Unit - 3
Foundations of Group Behavior
Defining and Classifying Groups
A group can be defined as two or more interacting and interdependent individuals who come together to achieve particular objectives. A group behavior can be stated as a course of action a group takes as a family. For example − Strike.
There are two types of groups individual’s form. They are formal groups and informal groups. Let us know about these groups.
Formal Groups
These are the type of work groups created by the organization and have designated work assignments and rooted tasks. The behavior of such groups is directed toward achieving organizational goals.
Formal groups can be further classified into two sub-groups:
Informal Groups
These groups are formed with friendships and common interests.
These can be further classified into two sub-groups:
For example: A group of workers working on a project and reporting to the same manager is considered as command group, while a group of friends chilling out together is considered as an interest group or say members of a club.
The Five-Stage Model
New teams often experience growing pains—members of any team can’t work efficiently together without having any time to get acquainted with each other. In 1965, psychologist Bruce Tuckman developed an easy-to-digest model that shows how teams in various fields go through the same stages of group development. Learning these five stages of team development will allow you to shape successful teams that perform to their best potential.
Psychologist Bruce Tuckman developed his group development model in 1965 to explain how healthy teams cohere over time. Tuckman’s model identifies the five stages through which groups progress: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Each of the five stages of team development represents a step on the team-building ladder. As the group members climb the ladder, they morph from a random assembly of strangers into a high-performing team that can work toward a common goal. Here are Tuckman’s five stages of group development explained in detail:
- The forming stage of group development: The forming stage is the first stage in Tuckman’s stages of group development and is a similar experience to your first day on a new job or at a new school. In this phase, most group members are overly polite and are still extremely excited about what their future may hold. Since the group dynamics and team roles aren’t yet established, the team leader will often take charge to direct the individual members. During Tuckman’s forming phase, new team members may discuss team goals, ground rules, and individual roles, but since this stage of development prioritizes people over the actual work, it’s unlikely the team will be high-performing at this time.
- The storming stage of group development: The storming phase is like when you reach that point with a new roommate where you begin to notice their small idiosyncrasies that get on your nerves. For teams, the conflict often arises due to clashing working styles between team members. Some people may start to even doubt the team’s goals discussed in the earlier stage and will stop performing their necessary jobs altogether. This has a negative and stressful effect on those who keep up the hard work since the pre-established group processes no longer function smoothly. Some project teams think they can skip this stage, but it’s better to acknowledge conflicts now and work them out rather than avoiding them until they explode.
- The norming stage of group development: The next of Tuckman’s stages is the norming phase. This is when the team moves past their previous quarrels and begins to recognize and value their teammates’ strengths. During this stage, team members increasingly respect those who are in leadership roles. Now that everyone has begun to bond and familiarize themselves with the team processes, teammates feel comfortable giving each other constructive feedback as they work toward accomplishing new tasks. Since these new tasks often come with a high degree of difficulty, it is not uncommon for groups to regress back into the storming phase. Even if a group slides back into old behavior, members’ new decision-making skills will make conflicts easier to resolve than they were during the initial storming phase.
- The performing stage of group development: The performing phase is the happiest of all the stages of development. In this stage, your team performance is at an all-time high. This high-performance level means all team members are self-reliant and confident enough in their own problem-solving skills that they can function without oversight from the leaders. Everyone is working like a well-oiled machine, free of conflict and moving in sync toward the same end goal.
- The adjourning stage of group development: The fifth stage of Tuckman’s development sequence is the adjourning phase. This final stage actually wasn’t added to the Tuckman model until 1977, and it is the most melancholy of all the stages of team formation. The adjourning phase assumes that project teams only exist for a set period of time; once the team’s mission is accomplished, the team itself dissolves. You can equate this stage to a breakup since team members often find it difficult to separate from people with whom they’ve formed close bonds. In fact, this phase is also sometimes known as the “mourning phase” because it is common for team members to experience a feeling of loss when the group is disbanded.
Why Work Teams:
Teams don't work well without teamwork! Teamwork is important for the success of all businesses. To have a meaningful and lifelong career, you need to work well with others which is why teamwork is so important in the professional world.
It brings new ideas. Businesses need new, fresh ideas to succeed in the competitive world. You have a unique perspective to bring to the table which will benefit the business overall. Businesses thrive when they have a diverse team of people who can contribute individual ideas.
