Innovation comes from creativity which is one of the most tangled and skillful quality of humans. In organizations, innovation does not simply relate to individuals being creative. Clegg et al. (2002) found that the social factors supports team and management and also predicts the ideas being implemented in an innovation oriented organization (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005).
Groups are more conservative than individuals while decision making which involves risks. “Group polarization is the tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those of individuals.” Groups produce more extreme decisions because every member of a group believes that he or she will not be held responsible for any risky decision. Thus, group discussion creates an ornately wagon in which every individual would like to step to be saved from being left alone (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005).
DISCUSSION
The scientific management principles focused on individual’s performance at work before Hawthorne Studies came into picture.
The Hawthorne Studies
During the 1920s, humans in organizations were treated as machines or it can be said that there was a mechanical model of human behaviour. Individuals did not give proper response to work and thus led to lot of research to increase productivity of workers. The most important and famous experiment known as The Hawthorne Studies was carried out by Elton Mayo and associates in 1927 in the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company near Chicago to study this behaviour of employees. An experiment called Relay assembly test room experiment was carried out with a group of six female workers. The workers were selected in such a manner that they would like to work in a friendly manner and do the equal type of work throughout. They were also supervised by another lady in a friendly manner. The research was done keeping the temperature, humidity, time of rest during work, number of working hours and payment system on output.
The result was surprising, because the productivity increased in variation of all the variables. Even when the original conditions were restored, the productivity still increased. Elton Mayo said that the main change that took place in the room was a social system to work. The women formed themselves into social group and worked to increase the productivity. The two effects which brought this change were: the experiment itself, the workers felt that management was showing interest in them and, the friendly supervision, which allowed the social organization to develop. (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005)
The Hawthorne Studies gave rise to “Human Relations Movement”, which is a key in management and emphasis on importance of social factors in work. According to this theory, management provides environments in organizations where employees can get their social needs fulfilled. They do team-building, supervision, increasing communication, participation in decision-making and counseling (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005). Crainer (1996) says, “The management styles and informal work organization plays an important role in improving performance.” (Mullins, 2005)
Are Two Heads Better Than One?
An experiment was carried out by Alan S. Blinder and John Morgan (2000) in a laboratory of Princeton University. They had two aspects of experiment: a statistical urn problem and a monetary experiment policy. During the experiment they had taken five students in a group and asked to guess in which direction electronic urns shown on a computer screen would change in composition and direction. The conclusion drawn from the experiment was that groups performed better and faster in decision-making. Thus it was proved that group-based theories helped in better performance and were innovative in nature (Blinder and Morgan, 2000).
Effect of Group Size
An experiment was carried out by Laughlin et al. (2006) saying groups performance is better than individuals. In the experiment they divided individuals into groups of 2, 3, 4 and 5. They also considered some individuals for their experiment. They asked all to solve teo letter-to-number problems which required participants to code letters-to-numbers by proposing equations in numbers, getting answers in letters, giving a hypothesis and receiving feedback, if the hypothesis was correct or not. It was seen that groups of 3, 4 and 5 individuals gave good response to equations and hypothesis. Thus, it was concluded that group of 3 members performed better than individuals oh highly intellective problems. Hence it is proved that group size also matters in performing well in organizations with innovative ideas (Laughlin et al, 2006).
Teamwork in a Small Company
Eddie Brennan describes about the growth of his company due to teamwork through a detailed description named “Teamwork in a small company”. He says that he started a small company with a group of four executives of different work backgrounds. He increased the number of people to ten to carry out work with ease. He faced some problems at the beginning because of inexperience of the six new staffs. They could not meet the requirements of their client in time. After a meeting, they developed some strategies: not to depend completely on one client and develop an innovative atmosphere in the company. But they found that the young staff members were unable to produce well and understand the strategies (Mullins, 2005).
They developed autonomous teams to be responsible for specific areas. They started a series of sessions with the staff for three hours, which covered subject like, organizational development, stress management, management theory and financial management. They also held some workshops on team building, interpersonal relationships and customer relationships. Every evening meeting was held followed by drinks in a pub. “The management was surprised to see maturity, interest and responsibility the staff took in the health and the development of the company and supporting the strategic goals of the company.” (Mullins, 2005)
The staff was paid 15% less salary than industry norms, but still they were willing to work because of the friendly atmosphere and fun in the work. Company received some applications also from outsiders who were willing to work with them. The company was recognized by the ISO 9000 standard within 18 months by introducing this new team structure. “This unexpected development has been the formation of the ‘social norms’.” Thus they believed that autonomous teamwork works and saves money, saves time and enables management to concentrate on development of business, quality of work improved and good customer relations were developed (Mullins, 2005). Thus, it is seen that group-based theory increases performance and innovation in organizations.
