Managing Group Dynamics - Essay Example

Managing Group Dynamics Introduction Numerous of the issues and problems of group life can be addressed in either of these two ways, by providing information and recommendation or by creating opportunities wherein direct and individual experience itself discloses meaning and proposes resolution (Linstead & Lilley 2004). The first responses can address the situation but could avoid or overlook what is actually happening. On the contrary the third response attempts to guide the questioner into his/her own experience and engage him/her in the actual nature of his/her right or need to know; from this knowledge and experience of incidents may arise meaning and more appropriate means of dealing with situations in group (Mullins 2005). Basically this is the core premise and assumption supported in this paper: that it is favourable, more civil, and more ingenious to engage the entire individual in question and interaction and makes a lot of sense to engage the group in its own learning, development, and resolution (Benson 2001). For the purposes of this paper, group work practice denotes the well-organised, conscious, and methodical application of understanding about the mechanisms of collective human interaction, so as to get involved in a knowledgeable manner, or advance some wanted goal in a group context (Luthans 2005). Group work is a creative, healthy, and productive experience, performed based on open agreements, explicitly practised and clearly attained, about the task and goal of the group, responsibilities, rights of members (Greenberg 2000). Therefore, in order to address the premises of this paper various literature on managing organisational behaviour and group dynamics are used. Group Formation It is evident that group situations evolve as an outcome of the energy produced by devotion and motivation divergences in the group. Exploring and understanding the adjustment in situations is an essential capability of group work practice (Mullins 2005). By observing the fluctuation in situation and determining the patterns and premises of behaviour, interaction, and relationship, it is possible to discern what needs or demands exist in the group at any specified time, and allow intervention to arise out of the given group condition (Robbins 2004). Tuckman, Garland, and his associates along with several scholars assume a sequential or linear progression in group development. This academic and systematic demarcation of group dynamics can be unknown to the experience of several novice group members as they analyse the evident disorder and uncertainty of their own groups (Bloisi 2003). Groups obviously do not merely progress in sequence through orderly stages, but also move forwards, sideways, and backwards (Linstead & Lilley 2004). Each group diverges in the amount of time it uses in a given phase of development and some groups can never advance beyond a particular phase (Mullins 2005). The three-stage design of Schutz makes progress towards enabling retrograde and lateral growth. Schutz assumes three sequential stages but he does promote the concept of spiralling and circularity. In simpler terms a group can repeat and reverse cycles and can progress by actually going back through phases and even by repeating the same actions (Benson 2001). The first phase of group development is, as claimed by Schutz, the ‘inclusion’ stage. Inclusion behaviour connotes the need to relate to and socialise with other individuals, to desire communication and relationship (Bloisi 2003). This is a phase when members of the group are becoming familiar with each other and becoming accustomed to the group. There is much confusion, anxiety, and mobility (Bloisi 2003). Members are appraising and investigating each other for shared interests, searching for possibilities and initiating some initial coupling; Tuckman views testing, orientation, and the building of reliance relationships by members of the group as the main feature of this stage (Benson 2001). When the setback of inclusion has been agreeably resolved, Schutz proposes that ‘control’ problems become important (Mullins 2005). Control behaviour is the forceful and self-determining activity of members of the group in the domains of status, influence, power, authority, communication, and decision-making and would be comparable to motivation premise in use (Greenberg 2000). When the group has embarked on forming it begins to differentiate and build a social hierarchy. Individuals take or are attributed roles and tasks, ranks and positions. Groups form and groupings are made (Greenberg 2000). Members usually contend against the formal authority entrusted in the group worker. On occasions this is an endeavour to discern the level of control they have and the extent of control the worker has over occurrences in the group (Linstead & Lilley 2004). On other occasions the examining of the worker is an exercise on boundary setting, an attempt to discern permissible and impermissible practices in the group (Linstead & Lilley 2004). Members also run counter to the worker as a means of building his capability, guaranteeing that he can be relied upon, can be trusted, and can sustain control (Luthans 2005). In line with these rules of transformation the motivation forces of the group subside and devotion forces begin to prevail. These devotion forces function on a higher level than the devotion forces of the previous inclusion phase (Benson 2001). Whilst the inclusion phase is about the choice to become a member of a group or not, this ‘affection’ phase as Schutz refers to it, is about developing emotional relationships and deciding on the level of familiarity to be developed with the other members of the group (Benson 2001). In this phase involvement and participation improve and members are more responsive to each other. There is a sense of pulling together and identity (Mullins 2005). Benefits of Knowledge of Group Formation to Team Managers It is essential to managing or leading group process to distinguish what type of group is being dealt with. The term ‘team’ has engulfed people’s perception of what makes up a group. Not all