GROUP

Group is defined as a collection of two or more individuals who have a common

goal and interact with each other to accomplish the goal, are aware of one another
and perceive themselves to be a part of the group.
By a formal group, we mean one defined by the organization’s structure, with
designated work assignments establishing tasks. In formal
groups, the behaviors team members should engage in are stipulated by and
directed toward organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight crew
are a formal group.

In contrast, an informal group is neither formally structured nor organizationally

determined. Informal groups are natural formations
in the work environment that appear in response to the need for social contact.
Three employees from different departments who regularly have lunch or coffee
together are an informal group. These types of interactions among individuals,
though informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.
 The Five-Stage Model of group formation

As shown in Exhibit 9-1, the five-stage group-development model characterizes

groups as proceeding through the distinct stages of forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning.

1. Forming. This initial stage is marked by uncertainty and even confusion. Group
members are not sure about the purpose, structure, task, or leadership of the group.
Members “test the waters” to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable.
This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of
a group.

2. Storming. The storming stage is one of intragroup conflict. This stage of

development, as indicated by the term, is characterized by conflict and
confrontation. (In the usually emotionally charged atmosphere, there may be
considerable disagreement and conflict among the members about roles and
duties.)
During this stage, members accept the existence of the group but resist the
constraints it imposes on individuality. There is conflict over who will control the
group.

3. Norming. Finally, in this stage the members begin to settle into cooperation and
collaboration. They have a “we” feeling with high cohesion, group identity,
camaraderie, goals, tasks, role for individual, leadership and a common set of
expectations of what defines correct member behavior.

4. Performing. The fourth stage is performing. The structure at this point is fully
functional and accepted. This is the stage where the group is fully functioning and
devoted to effectively accomplishing the tasks agreed on in the norming stage. For
permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in development.
5. Adjourning. However, for temporary committees, teams, task forces, project
teams and similar groups that have a limited task to perform, and with a specific
objective, once the objective is accomplished, the group will disband or have a new
composition, and the stages will start over again. The adjourning stage is for
wrapping up activities and preparing to disband.

During this stage, some group members are upbeat, basking in the
group’s accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie
and friendships gained during the work group’s life.

FACTORS AFFECTING GROUP FORMATION

Followings are the four major factors that affect the formation of the group.

Attraction to members of the group

The group's members attract each other because of their proximity and frequency
of interaction. However, it's important to realize that proximity simply provides the
possibility of attraction; other elements usually come into play when forming a
relationship. Similarity, particularly attitudinal similarity, appears to have the same
influence in group formation as it does in interpersonal attraction.
Activities, interactions and sentiments

These three elements are directly related to one another. The more activities
persons share, the more numerous will be their interactions and the stronger will be
their sentiments (how much the other persons are liked or disliked); the more
interactions among persons, the more will be their shared activities and sentiments;
and the more sentiments persons have for one another, the more will be their
shared activities and interactions. And this leads to group formation.

Activities, goals, or the task of the group

A group's mission, as expressed in its activities and aims, is frequently cited as a

compelling incentive to join. According to the application of social exchange
theory to group formation, we join and stay in groups when the benefits surpass the
costs, resulting in profits. Because you cannot afford to pay more, you join a
protest group against increased tuition rates.

Affiliating with the people in the group

Our desire to identify with the people in the group is the third general factor in
group formation. We meet our need for affiliation by engaging with individuals,
just as we meet our desire for achievement by participating in group activities and
achieving group goals. Whether we attach for social comparison, anxiety
reduction, or to satisfy an underlying desire, it is apparent that the group is a
powerful platform for meeting our basic social needs and has a significant impact
on our behaviour.

Meeting needs or goals lying outside the group.

Group membership may assist us in meeting requirements that are external to the
group; as a result, group membership may serve as a stepping stone to achieving an
external goal rather than a source of direct gratification. A college lecturer may
attend professional association meetings on a regular basis to improve his or her
chances of advancement. A political candidate might join a variety of community
organisations to improve his or her prospects of being elected.
 Group Norms

Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting on the
green or that employees don’t criticize their bosses in public? Why not? The
answer is norms.
All groups have established norms—acceptable standards of behavior shared by
their members that express what they ought and ought not to do under certain
circumstances. When agreed to and accepted by the group, norms influence
members’ behavior with a minimum of external controls. Different groups,
communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them.