Teamwork helps solve problems. Collaboration within a group can help solve difficult problems. Brainstorming is a good opportunity for the team to exchange ideas and come up with creative ways of doing things. By working together, teams can find the solutions that work best.
It's supportive. Teamwork creates a system to ensure that deadlines are met and that there's high quality work. When one team member falls behind, there's another to pick up the pieces. When work is divvied up among members of a team, it gets done faster, making the overall business operate more efficiently. Your team will develop a sense of comradery as you work toward a common goal.
Teamwork builds morale. You'll feel that your work is valued when you contribute to something that produces results. If you offer an idea that helps improve productivity, such as a new filing system, confidence and trust is built within the team. Each team member has something special to offer. By working together, members of a team feel a strong sense of belonging and deep commitment to each other and the common goal.
It's one thing to have a team, it's a whole other thing to have teamwork. A team that works well together can succeed together and produce great results.
Teamwork:
1 – Creates synergy – where the sum is greater than the parts.
2 – Supports a more empowered way of working, removing constraints which may prevent someone doing their job properly.
3 – Promotes flatter and leaner structures, with less hierarchy.
4 – Encourages multi-disciplinary work where teams cut across organizational divides.
5 – Fosters flexibility and responsiveness, especially the ability to respond to change.
6 – Pleases customers who like working with good teams (sometimes the customer may be part of the team).
7 – Promotes the sense of achievement, equity and camaraderie, essential for a motivated workplace.
8 – When managed properly, teamwork is a better way to work.
Work Teams in Organization.
What is a team, and what makes a team effective?
Teamwork has never been more important in organizations than it is today. Whether you work in a manufacturing environment and utilize self-directed work teams, or if you work in the “knowledge economy” and derive benefits from collaboration within a team structure, you are harnessing the power of a team. The five elements that make teams function are:
A team has a specific purpose that it delivers on, has shared leadership roles, and has both individual and mutual accountabilities. Teams discuss, make decisions, and perform real work together, and they measure their performance by assessing their collective work products. Wisdom of Teams reference. This is very different from the classic working group in an organization (usually organized by functional area) in which there is a focused leader, individual accountabilities and work products, and a group purpose that is the same as the broader organizational mission.
Developing Work Teams.
The process of learning to work together effectively is known as team development. Research has shown that teams go through definitive stages during development. Bruce Tuckman, an educational psychologist, identified a five-stage development process that most teams follow to become high performing. He called the stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Forming stage
The forming stage involves a period of orientation and getting acquainted. Uncertainty is high during this stage, and people are looking for leadership and authority. A member who asserts authority or is knowledgeable may be looked to take control. Team members are asking such questions as “What does the team offer me?” “What is expected of me?” “Will I fit in?” Most interactions are social as members get to know each other.
Storming stage
The storming stage is the most difficult and critical stage to pass through. It is a period marked by conflict and competition as individual personalities emerge. Team performance may actually decrease in this stage because energy is put into unproductive activities. Members may disagree on team goals, and subgroups and cliques may form around strong personalities or areas of agreement. To get through this stage, members must work to overcome obstacles, to accept individual differences, and to work through conflicting ideas on team tasks and goals. Teams can get bogged down in this stage. Failure to address conflicts may result in long-term problems.
Norming stage
If teams get through the storming stage, conflict is resolved and some degree of unity emerges. In the norming stage, consensus develops around who the leader or leaders are, and individual member’s roles. Interpersonal differences begin to be resolved, and a sense of cohesion and unity emerges. Team performance increases during this stage as members learn to cooperate and begin to focus on team goals. However, the harmony is precarious, and if disagreements re-emerge the team can slide back into storming.
Performing stage
In the performing stage, consensus and cooperation have been well-established and the team is mature, organized, and well-functioning. There is a clear and stable structure, and members are committed to the team’s mission. Problems and conflicts still emerge, but they are dealt with constructively. (We will discuss the role of conflict and conflict resolution in the next section). The team is focused on problem solving and meeting team goals.
Adjourning stage
In the adjourning stage, most of the team’s goals have been accomplished. The emphasis is on wrapping up final tasks and documenting the effort and results. As the work load is diminished, individual members may be reassigned to other teams, and the team disbands. There may be regret as the team ends, so a ceremonial acknowledgement of the work and success of the team can be helpful. If the team is a standing committee with ongoing responsibility, members may be replaced by new people and the team can go back to a forming or storming stage and repeat the development process.
