Group Dynamics
Sunflower Foods is a medium sized manufacturing plant. The factory produces a wide range of bakery related items that are sold in large supermarket chains throughout the country. In the factory the organisation currently employees approximately 65 full-time staff and will have on-staff between 10 and 30 casual employees that it sources from a labour-hire company. There are 8 supervisors (promoted from the frontline with limited leadership experience). This part of the business would be described as blue-collar workers).
The business has identified its internal culture and low staff morale and motivation as a key area requiring attention. After attending an MBA program the CEO believes a team-based structure may help improve the motivation and morale of staff and ultimately drive-up productivity.
In your position as Head of Human Capital you have been asked to explore the idea and provide a report back to the CEO that covers three main themes.
The structure of organizational cultures of organizations differs depending on the corporate model of culture that organization adopts. In spite of different approaches of organizational cultures, they all address matters of self-actualization, avoidance of culture, collegial, and power culture. Over the recent past, the approach organizational culture has been evolving, with most organizations shifting from a hierarchy-based to a team-based organizational culture (Alvesson 2016, p.186). This paper explores the concept and theories of team-based organizational culture with the aim of presenting facts, advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations to Sunflower Food Company, to motivate its employees and adopt a team-based organizational culture effectively. The paper emphasizes on a number of team-based concepts including Group Dynamics, Belbin Team Role Preference, Group Cohesion, Social Loafing, Group Decision-Making, and group dysfunctional norms.
Group Structure and Size
According to Cole (2018), effective group performance is underpinned on the composition and size of the group. At minimum, a group should consist of at least two persons. Larger groups are prone to conflicts due to few opportunities that strengthen social relationships and limited opportunity for individual recognition. Haynes (2012) asserts that individual capability and performance must be taken into consideration when forming a group. Sunflower Food must evaluate the number of people required to ensure that the salient skill-sets for performance are incorporated.
Another significant component of group dynamics is the concept of diversification (Levi 2017, p.273). A group should have people from diverse cultures to meet organizational needs. Diversification in groups may however slowdown performance due to language and cultural differences. Nevertheless, diverse groups are more efficient and more creative in problem solving since members can access solution variety of ideas.
Belbin Team Role Preference
Group Development
Levi (2017) argues that the selection of individuals to a group on the basis diversity, expertise, or compatibility is not adequate to guarantee effectiveness of the group towards achieving the organizational goals. If anything, a group is just a collection of different characteristics, personalities, influences, and needs. Therefore, effectiveness of the group necessitates the members to take time and acclimatize to the task, environment, and to fellow members. Organizational theorists agree that group development must go through five distinct stages to reach maximum performance. These stages include “forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning” (Haynes 2012, p.40)
The first stage of development is forming. During this stage, members familiarize with each other and the underlying tasks. Storming is the second stage of group development. Group conflict and criticism are common at this stage. Some of the issues that surface as members take tasks include “identification of roles and responsibilities, operational rules and procedures, individual need for recognition of his or skills and abilities” (Cole, 2018, p.192). Haynes (2012) refers to this stage as counter-dependent stage because members tend to take on each other in search identity. This stage is very challenging, particularly if the group is deficient in skills and ability to clarify their tasks, reach an agreement, and make decisions on how to undertake the task.
Stage 4 is norming. At this point, group members begin to resolve their differences that create conflict and start to build their social agreements. Additionally, members begin to embrace interdependence, build strong cohesion, and agree on group standards that will facilitate the accomplishment of their goals. The next stage is performing. Once the group has “sorted out its social structure and understands its goals and individual roles,” members will then focus on accomplishing their tasks. The stage is themed by creativity and mutual assistance (Cole 2018, p. 206). At this stage, the group senses its maturity and then embraces being independent by relying on its own resources. The final stage is adjourning. During this period, the group undertakes closure activities like rituals or rites that are suitable for the event. Some of these may include ceremonies for accomplishing the task.
Belbin Team Role Preference
The Belbin Team Role Preference is one of the theory that is preeminent in the concept of group dynamics. The theory sits on a nine-legged stool of roles that are perceived to promote interrelationship within the group and predict the teams that are likely to succeed in accomplishing a given task. Management theorists have endorsed Belbin Team Role Preference since it enables individuals to understand why they prefer certain tasks and disfavour others. More importantly, by conceptualizing Belbin concept makes it easy to bring together a mix of team members for specific tasks and projects. The typology roles identified in the theory include Implementer, Shaper, Resource Investigator, Specialist, Team worker, Plant, Monitor Evaluator, and Completer Finisher (Belbin 2014, p. 6).
