More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of group dynamics case study
Summary of group dynamics case study
The two kinds of cultural differences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
TASK 2 Group dynamics is a term that describes all various processes that are involved in groups, involving personal (psychological) satisfaction of individual members and the output of the group as a whole (French et al. 2011). Group dynamics represents a system of theories and insights that are rooted in a number of social sciences. In every group there are certain forces, some of which are beneficial while others destructive - this is what is being defined and influenced by group dynamics in order to make groups efficient and effective. In order for the groups to organise themselves there has to be a mutual goal that they are oriented toward, and one of the ways of establishing them is through meetings. Meetings are necessary to gather …show more content…
As Asch (1952) demonstrated on multiple occasions, people tend to form opinions differently when in groups and their thinking and behaviour becomes more conforming gravitating toward what is expected from them, as opposed to - what is the actual fact of the matter and how to resolve it. As soon as the group is formed, there appears to be a reduction in individual responsibility with increase in ‘groupthink’ attitude. This has been noted many times in scientific circles, people naturally try to share responsibility, or very often - reject it completely. This tendency to give in when under pressure of authority (or peers for that matter) has been further researched by Milgram (1963) and can be used to understand how groups and their members think. Following the idea of the above mentioned studies (by Asch and Milgram) we can safely conclude that the best ideas easily stay canned in the minds of individuals only because they want to conform, likely convincing themselves that ‘others know better’ and even further catalysed in the same direction when there is a figure of authority (supervisor, manager, CEO, etc.) …show more content…
This has been examined by Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory (2004) where it was suggested how different cultural backgrounds carry different expectations from employees - and most importantly, different values. Group members with different sets of values can easily come into conflict if they are not perceived for what they are because values determine expectations and people’s behaviours, another point that managers have understand. As an example, Loughlinvest Ltd. employs a great number of employees with radically different cultural backgrounds and their values have ended unexpectedly unpleasant when their values come into friction. Each group converges its members into a homogenous unit that to some extent shares values, attitudes and opinions and this process is in itself natural and necessary for performance and function. This can be a source of problems if the groups have to interact with each other because they will inherently have different sets of values that can come into friction. Also, there can arise a number of issues if the group has to accept new members who have to accept groups values and way of performing and fit
Group cohesion is not caused by one single factor but by the contribution of many other factors (Tuckman, 1964) In order for a group to be fully cohesive a certain process occurs, a conceptual model created by Carron et al (1985) clearly outlines this procedure, this model says that there can be two routes towards group cohesion, one of which is group integration, this is how the group itself bonds together and is dependant on if the individuals within the group form a bond. Another is that of the individuals attraction towards the group which is dependant on there own motivation to stay in and contribute, alongside there own personal involvement in the overall group functionality.Thus the success of the theory is highly dependant on the need for co-operation from each individual within the
The astute reader may notice that this review does not include any papers that did not find a false consensus effect. The reason for this is not that this paper is not representative of the literature, but rather, that it is. The uniformity of the literature suggests that the phenomenon is fairly common. Some interesting arguments as to why this is are motivational or cognitive in nature. The motivational premise is based in the idea that people are motivated to believe that they have a place in their social environment. This argument is a based in self-justification, in that if many people share a given belief or behavior, it makes it easier to justify that this attitude or behavior is either right, or not as bad as it might seem.
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
In her essay “Group Minds,” Doris Lessing discusses our paradoxical ability to call ourselves individuals and our inability to realize that groups define and influence us. We, as humans, hold individualism in the highest regard yet fail to realize that groups diminish our individuality. Lessing writes, “when we’re in a group, we tend to think as that group does... but we also find our thinking changing because we belong to a group” (p. 334). Groups have the tendency to generate norms, or standards for behavior in certain situations. Not following these norms can make you stand out and, therefore, groups have the ability to influence our thoughts and actions in ways that are consistent with the groups’. Lessing’s essay helps set the context to understand the experiments that social psychologists Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo conducted to explain conformity and obedience.