LEADERSHIP
“Leadership relates to motivation, interpersonal behaviour and the process of communication.” It is a two way process influencing both individuals and organization’s performance. “Leadership does not necessarily take place in the hierarchical structure of the organization.” (Mullins, 2005) Throughout the ancient history, leadership has remained an attribute of the individual. But in organizations, it has always been a matter of research. Individuals based on experience, seniority or expertise, are made leaders in formal organizations. But the same has always been researchable. The quantity of contribution of an individual in a group indicates his or her intention to be a leader.
Leadership: A Group Phenomenon
Likert (1961) proposed four systems of relationships in large organizations, namely: exploitative autocratic, benevolent autocratic, consultative and democratic. Leadership in exploitative and benevolent autocratic gives no opportunities for consulting between staff and management. In exploitative system the relationship is formal. In benevolent system sometimes staff is rewarded, but in exploitative system, there is only pressure of work and sometimes punishment also. Whereas in consultative and democratic system, the relationship was friendly and flow of information is bi-directional. Likert made a measure with variables like, how decisions are taken, whose needs are met, what is the relation between the manager and the staff, and how much domination is present in their relationship. He favoured the democratic system of organization. It had a positive impact on the effectiveness of organization. This move would motivate employee and job satisfaction and increase productivity. The democratic skills require both considerable skills and commitment - personal and organizational. No individual can show these behaviours and thus it is more than an individual’s work (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005).
Leadership: An Individual Phenomenon
Fred Fielder (1967) made a research on leadership named, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. He distinguished leadership behaviour from leadership style. According to him, leadership behaviour is a special response which a supervisor or manager makes during a particular situation. He said that leadership is a relatively fixed quality of individual which presented a supervisor’s motivational behaviour. He also interpreted that “a high-scoring supervisor is an individual who is concerned with maintaining good interpersonal relations, more considerate and lower in anxiety.” (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005)
Hence it can be seen from both the researches that leadership, whether individual or social phenomenon, still remains unanswered. It is still a dilemma for many researchers and authors. They can just give studies on the basis of leadership behaviour and style. Thus, it can be said that leadership is a phenomenon of organizations and not of groups. Organizations define the limits of leadership (Stogdill, 1950).
Conclusion
Many heads are better than one and many arms are stronger than two. Work is a group-based activity, and groups are important for human behaviour and work organization. The social aspects of groups have influenced the organizational behaviour and management thinking. Individuals feel contended when working in a group. Researches show that any task when done in a group makes it more efficient and successful. It is seen that group-based theory increased performance and innovation in organizations. The concept of leadership still remains contradictory (whether individual or group phenomenon). Group’s performance will be better if individuals put equal effort and coordinate with each other. Group decisions will be better if information from all members is well discussed (Stangor, 2004). According to Bernard (1938), the flow of information in a group should be bi-directional (upward as well as downward) and good leadership is necessary to meet the long term goals.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Blinder, A.S. and Morgan, J (2000) “Are Two Heads Better Than One? An Experimental Analysis of Group vs Individual Decision-making” NBER Working Paper No. 7909, September 2000, JEL No. E5.
-
Eddie Brennan, Consultant, Uni-world Ltd., QWL News and Abstracts, ACAS, No. 144, Autumn 2000, pp. 8-10.
-
Fincham, R. and Rhodes, P. (2005) Principles of Organizational Behaviour, 4th edition, Oxford University Press
-
Franke, R. H. & Kaul, J. D. (1978) "The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation”, American Sociological Review, 43, 623-643.
-
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., Boh, L. (2006) “Groups Perform Better Than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-Numbers Problems: Effects of Group Size”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 4, p. 644-651.
-
Mullins, Laurie J. (2005) Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th edition, Prentice Hall
-
Rosenfeld, Robert H. and Wilson, David C. (1999) Managing Organizations, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill
-
Stangor, C. (2004) Social Groups in Action and Interaction, Psychology Press
-
Stogdill, Ralph M. (1950) “Leadership, Membership and Organization”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 47, Issue 1, January 1950, p. 1-14.
-
Thompson, P and Mchugh, D (2009) Work Organisations: A Critical Approach, 4th edition, Palgrave Macmillan
-
Weijun T. (2006) Chapter 9, Group Control,