Team Effectiveness
The effectiveness of team building differs substantially from one organization to another The most effective efforts occur when team members are interdependent, knowledgeable and experienced and when organizational leadership actively establishes and supports the team.
Effective team building incorporates an awareness of team objectives. Teams must work to develop goals, roles and procedures. As a result, team building is usually associated with increasing task accomplishment, goal meeting, and achievement of results within teams.
Team Building.
Team building is a collective term for various types of activities used to enhance social relations and define roles within teams, often involving collaborative tasks. It is distinct from team training, which is designed by a combine of business managers, learning and development/OD (Internal or external) and an HR Business Partner (if the role exists) to improve the efficiency, rather than interpersonal relations.
Team building is one of the foundations of organizational development that can be applied to groups such as sports teams, school classes, military units or flight crews. The formal definition of team-building includes:
Team building is one of the most widely used group-development activities in organizations. A common strategy is to have a "team-building retreat" or "corporate love-in," where team members try to address underlying concerns and build trust by engaging in activities that are not part of what they ordinarily do as a team.
Concept of Leadership
Leadership can be defined as the ability of the management to make sound decisions and inspire others to perform well. It is the process of directing the behavior of others towards achieving a common goal. In short, leadership is getting things done through others.
Leadership is very important in a firm as it leads to higher performance by the team members, it improves motivation and morale within the members, and helps to respond to change.
Leadership facilitates organizational success by creating responsibility and accountability among the members of the organization. In short, it increases value in an organization.
Styles of Leadership:
Leadership Styles
Different leadership styles exist in work environments. The culture and goal of an organization determine which leadership style fits best. Some organizations offer different leadership styles within an organization, depending on the necessary tasks to complete and departmental needs.
We find five different leadership styles in the corporate world. They are as follows −
Laissez-Faire
A laissez-faire leader does not directly supervise employees and fails to provide regular updates to those under his supervision. Highly experienced and trained employees with minimal requirement of supervision fall under the laissez-faire leadership style.
But, not all employees possess these features. This leadership style blocks the production of employees needing supervision. The laissez-faire style implements no leadership or supervision efforts from managers, which can lead to poor production, lack of control and increasing costs.
Autocratic
The autocratic leadership style permits managers to make decisions alone without the input of others. Managers access total authority and impose their will on employees. No one opposes the decisions of autocratic leaders. Countries like Cuba and North Korea operate under the autocratic leadership style.
This leadership style benefits those who require direct supervision. Creative employees who participate in group functions detest this leadership style.
Participative
This is also known as the democratic leadership style. It values the input of team members and peers, but the responsibility of making the final decision rests with the participative leader. Participative leadership motivates employee morale because employees make contributions to the decision-making process. It accounts to a feeling that their opinions matter.
When an organization needs to make changes within itself, that is internally, the participative leadership style helps employees accept changes easily as they play a role in the process. This leadership style meets challenges when companies need to make a decision in a short period of time.
Transactional
Transactional leadership style is formed by the concept of reward and punishment. Transactional leaders believe that the employee's performance is completely dependent on these two factors. When there is an encouragement, the workers put in their best effort and the bonus is in monetary terms in most of the cases. In case they fail to achieve the set target they are given a negative appraisal.
Transactional leaders pay more attention to physical and security requirements of the employees.
Transformational
Transformational leadership has the ability to affect employee's perceptions through the returns that organization gets in the form of human capital benefits. These leaders have the ability to reap higher benefits by introducing knowledge management processes, encouraging interpersonal communication among employees and creating healthy organizational culture.
It helps in flourishing organizational innovation by creating a participative environment or culture. It promotes a culture where the employees have autonomy to speak about their experiences and share knowledge.
It has been seen that transformational leaders are more innovative than transactional and laisse-faire leaders.
Trait Approach Contingency.
The trait approach to leadership was one of the earliest theories of leadership. Although it is not a fully articulated theory with well-developed hypotheses, the trait approach formed the basis of most early leadership research. This approach focuses on the personal attributes (or traits) of leaders, such as physical and personality characteristics, competencies, and values. It views leadership solely from the perspective of the individual leader. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that traits produce patterns of behavior that are consistent across situations. That is, leadership traits are considered to be enduring characteristics that people are born with and that remain relatively stable over time.
