Importance of teams in the organization
How Perceived Power Influences The Consequences Of Dominance Expressions In Negotiations?
Organizational behavior involves the study of people in groups and how they interact with each other in groups. The scientific approach can help in identification of teams and their strengths of each group. Additionally, it can help develop plans on how to motivate the employees. Every organization has different departments that act as a group with a common interest, so the spirit of teamwork in the organization should be transparent and accountable for what they do. The paper explores the importance of teams in the organization through analysis of the research studies. Most show a collective behavior among employees that illustrates the group dependency.
The article, “How perceived power influences the consequences of dominance expressions in negotiations” (Wiltermuth, Raj & Wood, 2018). It is a research done to explore the value that results from negotiations and how people create value through dominance. The research was conducted on a review of other studies that showed that there was value in a negotiation in case there are those who dominate in a group negotiation. The research focused on the people with power and the powerless and how they perceive dominance in the negotiations. Various studies agreed that those with power have a tendency of dominating in the discussions over the powerless thereby making their suggestions and their point of view to be voted. Additionally, those who are dominant create a socially attractive environment, have the ability to attain power and easily establish a status that makes it easier to pursue negotiations. The researcher focused on the value created by the powerless and the powerful people using an experimental research design to establish the research. The results of the study showed that those in power were dominant in the negotiations which showed the value of making better decisions and solving problems. The more they dominated the discussion they did not attach the value of competition but focused to offer the solutions of the problems to the powerless. Additionally, the results of the study showed that those with high power were able to become dominant easily compared to those with low power.
The second research, “Effects of group-discussion integrative complexity on intergroup relations in a social dilemma” (Chun, Brockner & De Cremer, 2018) highlight the causes of intergroup conflict which include fear and greed. Each group want to be superior in an organization compared to another, which makes them greedy leading to competition and conflict. Additionally, the level of distrust bring fear between groups and therefore they can hold information that can be helpful to the improvement of the overall goal of the organization. The research aimed to investigate how integrative complexity in decision making can reduce the competitions and the conflicts of the groups but focus on the overall cooperation goals. From the previous research and review of other literature, the authors identified that integrative complexity decision making leads to the cooperation of the groups where they bring their information and discuss extensively each alternative before getting to a consensus. The research aimed to carry out the study on how structured discussions and a cooperative leader affected the integrative complexity. Through an experimental design that was carried in groups of six individuals who were randomly picked showed that a cooperative leader did not affect the integrative complexity but increased the reliance when the groups were reaching the consensus. On the other side, the structured discussions showed consistency in bringing the cooperation in the groups thereby reducing greed and fear.
Value that results from negotiations and how people create value through dominance
The third article, “How temporal and social comparisons in performance evaluation affect fairness perceptions,”(Park & DeShon, 2016) examines two different ways of performance evaluation in the firm. The social comparison where an individual performance is evaluated against the other peers while temporal comparisons match individual past performance with the present performance. The two ways can be used by the evaluator but have a different degree of fairness. As some of the reviewed works suggest that temporal comparisons help someone focus on the past and compare it to the present affects self-competencies due to the observed change over time. Also, social comparison reduces the attention of the person to the peers as they find being compared to a new crowd. Different evaluator uses the evaluation method differently depending on their goals. If an evaluator’s goal is learning goal they will use temporal to show whether there is any improvement of the worker or not. Also, if the main goal of an evaluator is the performance, they will use social comparisons since they want people to work hard and put equal strength in the work output. Despite that evaluators can use either depending on their goal, the results of the study showed that temporal evaluation method increased the fairness since one was matched with the previous performance and concentrated on the individual performance. There was less promotion of fairness on social since people felt compared to the strange performance of other people.
Comparison
The three articles agree on the dominance of the people with power during the negotiations. According to Wiltermuth, Raj & Wood, (2018), it is evident that people with power automatically dominate the discussions and are able to get their points voted for by others. They will not value it as competition but will view as offering solutions to the less powerful people. In other instances, the people with high power are left to have their way in a negotiations to avoid punishment if the minors disagree due to the symbol they have of power. Also in the second article that groups may conflict due to greed and fear shows that there is a high level of dominance for the groups that are integrative complex than others (Chun, Brockner & De Cremer, 2018). The groups that are integrative will dominate the group and will closely evaluate the pros and cons of an alternative given by other groups to ensure that they have the right alternative.
Causes of intergroup conflict and reduction of greed and fear
Additionally, a cooperative leader shows dominance that after discussions and the groups are getting to a conclusion, they will rely on the leader who has the power to conclude and approve the consensus. That showed that there is a high level of dominance in a negotiation by people with power. The last article also shows some dominance where the performance of the people will be measured and evaluated against those who are performing better. In such a case, it makes those that their performance is low unable to negotiate or be appreciated like the rest. Like in the social comparison there is less fairness since the better performers are appraised while the rest feel discouraged and not appraised by their capabilities.