Norms can cover virtually any aspect of group behavior. Probably the most
common is a performance norm, providing explicit cues about how hard members
should work, what the level of output should be, how to get the job done, what
level of tardiness is appropriate, and the like. These norms are extremely powerful
and are capable of significantly modifying human behaviors. Other norms include
appearance norms (dress codes, unspoken rules about when to look busy), social
arrangement norms (with whom to eat lunch, whether to form friendships on and
off the job), and resource allocation norms (assignment of difficult jobs,
distribution of resources like pay or equipment).

THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES

The influence of norms on worker behavior was established by this study. This
study was carried out by a group of researchers led by George Elton Mayo and
Roethlisberger from Harvard Business School in collaboration with employees of
the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company’s in Chicago.

Some of the major phases of Hawthorne experiments are as follows

The Illumination Studies: A Serendipitous Discovery

In 1924, the studies started at the huge Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric
Company outside of Chicago. The initial illumination studies attempted to examine
the relationship between light intensity on the shop floor of manual work sites and
employee productivity. A test group and a control group were used. The test group
in an early phase showed no increase or decrease in output in proportion to the
increase or decrease of illumination. The control group with unchanged
illumination increased output by the same
amount overall as the test group. Subsequent phases brought the level of light
down to moonlight intensity; the workers could barely see what they were doing,
but productivity increased. The results were baffling to the researchers. Obviously,
some variables in the experiment were not being held constant or under control.
Something besides the level of illumination was causing the change in
productivity. This something, of course, was the
complex human variable.

It is fortunate that the illumination experiments did not end up in the wastebasket.
Those responsible for the Hawthorne studies had enough foresight and spirit of
scientific inquiry to accept the challenge of looking beneath the surface of the
apparent failure of the experiments. In a way, the results of the illumination
experiments were a serendipitous discovery, which, in research, is an accidental
discovery. The serendipitous results of the illumination experiments provided the
impetus for the further study of human behavior in the workplace.

Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments

The illumination studies were followed by a study in the relay room, where
operators assembled relay switches. This phase of the study tried to test specific
variables, such as length of workday, rest breaks, and method of payment. The
results were basically the same as those of the illumination studies: each test period
yielded higher productivity than the previous one. Even when the workers were
subjected to the original conditions of the experiment, productivity increased. The
conclusion was that the independent variables (rest pauses and so forth) were not
by themselves causing the change in the dependent variable (output). As in the
illumination experiments, something was still not being controlled that was causing
the change in the dependent variable (output).

The bank wiring observation room

Still another phase was the bank wiring room study. As in the preceding relay
room experiments, the bank wirers were placed in a separate test room. The
researchers were reluctant to segregate the bank wiring group because they
recognized that this would alter the realistic factory environment they were
attempting to simulate. However, for practical reasons, the research team decided
to use a separate room. Unlike the relay room experiments, the bank wiring room
study involved no experimental changes once the study had
started. Instead, an observer and an interviewer gathered objective data for study.
Of particular interest was the fact that the department’s regular supervisors were
used in the bank wiring room. Just as in the department out on the factory floor,
these supervisors’ main function was to maintain order and control.
The results of the bank wiring room study were essentially opposite to those of the
relay room experiments. In the bank wiring room there were not the continual
increases in productivity that occurred in the relay room. Rather, output was
actually restricted by the bank wirers. By scientific management analysis—for
example, time and motion study-the industrial engineers had arrived at a standard
of 7,312 terminal connections per day. This
represented 21⁄2 equipment (banks). The workers had a different brand of
rationality. They decided that 2 equipment was a “proper” day’s work. Thus, 21⁄2
equipment represented the management norm for production, but 2 equipment was
the informal group norm and the actual output. The researchers determined that the
informal group norm of two equipment represented restriction of output rather than
a lack of ability to produce at the company standard of 2 1/2 equipments.

The group was operating well below its

capability and was leveling output to protect itself. Members were afraid that if
they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate would be cut,
the expected daily output would be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower
workers would be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair
output—neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure
their reports were nearly level.

Of particular interest from a group dynamics standpoint were the social pressures
used to gain compliance with the group norms. The incentive system dictated that
the more a worker produced the more money the worker would earn. Also, the best
producers would be laid off last, and thus they could be more secure by producing
more. Yet, in the face of this management rationale, almost all the workers
restricted output.

