Introduction
The concept of group dynamics has been of great significance in the modern day study of organizational behavior. A group is an important aspect of any organization. Synergy is always achieved through group work (Elloy, 2005, p. 68).
In addition, a group working together is able to come up with more diverse and better results to a problem at hand (Ramayah & Koay, 2003, p. 102). The essence of group work can therefore not be over emphasized. It is due to the value that is attached to group work that many organizations commission different groups to perform different tasks.
This notwithstanding, the groups do not come not without their fair share of disadvantages. Since a group is composed of various individuals whose inputs are of equal importance and value, challenges always arise whenever a group is incepted to work on whatever assignment (Arnold, et al., 2010, p. 93).
These challenges if not handled well may result in the frustration of the subject matter of the formation and subsequently lead to a failure in the pursuit of the set targets.
This management report seeks to carry out an expository diagnosis of the problems that are marring the ‘New-Product-Group’ headed by Karen. It will further discuss the possible reasons as to why the group is dysfunctional. Finally a recommendation will be given on the possible way forward to deal with the jinx.
All this will be accomplished with reference to the key indicative topics that have been learnt in class namely managing and taking part in meetings, communications, conflict resolution, negotiation, and decision making.
Karen Group
The group members
The group is composed of four members; three gentlemen; Ben, James, and Charles and one lady; Karen. Karen is the head of the group and is charged with the responsibility of coming up with the final report and make a presentation to the management the following day. The different attributes of each member are discussed in the ensuing text.
Karen
Karen is a female member of the group. She is in charge of the group and is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the group succeeds in its assignment. She is the one answerable to the management and is expected to make the presentation the following day. She is dealing with a difficult group though as one of the members namely Ben has a superiority complex and feels that he should be the one in charge of the group.
Ben
Ben is a man who is said to have a chauvinistic regard on women. He claims to have had a four year Navy service experience and this makes him think that he is the best positioned to handle the group leadership role. He openly expresses his disrespect and dishonor to the group leader and thinks that he ought to be in charge of the group.
He does not believe in being led by a woman and bears the views that the position of the woman is raising children. Once his contributions are criticized by Karen, he quickly takes it to a personal level rather than a work related issue. He is said to be the hardest obstacle to overcome in achieving the group’s objective.
James
James is a more open minded member as compared to Ben. He seems more agreeable though the problem with him is that he takes sides with Ben so as they can together impose their wills on the group. He is therefore portrayed as Ben’s puppet.
Charles
Charles is the group member who is in charge of the collection of data. He is posited as a person who is more willing to listen and thus probably the most cooperative of the two other friends. He however brings into the group a lot of data such that it is impossible to make conclusions from the amount of data he presents. This leads to a situation of analysis paralysis during the meetings.
A look at each member’s attributes leads to the group being dysfunctional and as such not much has been able to be achieved by the group so far. There is only one day remaining before the presentation of the final report by the group leader and this seems to be a repeat of the previous meetings which end in unproductive confrontations between Ben and Karen.
The Diagnosis of the problem in the group
A look at the situation at hand reveals that the group is dysfunctional and as such it is unable to fulfill its mandate if the status quo remains. For any group to be successful in meeting its objectives, several important factors have to be put into consideration. It must be noted that a group is not formed by merely collecting several individuals and assigning them a task to fulfill (Proehl, 1997, p. 39).
A group ought to be comprising of individuals who fully and clearly understand the task at hand and therefore work for the common goal while putting individual differences aside (Sosik & Jung, 2002, p. 133). The following part discusses the various indicative points that should shed light on the Karen’s problem as well as giving the possible solution to the problem.
Conflict resolution
Due to the diverse nature of the modern day organizations and the complexity of the members, it is inevitable to work without conflicts emerging among the members.
A conflict is defined as an antagonistic force that repels another person’s point of view and seeks to advance the bearer’s interests (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011, p. 259). There are various forms of conflicts. These include opinion based conflicts, personality based and group based.
According to the case study, there are two types of conflicts; opinion based and personality based, the biggest culprit being Ben and the biggest victim being Karen. Whichever the type and whoever is affected, a common truth is that conflicts ought and must be resolved. There are several ways in which this conflict can be resolved.
One way is through empowering every member of the group to take a certain responsibility in the achievement of the common goal (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 263).
This would help in a great manner since a sense of personal responsibility will be instilled in each member of the organization. This would further bring about respect among the members and as such reduce the potential conflict of interest between the conflicting parties.
While segregating of duties may solve the group related conflict, the other form of conflict relating to the personal opinion on Ben towards Karen will have to be resolved through a dialogue between the two persons. Dialogue is known to be a very effective tool of conflict resolution more so when it comes to personal differences (Nina, 1992, p. 101).
