GROUPS AND TEAMS:Why Groups Are Formed, Forming, Storming

<< POLITICS:Sources of Politics in Organizations, Final Word about Power

DYSFUNCTIONS OF GROUPS:Norm Violation, Group Think, Risky Shift >>

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

LESSON 36

GROUPS AND TEAMS

A group is a team of people, who are motivated to join, perceive each other as members and interact with

each other. A group may also be defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who

have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. By formal

groups, we mean those defined by the organization's structure, with designated work assignments

establishing tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors that one should engage in are stipulated by and directed

toward organizational goals. The three members making up an airline flight crew are an example of a formal

group. In contrast, informal groups are alliances that are neither formally structured nor organizationally

determined. These groups are natural formations in the work environment that appear in response to the

need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly eat lunch together are

an example of an informal group.

Why Groups Are Formed

Following are some of the reason for the formation of groups:

· Propinquity-spatial/geographical proximity

Groups may be formed due to the geographical nearness of individuals. For example, students living in

the same hostel room may form a group or people having desks close to each other in the office may

get together as an informal group.

· Common activities, interactions, sentiments

Groups may form due to the common activities of individuals. When people go together for lunch in

the organization, they interact with each other and share the sentiments. This sharing of sentiments and

interaction between individuals results in the formation of a group.

· Balance theory, similar ideas, attitudes

Balance theory suggests that groups form due the sharing of similar ideas and attitudes by people.

When people have similar ides and think alike, they tend to gel together. For example, religion,

lifestyles, work, etc. all can be sources or similarity and therefore group formation.

· Exchange theory

Exchange theory is based on the reward-cost outcomes of interaction. When people find some sort of a

reward from interaction with others, they tend to be together which results in formation of groups.

· Economic security/social needs

By joining a group, individuals can reduce the insecurity of standing alone. People feel stronger, have

fewer self-doubts, and are more resistant to threats when they are part of a group.

Stages of Group Development

From the mid-1960s, it was believed groups pass through a standard sequence of five stages. These five

stages have been labeled forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

Forming

The first stage, forming, is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the group's purpose, structure,

and leadership. Members are testing the waters to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable. This

stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a group.

Storming

The storming stage is one of intra-group conflict. Members accept the existence of the group, but resist the

constraints the group imposes on individuality. Further, there is conflict over who will control the group.

When this stage is complete, a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership exists within the group.

Norming

This third stage is one in which close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohesiveness. There

is now a strong sense of group structure identity and camaraderie. This norming stage is complete when the

group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common set of expectations of what defines

correct member behavior.

Performing

The fourth stage is performing. The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Group energy

has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing the task at hand. For permanent

124

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

work groups, performing is the last stage in their development. However, for temporary committees, teams,

task forces, and similar groups that have limited tasks to perform, there is an adjourning stage.

Adjourning

In this stage, the group prepares for its disbandment. High task performance is no longer the group's top

priority. Instead, attention is directed toward wrapping up activities. Responses of group members vary in

this stage. Some are upbeat, basking in the group's accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss

camaraderie and friendships gained during the work group's life.

Types of Groups

Following are some types of groups in addition to formal and informal groups discussed above:

1. Primary groups: These are groups in which members have face to face interaction. For example, a

family, group of friends, etc.

2. In group: It I the group to which an individual feels, he or she belongs. For example, his friends, his

organization, etc.

3. Out group: It is the group which his opposing the primary group.

4. Reference group: It is the group to which a person yearns to belong to. For example, a group of high

achievers, a project team working on an important assignment, etc.

Group Dynamics

The performance of any group is affected by several factors other than its reasons for forming and stages of

its development. In a high-performing group, a group synergy often develops in which the group's

performance is more than the sum of the individual contributions of its members. Several additional factors

may also account for this accelerated performance.

In order to understand group dynamics, three studies need to be viewed:

Hawthorne Studies

Hawthorne studies were undertaken at the Western Electric Company's Hawthorne Works in Cicero,

Illinois. These studies, originally begun in 1924 but eventually expanded and carried on through 1930s, were

initially devised by Western Electric industrial engineers to examine the effect of various illumination levels

on worker productivity. Control and experimental groups were established. Later the engineers asked

Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his associates in 1927 to join the study as consultants.