Belbin (2014) described Implementer as people who are conservative, practical, systematic, efficient, and stable. Implementers are self-disciplined and down to earth. Their main role in the group is to convert theoretical concepts into practical brief. However, Implementers are somewhat inflexible and rigid to change. Mangers that are implementers should strive to balance between perseverance and adaptability in order to perform their tasks effectively. In addition, their focus should be on their strength to clarify objectives in practical terms.
Coordinators are quintessentially confident, calm, positive, extrovert, and mature in approach (Omar et al. 2016, p. 8). They focus on the entire team and individual commitment towards accomplishing the team goals. Coordinators help the team with controlling and organizing the team to achieve the best group performance by utilizing the available resources. However, coordinators can be manipulative and less creative. Coordinating managers should avoid taking credit for team achievement. As mangers, coordinators should be able to utilize their talents to monitor progress and help team members to achieve their goals.
Shapers are characteristically assertive, dynamic, abrasive, and impulsive (Belbin 2014, p. 11). They are usually motivated people and are driven with strong desire to achieve. Shapers’ contribution to the group is making things happen, finding solutions in when the group is facing certain challenges, and thereby ensuring that the group achieves the project outcome. The major weaknesses of shapers are that they are impatient and can easily irritated. An ideal shaper should avoid assuming more authority than status warrants. As managers, shapers should allow time for reasonable discussions before announcing what should be done
Plants are described as creative, unorthodox, and individualistic (Belbin, 2014, p. 11). Plants are very significant to the group because they are innovative and they offer solutions to complex problems. However, they focus so much on concepts rather than practicality. They are also preoccupied that they cannot communicate effectively. Ideal plant should listen to team members and exercise self-discipline.
Resource Investigators are distinctively curious, extrovert, and enthusiastic (Vveinhardt and Banikonyt? 2017, p.12). They enjoy exploring new opportunities and expanding networks. They help the team by exploring resources at disposal and developing external network that are important to the team. Their main weakness is that they are over-optimistic and have little attention span. As managers, ideal resource investigator should not let people to pursue their own interest and relax when the work pressure is escalating. They should use their diplomacy prowess to build bridges with outside sources.
Monitor Evaluators quintessentially prudent, serious, and open to change (Belbin 2014, p. 14). They are usually eager to see implementation of decisions made. Their main contributions to the team are analysing problems and evaluating feasibility, suggestions, and practicality of ideas from both within and outside the team. Monitor Evaluators have a weakness of being prone to “analysis paralysis.” As managers, motivator evaluators should not be over critical to team members. They should also avoid over-dominating team members since it can strangulate their creativity.
The model describes Team Workers as generally sensitive, mild, sociable, and unassertive (Belbin 2014, p. 13). Team workers support their colleagues and are always concerned with members’ welfare and their capacity to accomplish a given task. Their main weakness is that they are always indecisive at making decisions. A good team worker is the one that avoids supporting a team member against a colleague. Rather, use their skills to delegate or develop team members.
The Completer Finishers are characteristically detailed, orderly, and painstaking (Belbin 2014, p. 10). They ensure that team does not overlook important tasks or process and that the team is applying adequate effort to accomplish the task. Completer Finishers can however be reluctant to delegate, and sometimes focus on the detail in lieu of the project outcomes. Ideal Completer Finisher should avoid being anxious and try to balance between perfection and the practicality of the outcome.
Specialists are described as experts, defensive, and efficient (Belbin 2014, p. 14). Their main contribution to the team is offering specific skills, albeit their impact on team dynamics is not substantial. Examples of specialists are accountant or IT experts. Their main weakness is that they tend not to be interested in others.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
Group decision-making is can be advantageous to the organization in terms of diversity in opinions from team members (Xenikou and Furnham 2013, p.21). A team usually consist of members from different background of experiences and unique knowledge to undertake specific tasks. Every member of a group has a unique idea that can be used in problem solving in a better approach compared to individual decision-making. In addition, participation of members in teamwork promotes creativity and innovation (Xenikou and Furnham 2013, p.22). Since decision-making is done through consultation and verification with team members, chances of making mistakes are very slim. Hence, group decision-making presents a more accurate solution. More importantly, group decision-making promotes team building by encouraging participation of members, which solidifies social relationship and coordination of team members. In most cases, decisions are arrived at through voting or consensus. This concept of democracy reinforces acceptance and legitimacy on the decisions that are made (Argyris 2012, p.201)
The main disadvantage of group decision-making is that, unlike individual decision-making, it is time consuming (Anderson, 2017). Group decisions are usually arrived at through consultations and consideration of members’ ideas, which takes a lot of time. In practice, each member tends to push for ideas that favour their personal interests. Disparity of interest among the members may result to unhealthy conflict, which is inimical to the efficiency and quality of decision-making. Moreover, some of the team members overuse their authority to enforce their opinions. Such acts lead to domination of the team and the individuals. Similarly, when a team does not have well-defined objectives, it creates room for social loafing (Jones, 2013, p.3).
