Group Dynamics in Business, Research Paper Example

Abstract

In virtually any situation wherein a group of people are seeking to achieve a result of some kind, the often complex interplay of group dynamics is present. The business world provides excellent examples of how group interactions achieve ends usually far more satisfactory than could be had from individual activity done in isolation. A natural and productive drawing out of individual abilities, the visceral process by which a leader often emerges, and a stronger bond between those who would otherwise be remote colleagues are all benefits of group dynamics in force in business, and understanding nuances and characteristics of them is key in enhancing the experience.

Basic Reasoning

Group activity in the business world is both a very common occurrence and a frequently misunderstood one. Group effort in business happens all the time and often out of necessity; several people working to find a single solution or produce a single outcome will typically create an environment wherein more energy and thinking is produced than that which individuals would be able to contribute by themselves. This does not occur in a simple manner, as nothing involving variables of personality, skill and degrees of interdependence can. However, the advantages are such that a real understanding of what fuels the group dynamic encourages the best possible results.

Research on group activity in business in extensive, but not entirely satisfactory. There is an inherent dilemma within examining a process so societal in nature and simultaneously in place to secure a tangible, positive business end, and researchers tend to miss how incalculably valuable that societal element is. “Researchers who watch groups and ask group members questions can develop a detailed description of a group, but they must go beyond description if they are to explains groups” (Forsyth, 2009, p.40). Unfortunately most group research, concentrating on statistical analysis and factual consequences, is not designed to investigate the more subtle forces that shape successful group activity.

The most basic component within the group is interdependence. Stratified and often shifting, this dynamic is in a sense the machine which brings out the best of the individuals within the group, and attributes which otherwise would have no need to arise. As the lone individuals come together to achieve a common end, an exponential interaction comes into play, and a lack of needed conceptualizing from one person is compensated for by another. So too is the more imaginative of the group balanced by the pragmatism of one or more colleagues. As stated, this interplay is typically not a predictable thing. An employer may recognize various abilities within his people and believe that an assembly of these will prove successful in attaining the desired ends, but that employer cannot reasonably estimate how this dynamic will actually operate. This is why business groups often meticulously arranged fail, while others produce unexpectedly superior outcomes.

Individual/Group Comparison

In a very real sense there can be no intrinsically ‘better’ performance in business from the group or the individual. Circumstances dictate, always, and with regard to the nature of the desired result as well as the magnitude of it. Moreover, even these factors may not be relied upon to indicate which option will serve the purpose most efficiently, and sometimes a combination of the two will be most effective.

For instance, a major advertising agency may require a new concept for a client. Depending upon the pool of talent in the workforce, the employer must assess the individual strengths of his people and determine which course to take. In the Smith Agency, there happens to be an employee with an unusual and often highly creative talent for originating novel concepts. The employer then feels that this person should be given the assignment, for the employer is certain that something different and exciting will come out of it.

This same employer, however, has a broader strategy in mind. He is relying on the individual to devise the idea, but he anticipates as well that this person’s creativity will be too extreme and inapplicable to a practical advertising campaign. He therefore plans to bring the idea into a group setting, once he feels that the essence is solid. His group can then adapt and tailor the concept into a successful ad.

Conversely, the Jones Ad Company also requires a fresh approach for a client, but the Jones team is a more cohesive and interdependent unit in all their activities. This is a workforce that has evolved to compliment the members within it beautifully, so Jones decides that his best option is to assemble his group for extended brainstorming. There is no single individual whom he foresees coming up with the needed concept, yet he is confident that it will emanate from the historically-proven creativity his group manifests.

It must be noted that ‘creativity’ in business is by no means limited to advertising. All business depends upon it to keep the organization competitive and successful, no matter the business itself. “Creativity is something we desperately need, but we do not know how to get it, and we are not really sure what it is” (Thompson, Choi, 2006, p.3). As creativity of some kind is virtually always behind the business need, so too is creativity essential in the forming and applying of group dynamics in the business, and the individuals must be seen as such even when a group gathering of them is more desirable. There is no strict dichotomy, ultimately, between the ‘individual’ and the ‘group’, for the former never ceases to be individual while involved in the latter.

Cohesiveness in Groups

Succinctly put, “Group cohesiveness is the extent to which a group is committed to staying together” (Griffin, Moorhead, 2009, p.236). Through this definition it becomes evident that group cohesiveness is not so much an element apart, as a result in itself. It is also the foundation upon which the group operates; without this sense of commitment, nothing in the group can actually succeed or, at best, what it produces will be weak.

The extent to which cohesiveness impacts on a group cannot be overstated. The commitment level of every participant inevitably dictates the degree of individual interest and contribution, and these factors are of course what makes the group operational to begin with. The group process, in business or in any sphere, is a living thing, constantly shifting, expanding and developing as the individual commitment levels fuel activity.

As an example, the Billings Company has organized a group to examine and improve the company’s relationship with the community. Various unsuccessful municipal projects have undermined the company’s credibility and its very survival is in jeopardy. This factor is responsible for Mr. Billings belief that his team will be committed to correcting the issue.

However, from the start a lack of cohesiveness renders the group inert. What Mr. Billings does not know is that the community feeling has infect several members within this group and they cannot properly motivate themselves to contribute to an outcome they already see as hopeless. Other team members are actively seeking employment elsewhere. For the time being, the group is going through the motions of accomplishing the agenda and the right topics are brought to the table for discussion. There is, however, no energy. Uncommitted, the group has no cohesion as such and is a self-defeating effort.