The trait model of leadership is based on the characteristics of many leaders - both successful and unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership effectiveness. The resulting lists of traits are then compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of success or failure.
Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, education and socioeconomic background), personality, self-confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness.
Among the core traits identified are:
“A contemporary leader is a leader who uses personal influence to develop and inspire people to achieve organizational goals and make a difference in the community.”
Contemporary leadership styles include quantum leadership, charismatic leadership, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, relational leadership, shared leadership and servant leadership. Effective nursing leadership nowadays creates healthy work environments that maintain nurses and allow them to deliver best quality care for the patients.
Concept of transformations leadership:
Transformational leadership:
The transformational leadership which the majority of latest studies evaluated the success of its application. It is necessary to say that this style achieve past what transactional does. This type of leadership style stresses the importance of individual interaction with other members of the society or team. The primary aim of this leadership style is to create a formidable relationship with the members of a team, and to inculcate the spirit of trust and deep understanding. The interaction between individual members aims at increasing performances and building trust and understanding. According to advocates, transformational leadership is in a position to explicitly lead the change, especially in the behavior of individual subjects. Such leaders will want to increase team motivation by offering numerous motivational messages to the subordinates, and increasing the percentage of trust among team members. The success of transformational leaders is based entirely on the flexibility of the set rules, and the ability of a leader to convince the subjects that their varied views with definitely make a big difference. Proponents of this leadership style argue that transformational leaders are able to institute viable changes in the organization based on the ability to inspire performances. Both the leader and the followers under this type of leadership are portrayed as to be having high moral.
Transformational leaders lead employees by aligning employee goals with the leader’s goals. Thus, employees working for transformational leaders start focusing on the company’s well-being rather than on what is best for them as individual employees. However, transactional leaders ensure that employees demonstrate the right behaviors because the leader provides resources in exchange.
Contemporary theories of leadership:
Contemporary theory of leadership:
The contemporary theories focus on the unique ways through which the leaders emerge, guide the employees, and influence the employees in the organization. The contemporary theories of leadership do not focus on the details of leadership quality.
Contemporary theories of management tend to account for and help interpret the rapidly changing nature of today’s organizational environments. As before in management history, these theories are prevalent in other sciences as well.
Contingency Theory
Basically, contingency theory asserts that when managers make a decision, they must take into account all aspects of the current situation and act on those aspects that are key to the situation at hand. Basically, it’s the approach that “it depends.” For example, the continuing effort to identify the best leadership or management style might now conclude that the best style depends on the situation. If one is leading troops in the Persian Gulf, an autocratic style is probably best (of course, many might argue here, too). If one is leading a hospital or university, a more participative and facilitative leadership style is probably best.
Systems Theory
Systems theory has had a significant effect on management science and understanding organizations.
First, let’s look at “what is a system?” A system is a collection of part unified to accomplish an overall goal. If one part of the system is removed, the nature of the system is changed as well. For example, a pile of sand is not a system. If one removes a sand particle, you’ve still got a pile of sand. However, a functioning car is a system. Remove the carburetor and you’ve no longer got a working car. A system can be looked at as having inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. Systems share feedback among each of these four aspects of the systems.
Let’s look at an organization. Inputs would include resources such as raw materials, money, technologies and people. These inputs go through a process where they’re planned, organized, motivated and controlled, ultimately to meet the organization’s goals. Outputs would be products or services to a market. Outcomes would be, e.g., enhanced quality of life or productivity for customers/clients, productivity. Feedback would be information from human.resources carrying out the process, customers/clients using the products, etc. Feedback also comes from the larger environment of the organization, e.g., influences from government, society, economics, and technologies. This overall system framework applies to any system, including subsystems (departments, programs, etc.) in the overall organization. Systems theory may seem quite basic. Yet, decades of management training and practices in the workplace have not followed this theory. Only recently, with tremendous changes facing organizations and how they operate, have educators and managers come to face this new way of looking at things. This interpretation has brought about a significant change (or paradigm shift) in the way management studies and approaches organizations. The effect of systems theory in management is that writers, educators, consultants, etc. are helping managers to look at the organization from a broader perspective. Systems theory has brought a new perspective for managers to interpret patterns and events in the workplace. They recognize the various parts of the organization, and, in particular, the interrelations of the parts, e.g., the coordination of central administration with its programs, engineering with manufacturing, supervisors with workers, etc. This is a major development. In the past, managers typically took one part and focused on that. Then they moved all attention to another part. The problem was that an organization could, e.g., have a wonderful central administration and wonderful set of teachers, but the departments didn’t synchronize at all.
