The author's only real reaction to this dynamic is that the loafer needs to be called on it as soon as it starts and jettisoned if they refuse to work acceptably after a warning. This loafing is a sign of maturity.