The second comparison is that all the research used an experimental design where the sample was chosen randomly and taken to different test. Also, the researchers agree that there is lack of fairness in the organization due to the diverse behaviour of the individuals. The people or group that have dominance have their way and get consensus in their suggestions without considering the minority who would have a better opinion or suggestion to the problems. Also, people with a status will want to pose thing that they think is best for the organization without necessarily considering the view of those the decisions are made.
All the research outlines that the organizational work is team based. This involves the work performance and the decision-making process that may lead to conflict or take time to come into the consensus. According to Wiltermuth, Raj & Wood (2018), it outlines individuals in a group and how people with power dominated the decision making for the other team players. According to Chun, Brockner & De Cremer, (2018), the research focuses on people working in groups and variety of groups within an organization. Lastly, the last article also suggests that the organization tend to consider group work and behaviour depending on the social comparison evaluation method.
On the other side, there are different ideas that the authors disagree on which include, the aim of each study, the results and the findings. The authors focus on different problem statement and the purpose of the study. In the first article, the authors focused on the perceived power and the dominance in negotiations where different variables experimented. Both the research concepts on the power and dominance and the power as the potential moderator showed positive results (Wiltermuth, Raj & Wood, 2018). But according to the second article, the dominance of a group is not a positive indicator since it increases the conflict and competition of groups within the organization (Chun, Brockner & De Cremer, 2018). So for that reasons, the focus of the study aimed to develop ways that increase groups’ cooperation to reduce greed and fear among different groups. The difference between two articles shows that when a group dominate in an organization there is a negative impact in the organization but when a powerful person dominates is seen a better way of arriving at better solutions.
Fairness of an individual through different evaluation methods
Lastly, the last article focuses on the temporal and social comparison and do not pay much attention to the group like the fairness of an individual through different evaluation method. The study focuses on an individual in an organizational setting that has groups of people and how each evaluation can help a person to feel attached or detached from the rest of the organization (Park & DeShon, 2016).
From the analysis of the three articles its clear indication of organizational behaviour which can help the human management and the organization at large. Through the research studies, it is able for the organization to get an idea of how they can improve the job performance of the organization. It is possible from the articles to determine the consequences of the people with power and dominating in negotiations. That indicates that there are fewer chances that the employees are able to negotiate for their rights and pass their grievances in such an organizational setting. Therefore the managers should take caution and ensure that every voice is heard and represented before getting into conclusion.
The second recommendation is that through the research studies is that it can help increase job satisfaction. From the last article on the temporal comparison and social comparison, it indicates the dissatisfaction of people when they are compared with their peers. So it clear that the management should consider measuring each person performance with their own capability other than comparing with their peers. When the evaluator considers conducting performance analysis in the organization they should be sensitive to the method employed to ensure that they do not demotivate an employee or break the spirit of teamwork. Each individual should be treated and their diversities recognized for effective management and performance.
The third recommendation is that managers should be aware of groups’ conflict and try to minimize disputes arising from the groups. In most cases, the conflicts between groups often arise but if there are no policies of handling such disputes, they may lead to huge loss and have a great impact on the organization. Greed and fear can lead to unhealthy competition in the firm. In other instances, it can be worse of if the groups do not share relevant information to other groups. So, developing structured discussion and helping people give their views will help improve cooperation within the groups and with other groups in the business.
The last recommendation, it is easier to encourage and identify leaders in a group. Every team must have a leader and the success of the group depends on the effectiveness of the leader. So it will be easier for managers to identify characters that can lead the rest during a negotiation and carrying out duties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the articles on organization behaviour show that there is the dominance of people in a discussion which result from the power they have. So it is sure that a certain group of individual will always dominate in a discussion. The people with power create the value of problem-solving through their dominance in the group. Also, the better and recommended way to increase cooperation between intergroup can be enhanced by having structured decisions other than having a cooperative leader. Also, the best to conduct a performance evaluation of employees may depend on the goal of the manager. If they want to evaluate the performance they can use social comparison which involves considering the contribution of each worker compared to the rest. If the manager is checking on the mastery of the employees they can consider the use of temporal evaluation which involves comparing the individual performance over different periods.
References
Wiltermuth, S., Raj, M., & Wood, A. (2018). How perceived power influences the consequences of dominance expressions in negotiations.
Chun, J., Brockner, J., & De Cremer, D. (2018). How temporal and social comparisons in performance evaluation affect fairness perceptions.
Park, G., & DeShon, R. (2016). Effects of group-discussion integrative complexity on intergroup relations in a social dilemma.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