Chaos Theory
As chaotic and random as world events seem today, they seem as chaotic in organizations, too. Yet for decades, managers have acted on the basis that organizational events can always be controlled. A new theory (or some say “science”), chaos theory, recognizes that events indeed are rarely controlled. Many chaos theorists (as do systems theorists) refer to biological systems when explaining their theory. They suggest that systems naturally go to more complexity, and as they do so, these systems become more volatile (or susceptible to cataclysmic events) and must expend more energy to maintain that complexity. As they expend more energy, they seek more structure to maintain stability. This trend continues until the system splits, combines with another complex system or falls apart entirely. Sound familiar? This trend is what many see as the trend in life, in organizations and the world in general.
Success stories of today’s Global and Indian leaders.
Sanjay Mehrotra
CEO, SanDisk Corporation
Sanjay Mehrotra is co-founder, president and chief executive officer of SanDisk Corporation, a global leader in flash memory storage solutions.
Earlier, Mehrotra served as SanDisk’s president and chief operating officer starting in 2006.
Under his leadership, the company expanded its focus to include solid state drive (SSD) solutions for the enterprise, as well as new growth strategies for the mobile and client computing segments.
Mehrotra received his Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley, and is a graduate of the Stanford Graduate School of Business Executive Program (SEP).
Rajeev Suri:
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nokia
With over 25 years of international experience, Rajeev Suri has an ability to generate growth and offer technologies that have a positive impact on people’s lives.
His expertise lies in mobile networks, big data analytics, cloud computing and Internet business models.
As CEO of Nokia Solutions and Networks, he was responsible for turning around the company from significant losses to a strong and robust one.
In his earlier roles as head of the global services unit and APAC region, he played a key role in ensuring strong growth and profitability. Rajeev has a Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics and Communications) from Manipal Institute of Technology, India.
Born in India in 1967, he is a Singaporean citizen and is based in Espoo, Finland.
Leadership through survival – Malala Yousafzai’s campaign for female education
Malala grew up in northwest Pakistan, where the Taliban had often banned girls from attending school. She became a vocal supporter of female education when a Taliban gunman shot her three times in the head in an assassination attempt.
She survived, and the attack provoked worldwide outrage, and in Pakistan, it led to ratification of the Right to Education Bill. Since her recovery, Malala became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, addressed the UN, met world leaders, and founded the non-profit Malala Fund.
Bill Gates
Bill Gates appears everyone’s list of the Top 10 most admired U.S. business leaders – ever. That’s pretty lofty company.
When he retired from Microsoft in 2008, Gates left a legacy as a demanding and, at times, abrasive boss.
Yet he encouraged and nurtured enormous creativity and innovation from people, and made a point of recognizing achievements.
The programmers, engineers, designers, MBAs and others who regularly attended Gates’ development meetings said he frequently interrupted to question and challenge assumptions.
Given those details, there’s little doubt Gates relied heavily on an authoritarian leadership style.
He took charge and let everyone know he was in charge.
But like so many successful people, he relied on a blend of other styles as well.
He was aware that his authoritarian style was not conducive to innovation. Control freaks hinder creativity. (It’s said Gates required so much control in his early years that he even signed off on the expenses of his second-in-command, Steve Ballmer.)
The authoritarian style is very effective in fast-changing situations, where quick decisions are required. Much of Microsoft’s success can be attributed to Gates willingness to make decisions on the run.
References:
1. Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Parek, Oxford
2. Organizational Behaviour, Robbins, Judge, Sanghi, Pearson.
3. Organizational Behaviour, K. Awathappa, HPH.
4. Organizational Behaviour, VSP Rao, Excel
5. Introduction to Organizational Behaviour, Moorhead, Griffin, Cengage.
6. Organizational Behaviour, Hitt, Miller, Colella, Wiley