However, this may need a third person who may act as the dialogue moderator or an arbitrator if the two individuals cannot peacefully talk on their own. The effectiveness of such a dialogue would be judged by the two parties condoning differences without taking personal opinions on the other person.
Once the conflict has been resolved the boons that come along with the result are collaboration, conflict avoidance, compromise, and frequent agreement (Lent & Hackett, 1987, p. 298).
This seems to be the ingredient that is conspicuously lacking in this group and a proper management of the conflict will set the group on for a successful attainment of the goal. It will also boost trust among the member and this will begin to reflect in the decision making process as decisions will be made at a more efficient manner.
Compromise helps a person to accommodate the other person’s views and collaboration helps in coming up with a high quality work through contribution by each of the members. Conflict avoidance is only possible after dealing with all the triggers of conflict. In the end, decision making becomes an easier task by the group and the results are achieved with a lot of ease.
Communication
Communication is defined as the sending and receiving of information through a set channel. It is the single most important aspect of organizational management that ensures that the organization is run in the set path. Communication helps in all areas of the organization in that the expectations and the feedback of any activity has to be passed to the relevant persons (Nina, 1992, p. 180).
As such, communication is an important aspect of any meeting since through communication, ideas are shared, consultations are carried out and decisions are made (Newstrom & Davis, 1993, p. 69). Effective communication always results in mutual understanding among the discussing members and also results in more efficient decision making.
The communication channels usually depend on the nature and the context of the subject matter and as such, individuals should properly understand the dynamics which come along with the different audiences and adjust to the dynamics where necessary.
A look at the case study reveals a breakdown in communication. The decisions take too long to make and this is a clear indication that the members of the group do not communicate the expectations clearly.
It is said that sometimes verbal exchanges between Karen and Ben become too heated that Ben ends up shouting at Karen. This indicates that the group communication skills are poor and as such there need to be a complete overhaul of the communication strategies being employed by the group.
Negotiations and decision making
Negotiation skills are usually borne by an individual who has proper communication skills. This is because for an individual to be able to effectively negotiate, he/she must be able to effectively communicate as well. Negotiation therefore comes in hand in hand with the communication.
It helps a group to be able to reach a consensus as well as make decisions. Decision making therefore comes hand in hand with negotiations as the members of the group are able to reach agreements and choose a common course of action.
A group is termed as dysfunctional when the members are unable to carry out negotiations and effectively reach compromise and make decisions and this is the situation in the case study involving Karen’s group (Sosik & Jung, 2002, p. 133).
One member Charles comes up with numerous data to analyze such that he literally paralyzes the decision making. Even worse, the members are unable to effectively negotiate and this has caused poor relationship among the group members. Ben and James link up to impose their will on other members and this often results in a stalemate.
The group should embrace the art of negotiation and as such, make every member’s contribution to the discussion important and valuable. In doing this, they will be able to reach a compromise soon and also make decisions at a more efficient pace. The making of decisions is therefore dependent on the level of compromise reached.
Managing and taking part in the meetings
Since the meetings that have happened so far have failed to reach a consensus and hence a decision, there is a dire need to change the various approaches to the meetings that will ensure that the locker heads among the member s is resolved as soon as possible. If the above issues are paid close attention to, it is possible to resolve the problem that is facing Karen
Conclusion
It is clear from the above discussion that the group headed by Karen has a lot of problems that are rendering it dysfunctional. The main problem in the group relates to conflict in leadership and communication breakdown. Although these are two very important aspect of any group, they are conspicuously absent in this group and are mainly responsible for the dysfunctional state of the group.
All the members need to be approached separately outside the meeting context and explained the importance of co-operation at least to ensure that the deadline is met by the group. Afterwards, clear communication ought to be given before instituting ant group as in doing this the structure of the group should be clearly spelt out to ensure avoidance of any unapparent conflict.
References
Arnold, J., Randall, R., Patterson, F., Silvester, J., Robertson, I., Cooper., C., et al. (2010). Work Psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the workplace. Harlow: Pearson Publishers.
Elloy, D. F. (2005). The influence of super-leader behaviors on organization commitment, job satisfaction and organization self-esteem in a self-managed work team. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal , 120-127.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2011). Organizational Behaviour. Michigan: Cengage Learning.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 347-382.
Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nina, W. B. (1992). Teaching Group Dynamics: Process and Practice. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Proehl, R. (1997). Enhancing the effectiveness of cross-functional teams. Team Performance Management , 137-180.
Ramayah, T., & Koay, H. L. (2003). Internal Group Dynamics, Team Characteristics, and Team effectiveness. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management , 4-27.
Sosik, J., & Jung, d. (2002). Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The Journal of Social Psychology , 5-23.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review , 361-384.