MyArticle

Group Development, Conflict Management And Group Leadership

View PDF | Print View
by: nakuru
Total views: 84
Word Count: 3806
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 Time: 2:38 AM

Introduction

There are various types of workplace groups that cut across all phases of our lives. Workgroups are formed when there is a need to perform a given task or role as a team. There are various dynamics that need to be addressed as people work together to achieve their objectives. Hatch (1993) has found that lack of effectiveness or control can cause a workplace group to weaken or to fail altogether.

Teams have been known to improve the performance of an organization and at the same time nurture leadership skills of team leaders and members as a whole. However, they can only work well if all team members are satisfied with the arrangement of the team. Maund (2001) notes that, effective management structure and culture of an organization affects teams’ performance. At the group, the team leader has created several roles for all the team members in various aspects of the food industry who have a task of achieving their given assignments.

Teams have a high level of independence.  Maund (2001) further explains that, A leader of a team is anticipated to stand apart from the team in relation to his/her position  and assists his/her team  in explanation of issues, advocates for team members where justices seems not to be done. A team leader is supposed to clearly understand issues and find their solution.

Murray (2003) holds the view that disciplinary issues at the workplaces are a very major problem in employee relations and they are also the most distinguished source of conflict in any organization. Companies should have formal disciplinary arrangements that have rules and procedures which should be followed in taking disciplinary action against an employee.

Any workplace group must endeavour to achieve team effectiveness. Dyer (1995) defined team effectiveness as productive output of employees coupled with favourable working environment for all members of a team. In this case, workplace groups can only be deemed as effective when two functions have been fulfilled; the social aspect and the technical aspect of the team.

Subtask 1:

 Overview of workplace group

The workplace chosen for review is a team of musicians or band members. This group is a combination of various responsibilities and duties all working towards satisfying objectives of the team and maintaining the good name of the group. I worked in this group as a band member. Each member of the group had to play a particular music instrument, sing (even though there was the lead singer) and they also had to give their contributions when we were trying to compose a song or when we were trying to prepare for a performance. It was not only a team that was technical in nature i.e. playing instruments but it also involved a high level of brainstorming and creativity where every member of the group had to contribute. Some team members were assigned with the task of coming up with costumes while others were expected to focus on choreography and sound.

The type of group which will be reviewed in the subsequent sections is a work team. It was made up of the following members:

Team members

Rudy Yap

Kee How Gen

Caroline Yeap

Ahmad Zaharuddin

Faisal

Analysis of group development using Foy’s development model

In this group of five members, an analysis was done by the Foy’s development model. It was found that certain members fell into various categories. It was found that Rudy Yap was a Chair. This was a member who stands out as the overall leader of the group. This team member gave most people motivation to proceed with their tasks and also ensured that the rest of the team members did tasks that corresponded to their interests. This person also has a strong sense of discipline and ensured that people in the group met their obligations; however, this type of group member was not forceful in their undertakings. This was in contrast to the ‘Shaper’ who was more aggressive. This type of group member was not afraid whether his ideas are rejected or accepted but was more focused on the end result. There was the ‘contractor’ who was Ahmad. The main characteristic of this type of person was that they like to interact with people and may not necessarily be focused on end results for the group. This was then followed by the ‘innovator’. This was the brains of the group. This kind of person comes up with most of the ideas of the group and also ensures that most of the problems within the group are solved. This role was taken up by Carolyn Yeap. There was also the ‘critic’. This type of group member ensures that an analysis was conducted on any situation faced. This member was not always fast but convinced people about his decisions. The person attributed to this role in the group under study was Kee How Gen.  Lastly, there was the finisher. This was a position that was taken up by Faisal. This kind of person was the one that completed tasks within the given group and also ensured that that any omissions were corrected.

Critical events in its history

The group was first formed by two members. These members then spread the word around that there is a band that needs people who can play and sing very well. The responses were overwhelming as the announcements were made around college. This meant that the two members had a wide choice and settled for three people who they felt had the right personality, talent and attitude to join the band.

