People (Group & Team) and Organisation: Literature Review

People and Organization
Name:
Course:
Instructor:
Institution:
Department:
Date:
Literature review
Group and team are two terms that are used by quite a number of people interchangeable. Ironically there are differences to these two terms and their application is actually different. In organization management, is it is crucial to understand the differences in an effort to make sure that the strategies that are applied to either do not have limited impacts from the intended ones. As such, managers in the human resources department are tasked with the need to understand the fundamental differences of the two terms in their respective organizations and thus the application of the same. Groups, are formed of two or more persons, who tend to have common interests, objectives and have an element of interaction between them (Coghlan, 1994). Teams on the other hand, implies that, this is a group of persons who have complementary skills and are committed to achieving a certain mission, goals, performance as well as approach and they also tend to hold themselves mutually accountable for the same. As such, there are clear cut differences that can be identified from the definition of the two terms, in light of what they stand for, their characteristics and their ultimate applications. In the teams, the leadership tends to be shared relative to the roles available, while the groups tends to have very strong and clearly focused leadership. In the teams, the level of accountability is spread between mutual and individual, while the groups have individual accountability elements. The purpose of the teams is broad and is accepted by the team members, such that they all deliver as individuals but comes out as unit effort, In the groups however, the purpose comes from the top and comes down to the entire group relative to the subscribed mission of goals (Coghlan, 1994). In the teams, the level of productivity is largely dependent on the collective efforts of the team members, while that of the group is based on the individual efforts of the group in question. By extension the measure of performance in the teams is based on the collective efforts as well, while that of the groups is largely based on the direct influence that they have on other parts of the business. Teams also tend to have meeting that are open ended and involve problem solving discussions, while the groups are mostly geared towards efficiency (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977).
There are specific elements that are associated with a well-functioning group, and they are quite crucial relative to the levels of productivity. All of the members have to be well relaxed and in an environment that is rather comfortable with an atmosphere that is informal. The helps that group members to settle and cohere (Coghlan, 1994). The tasks that the group is supposed to be involved in are also well understood by all the members and they have also accepted them. It is also crucial that the members listen well and participate in the group activities for them to seen as well functioning. This also means that the members in the group are allowed and free to express their ideas and feeling freely without the fear of reprisal their decisions are made on a consensus. Whenever there are conflicts in the group which are quite common, they have to come from the differences in the methods used in the tasks or differences in the ideas that have been brought fourth, not personal vendetta and complications. This further means that the group members have to have a clear idea about their operations, functions and assignments (Coghlan, 1994).
There are four stages of developing a group that are crucial to its growth and function. This stages were develop by a renowned psychologist called Bruce Tuckman in the year 1965 in an article titled, ‘developmental Sequence in Small Groups’ (Tuckman, 1965). The model has become one of the most crucial elements in helping managers and group leaders create high performing, strong and effective groups at the work place. The first stage of development is referred to as forming. This is a stage that is characterized with most of the members coming of as polite to one another and positive about the union. The group members at this stage do not have the clear understanding of the tasks that they are to perform an in most of the cases the members tend to be quite excited about the tasks. The team leader at this stage plays the major roles due to the fact that the tasks of each of the members are clearly defined. The stage can last for some time as the group members try to understand one another and achieve their tasks. The main elements at this stage include the identification of group processes, purpose, roles and build on trust in their relationships (Tuckman, 1965). The second stage is called the storming stage, which is commonly associated with most group failures. In this stage the group members have started experiencing friction disagreements which are normal, however there is need for effective conflict resolution techniques. Other conflict resolution, members need to clarify their roles, structure and power by revisiting the purpose of the group. The third stage is called norming, which is associated with group members resolving their conflicts, build on appreciating their colleagues and developing respect among the groups’ members. The performance stage is associated with high efficiency as members understand their strengths and their weaknesses as they work towards their goals (Tuckman, 1965). The members tend to be quite flexible in the roles, structure and even use conflict as an opportunity with a lot of creativity, energy and fun to work.
Groups can either be formal or informal depending legality and tasks. The formal groups include the standing task groups and task groups. The informal groups include the reference, interest and friendship groups. Teams on the hand can be divided into four groups, namely the management teams, problem solving teams, work teams and virtual teams.
Among the main theories of group formation include the propinquity theory, social system theory, exchange theory and the balanced theory (Korzenny, 1978). The propinquity theory state that people tend to form groups relative to where they come from, such that people from the same geographical area are likely to come together (Nahemow and Lawton, 1975). The balanced theory on the other hand indicates that people tend to form groups relative to the common values and attitudes that they share such as political, work, religious and lifestyle choices. The social system theory however states that, people tend to form groups relative to their corporation in interaction, problem solving, reducing tension, attaining goals, achieving balance and sentiments. The exchange theory shows a different view as it states that people form groups based on the rewards and costs associated with the union. Where the rewards are high the people come together and where the costs of joining up are high they tend to avoid the costs and therefore the union.
Diagnostic Tools
The Johari Window is one of the most common communication models that is subtle at helping individuals to improve their level of understanding between them (Mindtools.com, 2016). I...