Mitigating Social Loafing in Groups
Lam (2016) identifies social loafing as a “multifaceted problem, which attracts interest of both social psychologists and organizational management professionals, who are looking for ways to increase the efficiency of group activity. “The main causes of social loafing are “reduced visibility of tasks, increasing interdependence of tasks, and fairness of distribution” (Ülke and Bilgiç, 2011, p. 307). Cultural differences and larger groups, which weaken social cohesion, are also associated with social loafing.
Social loafing can be reduced by emphasizing on the significance of the group tasks and goals to the group members (Vveinhardt and Banikonyt? 2017, p.114). In addition, team members should have framework of scrutinizing individual contributions and sanctioning loafers. The organization should also train team leaders to improve their relationship with followers. Besides, the organization should seek to strengthen cooperation of team leaders and members through insisting on formation of teams based on coherence. Another way of reducing social loafing is by ensuring that the team goals are clearly defined, and that there is well coordination of team members to complete the task. According to Vveinhardt and Banikonyt? (2017, p.116), organization can reduce social loafing by adopting mechanisms that help to detect reasons low level of employee commitment and develop frameworks that enhance emotional commitment. Team leaders should also support practices that increase job satisfaction and fairness to reduce loafing. Most importantly, organization should ensure that teams are not crowded, since large teams are prone to conflicts, which causes social loafing. When forming groups, the organization should consider individual interests and their level of expertise.
Team Effectiveness Model
Organizational and team environment entails factors that affect the group performance, though they are beyond the team’s discretion. Adequate reward system motivates team members and conjures up job satisfaction. Reward system includes compensation and recognition for participation (Jains, 2016, p.58). Communication system is concerned with matters of how members communicate both internally and externally. Effective internal communication enhances performance of team members and reduces social loafing (Jains, 2016, p.59). Organizational structure represents the relationship between team members and the stakeholders. A stronger relationship between team members and outside stakeholders has the efficacy to improve group performance. Another element of organizational milieu is leadership. When the organizational leadership supports the group activities, they are likely to succeed. On physical space, the teams must be allocated a serene environment that is free from distractions in order to perform their tasks effectively.
The second component of the model is team design (In Salas et al, 2012, p.34). Team design has large influence on the ensuring elements of team design facilitate a good performance. Task characteristics refer to how the team organizes its tasks depending on the degree of interdependence: sequential, pooled, or reciprocal. Interdependence should be managed carefully to avoid social loafing. The second component is team size, which refers to the number of people. Larger team size encourages conflict and reduces social cohesion, hence reducing performance. The third element is team composition. This includes individual’s personalities and expertise. Teams should have diverse composition to encourage creativity and reliability of ideas.
Another component of the model is team processes. One of the element of team process is team development, which follows five procedural steps: “forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning” (Jain 2016, p.206). Once the team undergoes these stages, it can operate effectively. The second element of team processes is team norms. These are rules agree upon by team members to guide their conduct. Another element of the process is team cohesiveness, which refers to the degree of social interaction among the team members. Strong cohesiveness facilitates group performance. The last aspect of the tem process is boundary management, which defines people that are included an excluded from the team.
The fourth component of the model is team effectiveness, which encompasses group efficaciousness to accomplish its goals (Jain 2016, p.207). The first aspect of tem effectiveness is accomplishment of tasks, which evaluates if the team delivered results. The second element is satisfaction of member’s needs, which evaluates if the member’s needs were adequately met. The third aspect of effectiveness is maintaining survival, which evaluates whether the team survival is relies on challenges or threats.
The Five C’s of a Strong Team
The Five C’s of effective team are entrenched on five behaviours that help to maintain and perform group tasks effectively. The C’s include communicating, cooperating, coordinating, conflict resolving and comforting (Robbins and Judge, 2017, p.272). Effective communication is integral part building a strong team in which members trust each other.. Cooperating refers to the ability and willingness of team members to work as a team rather than alone. When members of the team are cooperative, they tend to be flexible, share resources, and observe the team norms (Kreitner and Kinicki 2010, p.306). Coordinating is the ability of team members to manage their team harmoniously and ensure that tasks are allocated in accordance to individual’s skills and capabilities. Coordinative team members help to keep the team on track and integrate group members. Comforting refers to the ability of team members to show concern to their team members by providing psychological and emotional support. Comforting traits of team members cultivates a culture of trust and self-worth among team members. Conflict resolving is the ability of team members to settle their differences amicably whenever there is a disagreement within the team (Anderson, 2017).
