Furthermore, groups are the means in which we seek support to accomplish our individual objectives. However, it is worth remembering that these objectives may not always be the same as the organisations objectives. (Handy, 1993, p153)
Finally, being a member of a group enables us to share in a common activity or purpose. For example, the purpose of an informal group may be to play a game or a formal group may need to complete an organisational productivity task. (Handy, 1993, p153) Therefore, groups exist to perform a task that cannot be achieved by a single individual.
Hence, the positive impact of the informal group includes satisfying individual requirements such as security, affiliation, and social needs such as friendship and support. In addition, groups help to define our sense of identity and maintain our self-esteem.
Groups can have their most significant impact on individual behaviour through the norms working within it. Social psychologists refer to norms to denote the attitudes, values, expectations and acceptable behaviour within the group. Conformity can be described as the tendency of individuals to adhere to the conventions or norms of the group. Allen, (1965 cited by Beck, Bennett and Wall 2002: p213) suggested that there are many factors that dictate the level of the individual’s conformity among these are the level of commitment and attractiveness to the group. If the individual is able to conform to the norms the impact will be positive. Kell and Costs (1980, by Beck et, al, 2002: p213) indicated that benefits of membership to a mature group includes promoting individual growth, encouragement of participation and a sense of collective support.
.
However, if the individual is unable to conform the impact will be negative. The famous Hawthorn studied conducted in the 1920s and 1930s revealed the results of non-conformity. One such experiment, The Bank Wiring Operation Study revealed that workers were more responsive to the social norms of the peer group than to the control and incentives of the organisation.
This study involved 14 men who were organised into three sub-groups. Each contained three wirers and one supervisor. In addition, two inspectors moved between the three groups. The detailed observations revealed that the men had formed two informal groups or cliques made up from those at the back of the room and those at the front.
The second major finding indicated that the cliques developed informal rules of behaviour or norms. Several of these norms concerned the rate of productivity. Not only did the men control the productivity rates but they gave incorrect reports to the management on the output achieved. The group established a norm of what they considered to be a fair day’s work. Any deviant from the norm was admonished. Other group members elicited social pressure such as name calling and practical jokes to curb the deviant behaviour. Social ostracism resulted if the person did not respond to the pressure. (Handy, 1993, p 153)
Therefore, the pressure to conform can be seen as a negative impact on the individual. The individual can be stifled by the pressure to conform reducing originality and innovation. Moreover, this study indicates that the social functions of the work-group can negatively effect the organisation and productivity.
To identify the positive and negative impact of the formal group upon the organisation we need to explore the characteristics of an effective group, and the stages of group formation. Truckman (1965) categorized the creation and development of groups into four stages.
- Formation; this stage is characterised by uncertainty and confusion. In this stage the group members orient themselves. Members are uncertain of the group’s structure, its goals and the strategy in achieving them. In addition, members are keen to establish their personal identities
- Storming; this is the testing stage. Conflict and disagreements between members help to determine how the group will develop. At this stage, a leader will emerge as well as various sub-groups. In this stage the group is likely to rebel against the rules of the organisation and create its own rules and values.
- Norming; the group becomes more mature and cohesive. The group rules and norms are forged. These norms are developed beyond any formally established rules.
- Performing; in this stage, the group emerges with its own patterns of behavior. Group conflicts are resolved and the group works constructively towards problem solving. Energy is directed towards the group’s
(Truckman 1965, cited by Brooks 1999, p83)
The negative impact on the organisation arises if the group is unable to resolve some of the earlier stages of this process. The group’s effectiveness to complete the task is impaired. For example, individual group members may pull in different directions because the task or objectives have not been clearly defined.
Linked to group formation and efficiency is group cohesion. Cohesiveness can be defined as the intricate forces within the group that determine the intra-group behaviour. Cohesiveness is the drawing power of the group and its ability to retain its members. If the group is perceived as attractive people will value their membership. This results in members experiencing fewer work-related tensions. They are better adjusted to the organisation. They have higher rates of job satisfaction and lower rates of absenteeism. (Fincham & Rhodes 1999, p195)
Therefore, group cohesion is related to the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the group and this in turn affects the positive and negative impact on the organisation. According to Douglas McGregor (1960, by Brooks 1999, p275) an effective group is cohesive, open and friendly. This supports Truckman’s stages of group development. However, a mature and cohesive group does not always satisfy the organisations productivity needs. Seashore (1954, cited by Buchanan et al, 1991, p275) found that when a group shares the same values and goals to that of the organisation productivity was high. Conversely, when a group’s values and goals were not consistent with that of the organisations productivity was low. This corresponds with the Hawthorn Studies. The men in the Bank Wiring Room Observation had productivity goals that were different to that of the company’s goals. (Brooks 1999:p275)
Primarily, a cohesive group can be seen as a positive aspect of group behaviour. However, group cohesion tends to increase in times of crisis or if the group feels threatened. This was termed social identity theory and was explored by Tajfel and Turner (1986). Fundamentally, the theory is concerned with what happens to the individuals perception when becoming a member of a group and it can account for ethnocentrism (the belief that ones group is superior) (Tajfel and Turner, 1986, cited by Gross, 1996, p).
