Essay On Group Cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness versus group thinking within the workplace
Majority of the time, group thinking has falsely been assumed to be similar to group cohesiveness. Cohesiveness defines the ability of the group to work together through challenges, providing alternative avenues with which to progress. According to Holman and Devane (2009) therefore the goal of group cohesiveness is not simply to work together but rather to reach the intended goals of the group. Conflict though frowned upon is also considered to be part of progress. Individuals are encouraged to provide alternative plans and ideas which are directed at ensuring the group meets its goals in the right time frame and with the use of available resources. Therefore, group cohesiveness

As human nature dictates, we are almost always inclined towards conformity. Rather, group thinking is all about rationalized conformity where the philosophy and norms of the group are not only considered good but the only way in which to do things. It seems therefore that group thinking encourages dominant cohesiveness so that it supersedes the rational and natural ability of the individuals within the group to seek and analyze alternative paths of decision making.
Robbins (2009) analyses research conducted by Irving Janis on the American soldier where he studied the effects of danger and high levels of stress on group cohesiveness. The results of this study showed that in such cases, level of cohesiveness developed through fear remained high. Janis also studies a number of American disasters in an aim to show the effects of external threat to group cohesiveness. He found that disasters such as the attack of Pearl Harbor could easily have been avoided is the policy makers had not developed group thinking. Group thinking disallowed and negated the probability of creative and individual alternative thoughts. Where alternative

The perfect team is often seen as a team that lacks conflict and that enjoys a high level of togetherness. Lack of conflict in itself can only be achieved if the same group individuals do not generate conflicting or different ideas from each other. Turner and Pratkins (2003) in his research found that the current organization is so inclined towards teamwork that it is included as part of the measurements in a worker’s performance record. Team work surprisingly within the organization is defined as the ability to work with others in harmony. In doing so, the organization itself develops a dynamic form of group cohesiveness. Managers are tested on their ability to maintain and provide the organization within groups that work together uniquely, so much so that there is little conflict to be heard from the same group. The question remains therefore, is teamwork in the current organization a form of encouraging group thinking? Aldag and Fuller (1998) believe that this form of teamwork in itself provides a unique censorship of an individual’s thoughts. Individual thoughts which alter and question the thoughts of the majority are often considered grounds of conflict which in turn degrade and decrease the performance of the individual. The organization therefore trains its workers to develop uniformity in place of creativity and alternative thinking patterns. Members who do not immediately conform are considered