Conflict resolution and high-performance team dynamics in organizations

Group Dynamics

Week 4 DQ 1. Recently, a conflict came about in on a business trip. The conflict related to plans that were supposed to have been made, but were not. Clear lines of responsibility were not drawn, and the task was simply not done. The conflict became personal. Ultimately, the conflict was resolved the same day. The conflict arose because of a crisis. The resolution came about from the resolution of the initial crisis. This allowed the group leader to soothe the emotional damage to the parties involved. By tackling one issue at a time (solving the problem, then dealing with the damage) the leader was able to successfully manage the conflict. This accommodation strategy was the right one for this conflict, but future conflicts may require different solutions.

DQ2. Creative thinking in groups can be enhanced through exercises to job creativity. Taking people out of their comfort zone may force them to utilize new methods of thinking, or ones that they are not accustomed to using.

The organization can place barriers that limit creativity, such as procedures and chains of command. The organization's culture can also be a barrier to creativity, in particular if creativity is generally discouraged. Rules and regulations can also be a barrier as can explicit systems for problem-solving.

Controversy can lead to the need to make a decision, and this in turn can result in increased creativity as people are forced into taking the steps necessary to find solutions to their problems.

Week 5 DQ1. One of the most important cultural differences between a team and non-team environment is that the team environment has elements of interdependency, a higher need for communication, and there are ongoing relationships that need to be fostered and built. A high performance team is one that share the following essential elements not normally present in ordinary teams: shared vision, strong time orientation, strong communication skills, a zone of concern, a consistent reviewing of quality, the involvement of the entire team, self-directed work and a willingness to celebrate success. The environment is one where not only is the course of change determined but that change is also implemented, so the team typically has an environment focused on trust, support and respect.

Week 5 DQ2. I agree with this statement. I believe that the common vision is essential to the success of any team because it allows and compels the team members to be accountable to each other. The common purpose ensures that the team members are oriented towards the team's outcomes rather than their own personal outcomes. The High Performance Team website shows that trust, respect and support are critical team elements. The common purpose is what drives team members to show support and to build trust and respect -- they are all on relatively equal terms working towards a common objective.

Final Paper

This paper will examine the fundamentals of group dynamics and will argue that understanding group dynamics is a critical element to achieving the highest level of group output. It is important to understand group dynamics in today's business world because of two main factors. One of these is the importance of group work today. It is inevitable that workers and companies will need to work collaboratively either within their own organization or with other organizations. This introduces the group dynamic to the workplace. It is critical, therefore, that today's managers understand the ways in which groups work so that they can build teams that are able to leverage the unique capabilities of the team and achieve success. The other reason why it is important to understand group dynamics is because of the high level of specialization that we see in business today. Both individuals and organizations have become highly specialized, a concept that derives from the theory of comparative advantage. In order to achieve a higher level of outcome, groups and organizations must utilize the skills of a large number of individuals. Managing this process effectively requires a strong understanding of group dynamics, so that each member's contribution to the group's output can not only be maximized on an individual level, but can maximize the group's output overall.

It is this element -- the interdependence of group members -- that is the most difficult and the most important to manage effectively. If each group member worked independently, the individual outputs might be optimized, but they might not deliver a total group output that is maximized. By introducing systems of mutual support, group members can become more oriented towards group outputs rather than individual ones. It is the support that can raise the level of individual outputs by providing expertise and resources to a worker that, if they were not provided, might have reduced that worker's output level. The combined output given a system of mutual support is likely to be higher than the combined output without mutual support. This renders the team members dependent on one another for the achievement of the highest levels of output.

It is said that some research regarding group dynamics is not always relevant or valid because each group has its own dynamic, defined by its purpose, its composition and its resources. However, group theory has identified some key elements of group success that are near-universal and it is on those elements that this paper will focus.

Group Cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness can be understood as the degree to which the group works towards the common purpose. Group cohesiveness is important because it is what allows the group to achieve superior outcomes to individual performers. Interdependency is critical to building group cohesiveness, as is attention to the psychosocial elements of group behavior. Transformational leaders, for example, are able to realign followers' values to create a more cohesive group, allowing for an improvement in group effectiveness (Jung & Sosik, 2002).

Cohesive forces change group processes by increasing interdependency among group members and compelling greater trust and respect within the group. 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

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.

Leadership

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 of power and influence within the group dynamic -- formal leadership status is just one. 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.

Works Cited:

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). Working in teams. Bused.org. Retrieved September 18, 2010 from http://www.bused.org/rsabe/rsabe10.pdf