Mayo's conclusion were that behavior and sentiments are closely related, group influences significantly

affect the individual behavior, group standards establish individual worker output and money is less a factor

in determining output than group standards, group sentiments and security. These conclusions lead to a

new emphasis on human factor in the functioning of organizations and the attainment of their goals.

Stanley Schachter Study

The classic study by Schachter showed the relationship between cohesiveness, induction and productivity.

Cohesiveness was defined as the average resultant force acting on members in a group. Induction on the

other hand is supervision. In other words, it refers to how group members are induced. The Shachter

studies showed the following results:

Cohesion

Induction

Productivity

Lowest

· In the first case, cohesion and induction are both hi, i.e. the group is quite powerful and productivity

can be expected to be hi as well.

· In the second instance, cohesion is low while induction is high but it still results in hi productivity.

Therefore, in a group where cohesion between members is lo, good supervision can increase

productivity.

· In the third instance, the result of lo productivity is obvious since induction and supervision are both lo.

· In the last case, cohesion is hi while supervision is lo. It results in lowest productivity which apparently

is an anomaly. It happens because the members of the group spend time chatting with each other rather

than concentrating on their work. Therefore, the productivity is greatly reduced.

125

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

Andrew Szilagyi and Marc Wallace Study

Studies by Andrew Szilagyi and Marc Wallace showed factors that influence cohesiveness in groups. These

factors are:

· Agreement on group goals: If all members of the group agree on the goals unanimously and

completely, the cohesion amongst them is expected to be high since they all would share common

thoughts, ideas and beliefs.

· Frequency of interaction: Frequency of interaction between group members also affects cohesion;

higher the frequency, the greater the chance of members of the group to share their sentiments and

understand each other. This shall increase cohesion.

· Inter-group competition: Competition between groups causes members of the competing groups to

unite and face the other groups. This is also a source of cohesion between group members.

Group Effectiveness

Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use for determining

effectiveness. In terms of accuracy, group decisions tend to be more accurate. The evidence indicates that,

on the average, groups make better quality decisions as compared to individuals. If creativity is important,

groups tend to be more creative overall. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final

solution achieves, the nod again goes to the group. Effectiveness of groups depends on the following

factors:

· Task interdependence: It refers to how closely members have to work to finish a task. In other

words, how much the members feel that their performance and task completion is dependent on the

performance or task completion of other members in the group.

· Outcome interdependence: It refers to how much the members perceive rewards and punishments

being related to cooperation or non-cooperation.

· Shared dreams: If the members of the group have a similar vision and agree upon the same, they are

likely to make the group more effective.

· Trusting and Leaders: A trust on the leader and his ability to steer the group through difficult times is

important for the group to be effective.

· Realize the importance of task: In order to the effective, the members of the group should realize

the importance of their task in the overall performance of the group.

· Group members' perceptions of fairness of their goals: If the group members do not perceive the

goals for the group to be fair or legitimate or good for the organization, there is a likelihood of lack of

effectiveness of the group.

REFERENCES

· Luthans, Fred. (2005). Organizational Behaviour (Tenth Edition). United States: McGraw Hill Irwin.

· Mejia, Gomez. Balkin, David & Cardy, Rober. (2006). Managing Human Resources (Fourth Edition).

India: Dorling Kidersley Pvt. Ltd., licensee of Pearson Education in South Asia.

· Robbins, P., Stephen. (1996). Organizational Behaviour (Seventh Edition). India: Prentice Hall, Delhi.

· Huczynski, Andrzej & Buchanan, David. (1991). Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text

(Second Edition). Prentice Hall. New York.

· Moorhead, Gregory & Griffin, Ricky. (2001). Organizational Behaviour (First Edition). A.I.T.B.S.

Publishers & Distributors. Delhi.

FURTHER READING

· Groups, Teams and Effectiveness:

www.csupomona.edu/~wcweber/301/301slide/ch14301/index.htm

· Groups versus Teams: www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/6jan2118j2.htm

· Groups and Teams: Richard Field, Management and Information Science:

www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/Groups%20and%20Teams.htm

· Hawthorne Studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_studies

· About Stanely Schacter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Schacter

· About Mark Wallace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Wallace

126

Table of Contents: