The internal processes become more efficient because barriers in personal communication are broken down once the group is working towards the common purpose. Increasing cohesiveness in the group requires leadership that orients the objectives of group members more strongly towards the common purpose. This can be done a number of ways, including through individual and group task structure, the fostering of a common culture, the establishment of smooth communication systems and through providing structural reinforcement of behavioral norms.
Social interaction impacts decision-making because it determines the degree to which the decisions orient the team members towards the common purpose. Strong social interaction should allow the group to have a greater degree of consensus in decisions. Attitudes about the team's objectives and the methods used to achieve those goals are reinforced by strong social interaction. Weak social interaction can leave some group members oriented towards their own individual goals, because they have less faith in the team's objectives. Further weak social interaction beyond the initial decision reinforces the schisms that have emerged between members as a part of the decision-making process. Promoting members' acceptance of proposals in the workplace can be improved in two ways -- the first is to educate the rationale for the proposal and communicate how the proposal helps the team achieve its objectives. The second is to develop a common culture in the work group. Having a common culture requires strong social interaction, as culture must be constantly reinforced. With a common culture, the members of the group are going to be more oriented towards accepting proposals that support group goals and rejecting those that do not.
Jung & Sosik (2002) highlighted the role of leadership in group dynamics. Leaders not only perform task roles such as organizational design, task design and the development of communication systems, but they also foster orientation towards the common purpose through the development of organizational culture, strong social interaction and the development of dispute resolution mechanisms. Leaders, therefore, are critical to the development of effective groups.
While each group should have a strong leader, other leaders can emerge from groups. There are many sources...
Members with knowledge, experience, charisma or other leadership traits can emerge to help support and supplement the leadership of the group. The group members' perceptions about leadership are important to consider, however. Teams that are accustomed to high levels of independence will rely on multiple leaders within the group dynamic making contributions, while teams with low levels of independence among members will prefer a single source of strong leadership to guide the team. This is also dependent on the task of the group. In order for group outcomes to reach their potential, the leadership structure of the team must be congruent with the leadership structure best-suited to the type of team, the type of outcome and the type of individuals that comprise the team.
Groups vs. Teams
Groups are comprised of individuals with their own agenda and no common purpose, while teams work together towards a common purpose. Groups are more loosely-organized than teams, which have a higher level of interdependence (Sonoma State University, no date). In most situations, a team will be more effective because the team members support each other in the common goal, improving each others' maximum capabilities. Teams are more effective when the contributions of each member come together to form a whole output, but with a high degree of interdependence (such as developing a video game). Teams can also be more effective at solving complex problems, depending on how they are composed. An example would be determining the best way to launch a new product, which requires input from a number of different production, marketing, finance and distribution elements of the organization. With problems that require complex, multidisciplinary solutions leading to a singular outcome objective, a team will be more effective than an ordinary work group.
Cohen, S. & Bailey, D. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management. Vol. 23 (3) 239-290.
Groysberg, B.; Polzer, J. & Elfenbein, H. (2010). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organizational Science. Published online before print. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0547.
Jung, D. & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups. Small Group Research. Vol. 33 (3) 313-336.
Sonoma State University. (no date).…
) may typically be used in the conduction of the activity; and 3) Activities can be standardized and adapted with a minimum of alteration for use across groups and members so that a common framework can be replicated. (Trotzer, 2004) The main feature of activities are: 1) Technical; and 2) Mechanical and have "...parameters and directions that make them merely tools." (Trotzer, 2004) Categorization of the activities of a group are on the
SOCIAL IDENTITY & TODAY'S FASHION Crane holds that the fashion of today "has several diverse and inconsistent agendas, ranging from representations that echo sadomasochism and pornography to portrayals of women as empowered and androgynous." (2001) According to Crane "...the manner in which people perceive the social structure and conceptualize their identities within it has changed in the course of the twentieth century." (2001) The social identity was perceived by the individual
However, when it comes to health-related issues, I do not believe that subjective personal impressions and feelings can influence one's ethical decision-making. The evidence is clear that smoking is harmful to the smoker, and also to the person who inhales second-hand smoke. Additionally, we were in my parents' home. I know that they have hard and fast rules about smoking on their property. My friend took a different point-of-view: he acquiesced
The subjects were 613 injured Army personnel Military Deployment Services TF Report 13 admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from March 2003 to September 2004 who were capable of completing the screening battery. Soldiers were assessed at approximately one month after injury and were reassessed at four and seven months either by telephone interview or upon return to the hospital for outpatient treatment. Two hundred and forty-three soldiers
Figure 1 portrays three of the scenes 20/20 presented March 15, 2010. Figure 1: Heather, Rachel, and Unnamed Girl in 20/20 Program (adapted from Stossel, 2010). Statement of the Problem For any individual, the death of a family member, friend, parent or sibling may often be overwhelming. For adolescents, the death of person close to them may prove much more traumatic as it can disrupt adolescent development. Diana Mahoney (2008), with the
Employment Discrimination at Wal-Mart Foundation of the Study This study examines the legislative and judicial climate that enables corporations like Wal-Mart to engage in practices that violate workers' rights. The popular consensus is that Wal-Mart, the largest retail store in the United States, displays an inordinate disregard for the human dignity and morale of its employees and, despite continual litigation, continues to blatantly violate the legal rights of its employees. Wal-Mart faces