groups are teams, even though lots of managers view every group that way (Mowday & Sutton 1993). In truth, teams in the actual sense are not essentially suitable for all task accomplished by groups (Robbins 2004). Group formation is different from team formation, in which the latter is more difficult than the former. As claimed by Tuckman and colleagues, the success of group formation is usually measured by the final outcome (Bloisi 2003), whilst the success of team formation is usually measured by the effectiveness of the processes used to achieve the final outcome (Luthans 2005). Hence anyone who aims to manage or lead group process should make a delineation of what type of construct is most appropriate for the issue at hand. Group constructs can be categorised into three: teams, work groups, and fusion that integrate both. As claimed by Schutz, each of these constructs has a number of unique features (Robbins 2004). This paper supports the idea that groups have been present for a very long time-- that individuals in group life have been using up much of their working hours gathering in groups. It also looks like that the increasing difficulty of doing business in the contemporary period will only heighten the need for well-formed and productive groups (Linstead & Lilley 2004). Hence team managers should concentrate on the reality that all groups are not automatically teams, nor do all activities necessitate team training for successful performance. A major factor that influences the nature of group process is the network of communication that is present within any particular group (Bloisi 2003). Regardless of the manner they are formed, the core assumption is that when they are successfully managed, efficiently functioning groups will generate far more agreeable outcomes than a person working on the same assignment (Greenberg 2000). The role of the manager then is to make decisions concerning the kinds of group formations s/he wants applied for specific issues or problems. Managers, in addition, have the obligation to determine and sustain the environment of the groups that function in his/her division. When chances are granted for open and free talks, people have a tendency to feel more personal fulfilment and are usually more creative (Luthans 2005). Managers who are successful in building trusting, sincere interactions between individuals and a high degree of unity among members can keep conflict and disagreement in control. Application of Theory using Previous Experience Based on the author’s experience working with different groups and on the theories by Tuckman and colleagues, and Schutz, the first step in managing group process is full recognition by the manager of the power of his/her authority or power to influence cohesiveness in a group or mediate in group work. Group cohesiveness is one of the best components of group success (Mowday & Sutton 1993). There should be no endeavour to falsify or refute this. The group manager should assert his/her authority in order to send authoritative messages about the members’ relationship with each other in the group and the task at hand, due to the fact that, as argued by Schutz (Benson 2001), group cohesiveness begins with people who hold powerful and well-built leadership positions (Mullins 2005). Sadly a lot of group managers have not resolved their own sentiments and outlooks toward authority and give off ambivalent or inconsistent messages about themselves as managers or leaders. The outcome is to perplex members of the group, create lack of confidence, doubt, and fear that the manager cannot be depended upon in times of crisis. According to Schutz, hesitance or denial by the group manager to provide guidance to act on his/her power can be extremely harmful at crucial phases of change when the group justly look to the manager for headship, support, and organisation (Benson 2001). Quite often when looking back at the reason a certain group came to be an indifferent and chaotic experience for individuals, the author have discovered that the causes lie in the vacuum formed by a manager not fulfilling the obligations and responsibility of his/her power and failing to give the group a sense of cohesion or unity. The next step is for the manager to choose a framework of group work which will facilitate his/her thoughts and understanding of group behaviour, recommend leadership style, programme, and interventions (Robbins 2004). According to Tuckman and colleagues, choice of a group work framework should be connected to the objectives of the group, needs of members and the personality and belief of the manager (Linstead & Lilley 2004). At this phase it is then plausible to begin to decide on a leadership style which will promote group cohesiveness or unity. Conclusion Managing group process necessitates building an environment that encourages an extent of reliance on the group. This reliance on the group allows group members to influence or persuade one another more successfully. The fusion of personal dedication to the goals of the group, reliance on the group, and the power of the group over group members is what generates constructive group environment. Under these contexts, groups perform more efficiently than those groups with little unity. Ultimately, not merely do individuals observe higher fulfilment, but the groups themselves become more creative and efficient. References Benson, J. (2001) Working More Creatively with Groups, London: Routledge. Bloisi, W. (2003) Management and Organisational Behaviour, McGraw-ill: New York. Greenberg, J. (2000) Behaviour in Organisations, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Linstead, S. & Lilley, S. (2004) Management and Organisation, UK: Palgrave. Luthans, F. (2005) Organisational Behaviour, New York: McGraw-Hill. Mowday, R. & Sutton, R.I. (1993) Organisational Behaviour: Linking Individuals and Groups to Organisational Contexts, Annual Review of Psychology , 195+. Mullins, L. (2005) Management and Organisational Behaviour, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall . Robbins, S. (2004) Organisational Behaviour, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Read More