The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts.” Don’t be a rate-
buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work.
Don’t squeal on any of your peers. How did the group enforce these norms? The
methods included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper
arm of any member who violated the group’s norms. Members also ostracized
individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest.
Implications of the Hawthorne Studies

Why the difference in two phases of the studies?

In order of preference, the workers gave the following reasons:

1. Small group
2. Type of supervision
3. Earnings
4. Novelty of the situation
5. Interest in the experiment
6. Attention received in the test room

The following were the main conclusions drawn by Prof. Mayo on the basis of
Hawthorne studies:
1. Social Unit:
A factory is not only a techno-economic unit, but also a social unit. Men are social
beings. This social characteristic at work plays an important role in motivating
people. The output increased in Relay Room due to effectively functioning of a
social group with a warm relationship with its supervisors.
2. Group Influence:
The workers in a group develop a common psychological bond uniting them as £
group in the form of informal organisation. Their behaviour is influenced by these
groups. Pressure of a group, rather than management demands, frequently has the
strongest influence on how productive workers would be.
3. Group Behaviour:
Management must understand that typical group behaviour can dominate or even
supersede individual propensities.

GROUP DECISION MAKING AND ITS TECHNIQUES.

Group decision-making is a process where a group of individuals collectively

make a decision. The decision is usually reached through discussion and
consensus. This type of decision-making is often used in business settings, as it
allows for multiple perspectives to be considered before a final decision is made.

There are a large variety of group decision-making techniques that can be used.
The most important part of using any technique is to ensure that all members of the
group are comfortable with the technique and that it is appropriate for the decision
that needs to be made.

Some commonly used techniques include the nominal group technique,

Electronic meeting, the Delphi technique, and brainstorming etc..

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a technique that is often used to generate many new ideas

quickly. It can be used when a group needs to come up with an extensive list of
ideas or when there is a need to find a creative solution to a problem.
Brainstorming can be an effective tool as it allows all members of the group to
share their ideas in an open and non-judgmental setting. The rules of brainstorming
are as follows:

 All members of the group must participate.

 No idea should be rejected outright.
 The goal is centered around the generation of the maximum number of ideas
 All ideas should be written down.
 No discussion or critiquing of ideas is allowed during the brainstorming
session.

In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a

table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants
understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given
length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is
allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for
later discussion and analysis.

Often, this process is combined with another group decision-making technique to

eventually arrive at a decision.

The nominal group technique

This technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the

decision-making process, hence the term nominal. Group
members are all physically present, as in a traditional committee meeting, but
they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the
group takes the following steps:
1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down
ideas on the problem.
2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No
discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.
3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The
idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a
group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does an
interacting group. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform
brainstorming groups

Electronic meeting

The most recent approach to group decision making blends the nominal
group technique with sophisticated computer technology. It’s called a computer
assisted group, or an electronic meeting. Once the required technology is in place,
the concept is simple. Up to 50 people sit around a horseshoe-shaped
table, empty except for a series of networked laptops. Issues are presented
to them, and they type their responses into their computers. These individual but
anonymous comments, as well as aggregate votes, are displayed on
a projection screen. This technique also allows people to be brutally honest
without penalty. And it’s fast because chitchat is eliminated, discussions don’t
digress, and many participants can “talk” at once without stepping on one
another’s toes. Early evidence, however, suggests electronic meetings don’t
achieve most of their proposed benefits. They actually lead to decreased group
effectiveness, require more time to complete tasks, and result in reduced member
satisfaction compared with face-to-face groups. Nevertheless, current enthusiasm
for computer-mediated communications suggests this technology is
here to stay and is likely to increase in popularity in the future.

The Delphi Method

The Delphi technique is a method for collecting, organizing, reviewing, and

revising the opinions of a group of individuals who never actually meet. This
procedure, which is directed by a nonparticipating coordinator, generates a group
decision without physically assembling members.

The Delphi technique is a good option when you need to reach a group consensus
for a major decision.
This group decision-making process takes all of the ideas generated by the team
and compiles them for the leader of the group to break down into a smaller list of
possible approaches. Those fewer options are then taken back to the group for
further discussion and collective consideration.

Then the steps are repeated until members have no further input to add.

If a clear consensus emerges after the final round of surveys, the exercise is
finished. Alternatively, the members may be asked to rank or rate the final decision
options. In this case, the group decision is the alternative with the most favorable
rating or ranking.

Essentially, the choices are condensed until a majority decision can be made. The
idea is that when there are fewer options available a decision is reached with much
more ease and with collective agreement from you and your team members.