According to Tajfel and Turner (1986, cited by Fincham et al, 1999, p203) we all tend to favour the group to which we belong. We like to promote members of our own group over the out-group because it enhances the group’s own status and therefore our own self-esteem. When our in-group feels threatened by the out-group certain strategies take place to strengthen the group’s unity. In times of crisis group solidarity is increased and each member of the group supports one another. The group effectively closes ranks and resists any criticism from the threatening out-group. There is a strong feeling of patriotism. The group believes it is invulnerable and there is a collective believe in the groups morality. Internal friction is avoided, any internal disagreement is quashed and the group believes that any decisions made are unanimous. The pressure to conform to the group rules is increased and those members who resist conformity may be ostracised. Finally, the group will portray the enemy as worthless or in extreme cases evil. (Tajfel and Turner, 1986, cited by Gross, 2000 p. 468) All this indicates the cohesiveness of the group increases in times of conflict and this can have a disastrous negative impact. This impact was explored by Irvine Janis (1972)
The disadvantage of a highly cohesive group is that their decision-making abilities can be drastically impaired by what Janis (1972) termed groupthink. According to Janis, (1972) Groupthink is defined as “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgements which results from in-group pressure” Groupthink can occur for a variety of reasons. Janis (1972) concluded from his studies into American foreign policy that five features marked the decisions that turned out badly. First, the groups making the decisions were very cohesive. Secondly, the group was ignoring reality. Thirdly, the decision-makers rarely considered alternative options. Fourthly, the group was always under pressure to reach a quick decision. Finally, an autocratic leader always dominated the group and dissident behaviour was restrained. (Janis, 1972, cited by Beck, Bennett, and Wall, 2002: p214)
To summarise, group membership may satisfy many positive social needs for the individual such as security, support and affiliation. In addition, membership enhances our self-esteem. Furthermore, group cohesiveness can have a positive impact on both the individual and the organisation. If people place value on being a member of a group there will be higher rates of job satisfaction and this leads to higher productivity. However, not all of the impacts are beneficial because, as with groupthink, group membership can distort the perceptions of reality and this can lead to disastrous decisions. A further negative impact upon the organisation arises if group goals differ from that of the organisational goals.
The conclusion which emerges is that groups have complex impacts on both the individual and the organisation. Much of the impacts on the individual are related to the perception of the individual and the norms of the group. Group norms and conformity exert an enormous amount of power over the individual and this can present the organisation with major problems. For example, a group can enforce work-rates far below the expectations of the management as the Hawthorn experiments revealed. However, if organisations are made aware of the negative impacts of groups and devise strategies to avoid them there are many positive benefits. These include originality and innovation, the ability of group members to cover for each other’s absences and more self-governing groups, reducing the costs of supervision. ((Fincham et al, 1999, p209)
Word Count 2200
References
Beck A, Bennett P, Wall P. (2002) AS Communication Studies. The Essential Introduction London and New York, Routledge.
Buchanan D, Huczynski A (1991) Organizational Behaviour, an introductory text, third edition. London, Prentice Hall
Brooks I (1999) Organisational Behaviour, Individuals, Groups, and the Organisation. United Kingdom, Prentice Hall
Fincham R, Rhodes PS.(1999) Principles of Organizational Behaviour, Third Edition. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Gross R (1996) Psychology, the Science of Mind and Behaviour Third Edition. Great Britain, Hodder and Stoughton.
Handy C (1993) Understanding Organizations, Fourth Edition. London, Penguin Books
.
Bibliography
Argyle M (1967) The Psychology Of Interpersonal Behaviour, Fourth Edition. England , Penguin books.
Beck A, Bennett P, Wall P. (2002) AS Communication Studies. The Essential Introduction London and New York, Routledge.
Buchanan D, Huczynski A (1991) Organizational Behaviour, an introductory text, third edition. London, Prentice Hall
Brooks I (1999) Organisational Behaviour, Individuals, Groups, and the Organisation. United Kingdom, Prentice Hall
Fincham R, Rhodes PS.(1999) Principles of Organizational Behaviour, Third Edition. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Fletcher R, (2002) Introduction to Management Studies, Institute Of Criminal Justice Studies (2003) University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth University Press
Gross R (1996) Psychology, the Science of Mind and Behaviour Third Edition. Great Britain, Hodder and Stoughton.
Handy C (1993) Understanding Organizations, Fourth Edition. London, Penguin Books