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
One model for understanding group development is the five-stage group development model which states that groups go through five stages of forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Gibson, el at., 2009). In addition, the model suggests that groups can be in several stages at one time and do not have to move through the stages linearly (Gibson, el at., 2009). While this model has been widely used by individuals, in the study of group dynamics, there is no imperial evidence that this model accurately describes group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 2010). In addition, there is some concern that the model is to static and unrealistic in its explanation of group formation (Gibson, el at., 2009). Another model for group development is the punctuated equilibrium model that suggests that there are only three phases (Gibson, el a...
According to Toseland and Rivas (2005), group dynamics are “the forces that result from the interactions of group members” (p. 64). These forces refer to either the negative or positive influences towards meeting members’ socioemotional needs as well as goal attainment within a group (Toseland & Rivas, 2005), like within my class work group experience. Some of dynamics that continue to emerge and develop in my group is the effective interaction patterns and strong group cohesion, which has generated positive outcomes and group achievement thus far.
A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives (Robbins & Judge, 2009). At some point in all of our careers, we will be tasked with working within a group setting. This discussion board will focus on conformity and deviant workplace behavior, and how each can negatively affect the outcome of working within a group setting.
To what extent do those around us affect the way we think; they we perceive a situation; or they way we form our prerogatives? There are many different trains of thought, some of which are adopted, others of which are taken into account based on experience and periods of introspection, but there is one that lies with it, a fundamental difference in comparison to others: the group mind. To which it involves several individuals, a group mind is in essence, a collective following to a set of beliefs and/or practices, usually brought together through forms of social pressure and preconceived notions of moral obligation. Furthermore, these groups are often characterized by the absence of individualism and a sense of obliviousness towards how their unspoken rules influences their view of the world as a whole. Moreover, group minds also involve social pressures, often enticing some to forsake their opinions to fit the given status quo of the group. Indeed, humans are social creatures that want to feel as if their participation in a group has value, but without the awareness of how social pressures affect their ability to make decisions and how one can overcome such pressure, they are nothing more but mental toxins, or in other words, group minds.
Groupthink is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines which could have drastic results. It is the result of group polarization where discussions are enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group. Therefore, if a group leans towards risky situation at the beginning of the discussion on average they will move toward an even riskier position. (Marks, 2015). The idea when everyone think the same no one is really thinking. The drastic outcomes result from people trying to avoid conflict with one another, being highly cohesive, and results is questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions
In order to evaluate my role within the group it is important to identify what makes a group. A group must firstly consist of more than three members, “Two members have personal relationships; with three or more there is a change in quality” of the personal relationship. (Bion 1961, p26) The group must have a common purpose or a goal in order to succeed.
Groups influence our everyday lives in ways that we don’t even realize. Most of what is learned from groups are societal norms that are being reinforced on a micro level in everyday life. Group influence on individuals is a clear tangible proof of societal norms by institutions. The groups we become a part of therefore can have a greater influence on our individual actions then we are aware of. As an individual we like to believe we have agency over our actions and what we decide but a lot of our own actions is more a part of a group mentality. Also, individual’s go along with a group’s influence so they feel better about themselves because then they won’t be ostracized. This paper will analyze different aspects of individual behavior and
A group can be define as ‘any number of people who (1) interact with one another; (2) are psychologically aware of one another and (3) perceive themselves to be a group’ (Mullins, L, 2007, p.299). Certain task can only be performed by combined effort of a group. Organisation can use groups to carry out projects, which will help to achieve its overall aim. However, for the group to be successful they must understand what is expected of them and have the right skill to complete the task. . (Mullins, L, 2006)
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.
Principals of Group Dynamics With Thomason Health System establishing an on-boarding team to facilitate the implementation of an electronic medical record system, it is important to take into consideration group dynamics. Groups can be made up of different individuals that are coming together to accomplish a specific goal. " Group dynamics" refers to the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of a group. Group dynamics concern how groups form, their structure and process, and how they function" (Advameg, n.d.) In developing teams it is a good idea to have a basic sense of the various stages that occur when establishing a team and having awareness throughout the stages helps leadership understand the reasons for team members behaviors that occurred throughout each stage and helps guide these members to moving onto the next stage.