Strategies of reducing Group Conflict
There are three strategies have been effectively used to mitigate conflict in organizational groups. One of the strategies is applying subordinate goals, which involves cooperating with team members by bringing conflicting members together by establishing a common goal in pursuit of reducing conflict and enhancing performance (Cole 2018, p.312). Subordinate goal enables conflicting parties to set aside their differences and work together to achieve a common goal. The second strategy is using structural approaches (Haynes 2012, p.173). This involves transferring a group member to another unit in accordance to their set of skills. Other structural approaches include changing reward systems as well as policies and procedures. Training on how to embrace diverse opinions and criticisms can also be an effective way of reducing conflict. The third strategy is applying conflict management styles, which involves combination of assertiveness and cooperativeness (Cole 2018, p.329). Assertiveness refers to the desire to meet one’s personal interests while cooperativeness is the desire to meet other member’s needs.
Team Cohesion
Anderson (2017) defines team cohesion as “the degree of attraction people feel toward the team and their motivation to remain members.” The main factors that influence team cohesion include team size, similarity, external completion, team success, and barrier to entry (Salas et al. 2015, p.56). Members with similar background are likely to work together than people with diverse cultures. Similarly, smaller teams are more cohesive than larger teams. When the teams are under stiff external completion, they tend to be more cohesive. Considerably, when members are attached to successful teams, they tend to be more committed to the task by working together.
Mitigating Dysfunctional Team Norms
Dysfunctional team norms are detrimental to group performance and its effectiveness. One of the best way to avoid dysfunctional norms is by stating the norms that are desirable to members during group formation. Another approach is through selection of members with preferred skills and ability. In addition, group members should discuss counter-norms to avoid conflict. Moreover, the organization should have adequate reward systems towards representation of desired norms. In practice, dysfunctional norms should be dismantled since they inhibit progress of the group (Jain, 2016, p.401).
List of References
Alvesson, M., 2016, Organizational culture: Volume 4, Los Angeles: SAGE Reference.
Anderson, A. J., 2017, Relationships Among Team Cohesion and Performance, Anxiety, Retention, and Satisfaction. Retrieved from https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/handle/10342/4874
(Accessed on 2018 May 30)
Argyris, C., 2012, Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belbin., 2014, A comprehensive review of Belbin team roles. Belbin UK, 1-26. Retrieved from Google Scholar
Cole, M. B., 2018, Group dynamics in occupational therapy: The theoretical basis and practice application of group intervention, 5th ed.,. Slack Incorporated.
Haynes, N., 2012, Group dynamics: Basics and pragmatics for practitioners, Lanham: University Press of America.
In Salas, E., In Goodwin, G. F., & In Burke, C. S., 2012, Team Effectiveness In Complex Organizations: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, New York, NY: Routledge.
Jain, P., 2016, Team Effectiveness Kindle Edition.
Jones, K., 2013, ‘Discouraging Social Loafing During Team-Based Assessments,’ Teaching Innovation Projects, Vol. 3, no.1, pp.1-11.
Kinicki, A., & Fugate, M., 2017, Organizational behaviour: A practical, problem-solving approach, 2nd ed., . McGraw-Hill Education.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A., 2010, Organizational behaviour, Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Lam, C., 2016, ‘Can slack curb slacking?: Examining the importance of team communication in reducing social loafing,’ IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC). doi:10.1109/ipcc.2016.7740502 (Accessed on 2018 May 30)
Levi, D., 2017, Group dynamics for teams, 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Omar, M., Hasan, B., Ahmad, M., Yasin, A., Baharom, F., Mohd, H., & Darus, N. M. ,2016, Towards a balanced software team formation based on Belbin team role using fuzzy technique. doi:10.1063/1.4960922
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T., 2017, Organizational behaviour, 17th ed.,. Pearson.
Salas, E., Vessey, W. B., & Estrada, A. X., 2015, Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice.
Vveinhardt, J., & Banikonyt?, J., 2017, ‘Managerial Solutions that Increase the Effect of Group Synergy and Reduce Social loafing,’ Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, Vol.78, no.1, 110-129. doi:10.1515/mosr-2017-0019
Vveinhardt, J., & Banikonyt?, J. ,2017, ‘Managerial Solutions to Reduce Social Loafing in Group Activities of Companies,’ Professional Studies: Theory and Practice, Vol.3, no.18, pp.83-91.
Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. ,2013, Performance and Decision-Making in Work Groups. Group Dynamics and Organizational Culture, pp.19-43. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-26546-3_2
Ülke, H. E., & Bilgiç, R., 2011, ‘Investigating the Role of the Big Five on the Social Loafing of Information Technology Workers, ‘International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 19, no.3, pp.301-312. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00559.x
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