In this extreme case, Billings was not wrong in wanting to establish a group to deal with the problem. His mistake was in failing to recognize the climate within the company and then pro-actively addressing that. As with any planned group, the person in charge of ensuring its productivity – i.e., cohesiveness – must first know that the team is prepared to commit. In Billings’ case, a meeting beforehand to encourage his people and assure them of the safety of their jobs would most likely have been effective. In doing this he would have supplied the motivation, and therefore the essential cohesiveness.

Social Factors

Whenever a group of people is brought together for a single purpose, it is inevitable, again, that all the elements comprising each individual in the group are manifest. This necessarily translates to degrees of affection and/or hostility that must come into play in any social scenario. The business group members understand that they are not assembled for a social function, as such, yet that is nonetheless a large part of what they are engaged in.

The planner for the group does it no good by pretending that this component does not exist, nor does he help by promoting an excessive level of camaraderie within it. There are business leaders who believe that personal liking is essential for productive group functioning. They are both correct and wrong, for it is a matter of degree, and it is as well a dynamic within the group which must find its own way.

Obviously, the group individuals with strong feelings of mutual dislike will not be an asset to the group. They are not, however, necessarily more counter-productive to the group than the individuals extremely fond of one another, or who engage in a great deal of outside-work fraternizing. In both cases personal feelings and inclinations have too much power; the clear-headed thinking that business demands is overshadowed by emotional components out of place.

In organizing any group, the business employer should understand that, provided a sufficient level of respect is exchanged throughout, a normal and appropriate amount of social interaction will be present in the group dynamic and invaluable to its output. Sharing a common goal around a table establishes a link even between strangers in the business, and some occasional, lighthearted interaction will arise to both ease any existing pressures and help the group cohere.

Again, however, that mutual respect must first be present. With a base of trust in the abilities of all concerned, ideas and proposals are automatically encouraged; the individual in the group feels empowered to contribute, and this is often what makes the group so desirable a business option to begin with. Then, as the people involved are respected by the peers present, criticism is not either delivered in a damaging manner or taken as such. The worker who feels valued, particularly in the presence of the group, cannot feel belittled or unimportant.

Leadership

There is often controversy about the ‘leader’ element in the business group, both in such settings and in outside research. One faction firmly believes that the leaderless group functions better as a democratic unit, with freedom of expression unfettered. Others hold to an absolute need for one voice to assert itself over all others, for the betterment of the group.

What all sides typically fail to realize is that the leader will be there, no matter the intent. The business group is, as noted, an inherently social gathering to some extent. People have come together, basically, and the dynamics automatically within that in itself must be present in the business group. This means that at least one, more dominant personality will be evident.

Sometimes this is orchestrated and the leader is selected beforehand, either because of rank or specific talents in the field for which the group is assembled. However, it is more sensible and far more practical to allow the group leader to evolve from the setting. This has its perils; some ‘leaders’ take charge of a business group through a need to intimidate, a desire to be liked, or any other factor not naturally arising and not in any way in accord with what the leader must be. Such leaders, however, usually do not last. True leadership in a business group, luckily for the business, is often an organic thing. Once the group is set and provided all concerned are respected and capable employees, this often simply happens.

It happens, moreover, for the lack of the leader is a vacuum in the group not easily compensated for. They give, above all, focus: “When group leadership roles are executed as necessary, a sense of group consciousness emerges and interaction increases” (Minnelli, Breckon, 2008, p. 223). The leader brings a unity, ironically, through the more pronounced leadership role. There is in the business group a pervasive sense of ease, in that there is a core to the activity and a central point upon which to ascertain limits.

Because this role is so pivotal to the life and success of the business group, it is all the more crucial that the leader either be selected very carefully or, more optimally, be allowed to emerge naturally. What a leader actually does in and for a group is made up of many intangibles; it is not witchcraft but it does rely upon an ever-shifting power to both guide, understand, and create a harmonious atmosphere. So important a position becomes equally damaging when incorrectly filled, and the experienced business owner or manger must know as well that the leader will make him or herself know very shortly into the group’s first meeting, if only permitted to do so. There is also the added benefit of the leader bringing about a closer connection between colleagues who otherwise, even within the group, would remain disconnected.

The Team Approach

Often synonymous with ‘group’, the team in business is actually a distinctly different entity. Joe’s corporation has a need for a group, for example, because it has been determined that the entire human resources department is woefully inadequate. He needs a group of his key managers of every department to gather and build a plan to create a completely new department.

Joe wants to use this problem as an opportunity to perhaps reinvent the traditional model and tailor it to his corporation, so he requires some free-thinking along with solid business experience.

However, it may be that Joe’s HR department is merely running into some issues and it is uncertain whether they are due to a specific incompetency, or a larger problem. He therefore put a team to work on the dilemma, and it is a team because it has a known task ahead of it, and one not reliant upon especially innovative thinking or restructuring on a grand scale. Basically, the business team is the mercenary army, out to do the job; the business group is the standing army, committed to the nation and with a more complex and invested duty to perform.

Conclusion

The success, and even the reason for existence, of the business group revolves around the complex dynamics that come into play whenever people assemble with an object in mind. Above all, it draws out qualities from its members that are ordinarily not produced from individuals working in a solitary way, for in the group these individuals have a forum in which to make a distinctly recognizable contribution.

The truly successful business group is the one that comes into being thoughtfully. It is the group composed of all capable and respected individuals, it has a definite goal in mind, and it operates under the eye of the leader who is known to it through a natural assertion of leadership. This is as well the group that, when its duties are concluded, will leave the business with stronger bonds of respect and connection between its people.

References

Forsyth, D. R. (2009.)  Group Dynamics. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Griffin, R.W., and Moorhead, G. (2009.)  Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Minnelli, M.J., and Breckon, D.J. (2008.)  Community Health Education: Settings, Roles, and Skills. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Thompson, L.L., and Choi, H.  (2006.)  Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.