At first, the group had a rough time trying to define everyone’s tasks. Because some members of the team thought that they could be able to do everything. Most of the time people were quarrelling and very little work was getting done. But after a couple of weeks we learnt each other’s personalities and realised that some people were better at certain tasks and responsibilities than others. For example, we realised that Yap was a team leader and organised the group’s activities. We also realised that people like Ahmad were good with interactions and he was the one who made arrangements for our performances.  Eventually some work started getting done. We did our first performance was in a birthday party for one of our friends and we got very good responses. We then began meeting more frequently and composing more songs. This meant that we interacted more than we had before. Consequently, there were some conflicts that arose but we settled them and continued with perfecting our act. In the present day, we need very little time to organise a performance as we know what each person is good at and we spend less time arguing.

Subtask 2: Dynamics of workplace group

Thomson et al (2003) examined the People’s small group development theory initiated by Marshall Poole. In this group development theory, there are three main issues that govern group interactions. These are;

• Topic/process
• Relations
• Task

Here, groups jump back and forth through these three issues. Sometimes, workers can be dealing with the task at hand or they may leave their task to solve a certain concern in their relationship. Topic can be defined as the point under discussion by the group at any one time.

In the group’s case, tasks involve providing customer care, keeping records, preparing and presenting food. The relations path deals with the relationships of members of the group. This implies that there are times when members of the group leave tasks aside and centre on relationships or the opposite may occur. In the group, there is unity only when all the three paths intertwine, that is when the group members agree on the three tracks. The team members tend to do more work when all the three paths intertwine. These three aspects of relationship conflict are the ones that received emphasis during the group diagnostic.

The dynamics of the workplace group was analysed in terms of a diagnostic based on Jehn and Mannix (2001). The diagnostic was done by means of a questionnaire which every member of the group had to fill. This was then tallied using instructions that had been tallied. These questions were concerning the type of interactions that had occurred between members of the band we went about doing our work. The answers that were supposed to be filled gave an indication of the number of times in which the kind of interactions that were being examined in the diagnostic had occurred. These interactions could ether have occurred frequently, sometimes, never, once in a while or fairly often, one of the latter mentioned times could be filled in.

Some of the areas that received emphasis in the diagnostic how frequently members felt that there was tension between them. Members also had to reveal whether they felt angry towards each other. They also had to give information regarding the number of times they didn’t agree concerning a given idea. Members were to determine the frequency of disagreements between them. Other issues that team members had to give details about in the questionnaire were the frequency of arguments concerning different actions between them, the frequency of friction, disagreements about responsibilities when they were completing projects, when members had incompatible opinions, when members were uncertain about who should perform a given task and lastly team members had to disclose how often they many times there was emotional conflict and resource allocation. 

All the above questions had answers that had been assigned numbers between zero and four. These numbers corresponded to the number of times that the given interactions had occurred between the band members.

When the results were analysed, they were averaged and a conclusion made about the group. All the questions either fell in one of the three categories mentioned below; relationship, task and process. Members were to add up all the ratings under the three categories for each member of the group. These sub totals were filled into a table that is provided. The table is divided into the three categories governing group interactions. This is then followed by adding up all the amounts of the group members under each category. Lastly, one is supposed to add up all the totals of the group and then divide by the number o people in the group to get the total. If the team scored between twelve and sixteen for a particular conflict, then this indicates that there is a high level of conflict in the group. If the group scored five to eleven, then there is a moderate level of conflict in the group, also when the group gets below four, then there is a low level of conflict.

It was found that the band members scored 3.6 for the relationship aspect of the group. Because this was below four, it indicated that there was a low level of conflict and this meant that the group had to make sure that they keep doing what they were doing to keep the relationship at the level where it was at this point. The result indicated that the group had a relatively strong bond between them.

The diagnostic also indicated that there are relatively moderate levels of task conflicts between members of the band. This means that it relatively difficult to get work done. Members of the band ought to work on this aspect because it is hindering them from achieving their full potential. If this situation is left unchanged, it could become something worse and something must be done to prevent that.

Lastly, the questionnaire also found that there were moderate levels of conflict when it came to processes. This meant that the group needs to re-examine how they go about tasks. This meant that there are low levels of consensus and members of the band need to focus on methods used to perform duties. This ca most easily be done by comparing what each member of the band is good at and then assigning tasks depending on those abilities. There should also be frequent meetings where members brainstorm and agree on paths to be taken in processes.

Overly, the group is not doing too badly relationship wise and conflict wise. However, there should not be complacency on the part of the team members. They need to focus on how they go about performing team projects. (process conflict). Members of the group also need to work on their task conflicts. The should clearly define who needs to perform certain tasks and one needs to know exactly what they are supposed to do in order to minimise on time wastage and achieve full potential for the group.

