Rick Marriner
Monday MBA 670
Double Journal Entries 2
Work Presented: Stephen P. Robbins, 1998, Organizational Behavior - Chapter 7 "Foundations of Group Behavior" pp. 238-281, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Objective Points |
Subjective Points |
| Summary: This chapter differentiates between informal and formal groups and looks at two leading theories of group development. It’s most pervasive effort is in the description of work group behavior and the elements that go into forming that behavior. It finally explores the good and bad sides of group decision making and four types of group meetings. | The forces at work in a group, in my opinion are innumerable if not incalculable. My best (however naïve) estimate of a group’s dynamics is only an approximation of how a group of people will interact. Yet it is in the study of groups that I find myself recognizing characteristics and similarities to the groups that I have been part of. So, I find it better then to at least be a little bit correct than 100% wrong if only to know myself and those around me a little better through the study of groups. This chapter levies tools on the reader to expose some of the trends of corporate group culture and provides a brief yet convincing model for analysing groups that I form a part of, as witnessed by the points below. |
| Point 1: There is a difference between formal and informal groups and the knowledge of each is important to management decisions. Formal groups are traditionally developed by the "larger organization" and usually have a purpose of accomplishing a task or solving a problem. Two examples include the command group and the task group. Informal groups are those that abound out of no coercion from authority yet draw members together based on interest, like causes or friendship. These latter groups can be just as effective as formal groups. | My experience with formal groups has been relegated to military groups organized around general tasks and special projects. Most of these groups have been command groups with a clear rank and status of members. These groups were easy to work in, but lacked, in my opinion, the efficiency of a mature group. This was due to the occasional mismatching of roles with abilities. (e.g. A clear innovator, because of his rank and position was forced to be the maintainer.) A task orientated group developed in my current company. This group of cross departmental employees were thrown together in a "phone conference group" to figure out how to implement a payroll system for a new and different company. This was a disaster and today we are still struggling with an inadequate system. Membership in interest groups and friendship groups have abounded in my life and with varying degrees of task orientated success. In any case these, from my view, are amorphous creations of human society and work when they need to work. Additionally, as I have observed them, the application of any more pressure than is needed usually dissolves these groups since membership is voluntary. |
| Point 2: Two theories on the development of groups include: The Five-Stage Model which concludes that groups move through five simple stages in development; forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. This is a cookie cutter model that can be applied in one way or another to most groups. The better model for task orientated groups is The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model this is characterized by an initial forming meeting, an inertial phase, a transition phase and then a heightened performance stage followed by completion. The unique phenomena in this group development model is that the transition phase happens at T=1/2(Start time - Finish time). | Using our group weekend where 21 business students were thrown together for 36 hours of group interaction, I can see and attribute the different stages described in the five-stage model to our activities. The first night we were clearly forming. We characteristically tested the waters to see who was who and which people were there for what purpose. We stormed a bit that evening, but it clearly took the next morning to create real conflict. With the help of our facilitators we moved to a formal norming stage by trying to agree on how to agree. I conjecture that the norming process had taken place earlier during the second day because there existed norms on how much someone should speak and when the loud people should defer to the quiet people to and even a norm to change seats each break. Most norms in the group were never written down, yet we worked within them. Our only demonstration of performing, in my opinion, came when we were in the concluding hours of the weekend when we as a group were able to accomplish one of our goals to provide honest, unadulterated feedback to those that wanted to know more about themselves. We adjourned, but a few members are still lingering together within informal groups that developed over the weekend. As for the Punctuated Equilibrium Model, it is best for me to leave judgment on this subject until the completion of the upcoming group work project that begins the week of the 19th Jan. I will be interested if knowing the time frames of the Punctuated-Equilibrium Model ahead of time will self-fulfill the theory or allow us to work through the rough times easier. |
| Point 3: Work Group behavior, and ultimately a groups satisfaction and performance hinge on the variables encapsulated in three major categories. The first is the external conditions set on the group by the larger organization, the second is the array of abilities that each member brings to the group, and thirdly the actual structure of the group will effect the outcome. The previous three form the basis for the group’s processes for handling a task, but it is the actual demeanor of the task which tests all of the above input and provides positive or negative results. | Like a large logic matrix, the categories of factors contributing to a groups behavior provide the group analyst with the framework with which to create a tremendous "if this; then that" treatise on group behavior. It would however, be an unreadable and unusable text that could be applied to some groups some of the time and other groups other times. Thus we can only get so close to reality with this tool, but that is good enough. The reason for my support is in retrospect I could apply this categorical analysis tool to one particular group I was part of. As a regimental officer in charge of a staff of 6 Sr. Staff officers I can look back and see at which end of the spectrum we fell into each category. For example we had an authority structure based on midshipman rank, we had formal regulations, we encountered role conflict and established norms. In being able to understand the group from a standardized set of categories I can internalize lessons learned there and take the experience to my next groups knowing what would and wouldn’t work and the characteristics that led to that outcome. Early awareness of these factors can lead, in my opinion, to early maturation of the group and increased effectiveness through self-knowledge. |
| Point 4: Group decision making has both advantages and disadvantages. Groups bring more complete information along with more accurate decisions, yet individuals are faster at finally deciding. Groups can contribute a diversity of views, but an individual does not have to fear pressures to conform. Groups have higher quality decisions and greater acceptance ratios outside of the group, but individuals have clear responsibility over a decision. | In general my choice as a manager whether to use a group or an individual is going to be determined through a simple litmus test. If there is an short time frame, I will devote an individual to coordinate and complete the task, if there is a creative or innovative need I will form a group, if there is a multi-stage process and problem, I may use a group to innovate and collect ideas, a smaller group to decide on a direction and one or two individuals to implement the ideas across the wider organization. This is a form of situational decision making that a manager must have. In my view point the interaction of the larger organization stating that YOU WILL USE SMALL WORK GROUPS, might take away from the ability of a manager to size up the need and use the correct tool. |
| Point 5: Once a group has developed the types of meeting it employs may vary. There are generally three types. The Interacting (traditional) meeting, the brainstorming meeting and the nominal or electronic nominal group technique. | In most cases, within my experience, the
two traditional types are sufficient. The last is a
trifle more innovative than I am used to but I can see
its merits. The aggregation of anonymous votes and the
summation of those votes to come to a group decision has
an air of randomness and I can see it taking a lot of
group trust to place that kind of blind faith in a
process. This is not the most comfortable way of coming
to a decision for me since there is little room for
argument once the votes have been tallied. I would like
to learn more. |
| Question: Why do some people disdain
groups so much and why do some people love them enough to
wile away days of work in them? |
The implications of this question might
shed light on our own corporate cultures. To ask
ourselves if people in your organization use the group as
an effective tool or a bloated time killer might be
enlightening. I will wait to judge my company. |
Designed 08/18/98 |
© All Rights Reserved, MCE |