Organizational Behavior the Relevance of Understanding Group

Organizational Behavior

The relevance of understanding group behavior as well as group properties cannot be overstated. This is more so the case for those keen on becoming effective managers and/or members of various groups. Managers who happen to be familiar with group behavior within organizations are more likely to fast track the accomplishment of the various goals and objectives of their respective organizations by amongst other things using groups more effectively.

Nature of Groups and Group Behavior within Organizations

Key Definitions

A group according to Griffin and Moorhead (2011, p.240) "is two or more people who interact with one another such that each person influences and is influenced by each other person." It is however important to note that apart from this definition, several other definitions of a group have been proposed by various authors.

Types of Groups

In basic terms, groups can be divided into two. On one hand are formal groups and on the other, informal groups. Formal groups according to Griffin and Moorhead (2011) are established by an entity for the performance of the said entity's duties or work. On the other hand, informal groups in the opinion of the authors "are formed by their members and consist of friendship groups, which are relatively permanent and interest groups, which may be shorter lived" (Griffin and Moorhead 2011, p.243). The key distinguishing factor between informal and formal groups is that while formal groups are established by the organization in question, informal groups are rather spontaneous. In that regard, the various roles members of formal groups perform are largely predetermined. Roles in informal groups are dependent on members' interactions.

2.3 Stages of Group Development

Group development takes time and in most cases, groups pass through a number of phases before addressing the purpose of their formation and consequently adjourning. In this section, I will address the various stages of group development identified by Tucker. According to Martin (2005), Tucker originally came up with four basic stages and later on teamed up with Jensen to add the fifth stage.

2.3.1 Forming

This is the first stage of group development according to Martin (2005). In addition to getting to know each other, members of the group in this particular stage also seek to familiarize themselves with the task (s) at hand. Roles and hierarchy also begin to be defined during this stage.

2.3.2 Storming

According to Martin (2005), this stage marks the emergence of a formal structure. This stage is also often characterized by both conflict and competition as the confidence of group members begins to increase and as group members begin to present their own agenda to the group. As Martin (2005, p.233) points out, "if successfully handled, this stage leads to a more focused group…"

2.3.3 Norming

Cohesion is the main characteristic of this stage of group development. The stage in the words of Martin (2005, p.233) also "reflects the process of establishing the norms to be operated within the group."

2.3.4 Performing

It is during this stage that the group reaches its peak in regard to its effectiveness in addressing its various objectives. Not all groups are lucky enough to reach this stage though. As Martin (2005) points out, a group in this stage of development can be regarded mature.

2.3.5 Adjourning

This is the stage in which the group is broken-up, disbanded or 'unformed' after the accomplishment of the task which informed its formation in the first place (Martin, 2005).

2.4 Group Norms

A norm in the words of Griffin and Moorhead (2011, p.249), "is a standard against which the appropriateness of a behavior is judged." In that regard, norms in a group setting come in handy in the maintenance of consistency in behavior. Most groups use norms to control their groups and hence the relevance of norms when it comes to enhancing the viability of a team as a unit cannot be overstated.

2.5 Groupthink

This is yet another important factor to consider because of the impact it could have on group decision making. Groupthink is defined by Martin (2005, p.267) as the "tendency of a strongly cohesive group to emphasize unity at the expense of critical evaluation of problems and options." Groupthink could have a number of negative effects including but not limited to poor quality of decisions, loss of individuality and independence, and confusion.

3. Factors that may Promote or Inhibit the Development of Effective Teamwork in Organizations

The development of effective teamwork can be promoted or inhibited by a number of factors. These factors include:

3.1 Trust

According to Hellriegel and Slocum (2007), the effectiveness of a team can be hampered by the lack of trust amongst team members. According to the author, in the absence of trust, team members could conceal their mistakes and weaknesses, fail to seek assistance where appropriate, jump into hasty conclusions, etc. All these factors could hamper team effectiveness. Thus the relevance of building trust amongst team members cannot be overstated when it comes to the enhancement of team effectiveness.

3.2 Team Size

Hellriegel and Slocum (2007) recommend that teams have between three and sixteen members for maximum effectiveness. It is however important to note that a few exceptions may exist in this case. A team with very many members could face coordination challenges hence limiting its effectiveness.

3.3 Team Diversity

Having a team with people possessing different skills and capabilities could in a way enhance the effectiveness of any given team. This is more so the case given that members in this particular case could seek to complement the knowledge, skills, and capabilities of each other. In most cases however, diversity according to Hellriegel and Slocum (2007) is viewed negatively. In regard to team effectiveness, the secret lies in making diversity work for the team rather than against it.

3.4 Clarity of Goals and Objectives

Clear goals and objectives also do enhance the effectiveness of a team. Teams having well articulated goals know what is expected of them and therefore approach the issues at hand from an informed point.

3.5 Communication

Effective communication is also a critical constituent of team effectiveness. The coordination of efforts can only take place once team members cooperate and communicate effectively with each other.