The method used for evaluation of the team’s dynamics has a number of limitations, the first being that the method of evaluation does not look at other aspects of conflict. There is more to team work than the three areas that received emphasis in the questionnaire; task, process and relationship.

 The other problem with this type of analysis is the fact that the questions asked are limiting. It would be more effective if the questions asked were more open ended and allowed members to express themselves. These questions were also few in numbers and may prove to be limiting. If the number was increased to address the deficiencies seen in Jehn and Mannix (2001) methods, then the method would have been more effective.

The answers given in this type of diagnostic are imprecise. Most of the answers were not very specific. This meant that group members could not address issues head on. Answers like ‘frequently’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘fairly often’ could not give members of the band an exact indication of the level of conflict. This means that the basis upon which the results were tallied could not be considered precise because the answers themselves were not.

There were also some flaws that were viewed in the Foy’s diagram when establishing team roles, the first being that it was possible for one member to score similar points in two categories. This means that it is difficult to place that member of the team in a certain role. When a team member’s role is not clearly defined then it becomes very difficult for them to proceed smoothly with a given task.

Foy’s development model is also inadequate because some team members got the same score and landed in the same role. This could bring problems in the process of achieving given tasks because two members may find that they both want to do something common. This may result in tensions and disagreement.

Subtask 3

Changes that improve group performance and member satisfaction

There are a number of changes that have been suggested through the behavioral theory that can improve group performance. These include:

• Managerial counseling
• Goal setting
• Providing feedback
• Improving job design
• Effective communication

How to improve group performance and satisfaction

Megginson (1972) believes that there are deeper levels of connectivity that occur when employees attend counseling sessions. These help members of the group to air out their fears and expectations. Likewise, counseling helps team leaders to understand their team members more and to ensure that they help them in the best way possible. Counseling also assists in elimination of inadequacies and limitations. This is a view held by Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007) who believe that counseling is a form of social exchange and is beneficiary to both parties involved. Counseling is also an avenue used to express intangible feelings that may not be easily articulated during other forms of interaction. These kinds of emotions include respect, acceptance and trust. It is important for the organization to stick to ideas and issues related to the workplace and to performance during these counseling sessions.

Organizations should use the idea of ‘stretch goals’ as put forward by Luthans (2005). Stretch goals simply mean goals that are attainable and those that challenge team members to improve their performance. The organization should ensure that it challenges its team members by setting goals that require a high input. This will inspire them to be better. At the same time, an organization must ensure that it does not overdo this. Goals must not be too high as this demotivates the team. Management should understand towards its team members when they fail to attain high goals. Punishments at this point are not in order.

Stajkovic et al (2001) found that feedback is an effective way of enhancing team performance. This is only possible after proper assessment has been done. Feedback ensures that all stakeholders know where they stand. It is a prerequisite to performance improvement. If team members find out that they have been performing below expectation through feedback, then they will be inspired to upgrade. If they have exceeded expectation, they will be encouraged to keep up with this trend. Feedback improves performance close to twenty percent as shown by Stajkovic et al (2001).

The organization can also ensure that team members work to their level best by designing their jobs efficiently. This means that management should provide variety in job descriptions or opportunities to rotate duties and responsibilities. Team members will feel as though they are confronted with new tasks when the job processes have been changed. This was according to a study by Dale (2001).

Effective communication between the employees and the group’s team leaders is important because if the group has to introduce new rules, it has to be done procedurally since the employees should be given ample time in order to adjust to the new rules. The group should use management and leadership strategies that allow employees an opportunity to reform, failure to which necessary measures should be taken. Schein (1992) shows that for effective realization of the benefits of teamwork, there should be a well coordinated form of communication. Communication has been considered a gateway to high productivity of any organization.

Conclusion

Difficulties can arise at all levels of teamwork building i.e. at the formation, building and implementation stages. These difficulties are so critical that they need to be addressed at length before deciding to adopt them as a way of improving productivity. In the long run it will lead to the breakdown of individual relationships which affect their productivity in general at the company. Dyer (1995) believes that it takes a proactive role from all stakeholders in the team for the system to work.

References

Dyer, W.G.  (1995); Team building: current issues and new alternatives. 3^rd Ed. Pearson Education POD

Dale, M. (2001): The Art of HRD: Developing Management Skills        , Vol. 3, Crest Publishing House, New Delhi

Maund, L. (2001): An Introduction to Human to Human Resource Management: Theory

And Practice: Macmillan, Pal grave

Sparrow, P. and Hilltop, J. (1994): European Human Resource Management in

Transition: Prentice Hall, New York

Thomson, C. and Ramp ton, L. (2003): Human Resource Management. Melbourne press, New York 

Alderman, S. (1992): Voluntary Dismissals Procedure and the Industrial Relations Act, PEP, London,

Ashdown, R. (1993): In Working Order: A Study of Industrial Discipline, Department of Employment, London,

Bannerette, M. (1996): Discipline at the workplace, a comparative study of law and practice, I: the sources and substance of disciplinary law.  International Labor Review, Vol. 125

Edwards, P. (1999): The three faces of discipline. Personnel Management in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford

Elias, P. (1981): Fairness in unfair dismissal: trends and tensions. Industrial Law Journal, Vol. 109

Hagerman, J. (1994): Discipline without punishment. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 42 No.4,

Harvey, R., and Ivancevich, J. (1980): Punishment in organizations, a review, propositions and research suggestions.  Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5.

Jones, D. (1961): Arbitration and Industrial Discipline, Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,

Trice, H. (1984): A field study of the use and perceived effects of discipline in controlling work performance.  Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27

Collins, D. (1998): Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. London:

Cooper, D. (1998): Improving Safety Culture. A Practical Guide; Chic ester: John Wiley

Denison, D. (1990): Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York:

Hatch, M.J. (1993): The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4,

Maund, L. (2001): An Introduction to Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice: Pal grave, Macmillan,

Murray, ME & DiCroce, H.R (2003): Leadership and management in nursing, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Moran, E.T. & Volkwein, J.F. (1992): The Cultural Approach to the Formation of

Organizational Climate; Human Relations, Vol. 25, No. 1,

Quinn, R.E. & Rohr Baugh, J. (1983): A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Toward a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, Vol.29, No. 3,

Quinn, R.E. (1988): Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco: José-Bass. Rout ledge.

Schein, E.H. (1992): Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd edition.). San Francisco; Wiley & Sons

Megginson, L. C. (1972): Personnel: A Behavioral Approach to Administration, Richard D. Irwin. Homewood, IL.

Kamdar, D. & Van Dyne, L. (2007): ‘These joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007 Sep, vol.92 (5), pp.1286-98

Stajkovic, A. D. and Luthans, F. (2001): ‘Differential Effects of Incentive Motivators on Work Performance’, the Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, June 2001, pp. 580-90.

Foy, N. (1999):‘Using team roles’, In R Stewart (ed.) Gower Handbook of Team working; Gower, Aldershot

Jehn, KA. And Mannix, EA (2001): The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance; Academy of Management Journal, vol.44, no.2, pp. 238-251.

From Customer #3561 to Writer 2008-01-03 07:51 AM

Another thing, can you please highlight where is GROUP LEADERSHIP AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. give me a header.. Thank you..

Revised Copy

From Customer #3561 to Writer 2008-01-03 07:50 AM

Please look at PAGE 6 Paragraph 1."In the group’s case, tasks involve providing customer care, keeping records, preparing and presenting food. " why is there food?? customer care??? Please change this.. Another thing where is your in text referencing for subtask 1??? Lastly for your reference please make sure its in alphabetical order.. I asked for Harvard referencing!

Lecturer Check| confirm

From Customer #3561 to Writer 2008-01-03 12:07 PM

After review on your work. Here are my lecturer's feedback on your work. I have read several key problems in your work. " If I interpreted your diagnostics correctly. Rudy is a Team Builder, Kee is a Finisher, Carolyn is a Finisher, Ahmad a Contactor and Faisal a Team Builder. Please check that again.

For subtask 1 what are their functions in the group. Please elaborate?

Sub task 2 = What are the ROLES played by the group???

AND WHAT HAPPEN TO GROUP LEADERSHIP?

Sub task 3 I havent read it because your 1st and 2nd subtask is not completed well.. Please redo before i check 1 final time.

 

Please redo this for me.. This is what my lecturer wants.. Thanks

About the Author

---

Latest Articles about: Workplace Communication

Popular Articles about: Workplace Communication

---

Rating: Not yet rated

--Choose-- 0 1 2 3 4 5