Group Dynamics Report, Research Paper Example

The present report pertains to the necessity of the new provost to achieve multiple organizational goals in the faculty management. The fact is that the provost has to be the leader of different groups, including the current office of his unit, the entire faculty of about 125 professors and the Faculty Senate consisting of faculty members. In addition, the provost has decided to hire one more person to make him/her the Vice President of Enrolment Management. The new employee will head the whole enrolment management department and will accept a set of administrative units such as the Registrar’s Office, the Admissions Office etc. under control. The task of the present report is to work out a set of strategic decisions based on group dynamics knowledge and decision-making skills to align the work of all administrative units and achieve cohesion in work direction, reduction of conflict among team members and incorporation of a new group into the whole faculty activities framework.

First of all, the provost should identify the state in which existing groups are at a given moment of time, detect problems, conflicts and discrepancies they experience and eliminate them before introducing a new group into the faculty structure. The matter is that in case conflicts are not resolved, the emergence of a new group may cause only the conflict escalation and not reduction. As it comes from the preliminary information at the provost’s disposal, there is a lack of alignment in group goals – some members of the Faculty Senate wish to pursue a more research-based path of faculty activities, while another part supports a more intimate, teaching-based approach. Thus, the provost should address the problem in a strategically wise way to avoid dissatisfaction and competition at the faculty.

Since the faculty staff is diverse and numerous, it will be hard to bring the group of more than a hundred people into alignment with one faculty goal. Thus, with the proper consideration of both opinions that the Faculty Senate offers, the provost should appoint two temporary work groups to explore both directions of activities and report to him in a certain period of time about the success achieved, the weak and strong sides of both approaches, the potential existing within the framework of both directions etc. This empirical research will be a trial period for proponents of both opinions as they will feel the positive, productive feedback of the leader, they will obtain resources for accomplishment of their individual goals, which will play the role of a reward for them so important in the sustenance of positive group dynamics. In case both directions prove effective in the application by the faculty staff, it will be possible to outline them as two dominant areas of faculty activity.

The main threat of such approach is that it may reduce the group cohesion due to absence of similar attitudes and personal goals, common interests and ideas (Levi, 2001). However, the approach described in Gladwell’s work is fully applicable in the present case and favors the deeper division of tasks and focuses within the group. The author states that individuals are much better at making decisions, that is, ‘thin-slicing’, when they possess a limited amount of information. This means that the more grounded the decision is and the more facts the individual has to process, the harder it will be for him or her to make a precise decision (Gladwell, 2005). One can make a conclusion that in case faculty members are divided into two groups, one of which will pursue a research path and another one will deal with in-depth instruction, the level of alignment and intrinsic motivation within the group will rise substantially, helping those groups provide effective and constructive results for the whole institution. To prevent the isolation of both groups from one another and to ensure efficient communication within the entire faculty social framework, the provost has to establish a set of scheduled meetings for exchange of findings and experience, which will sufficiently enrich the range of skills and competences among faculty members.

One more positive element may be found in the creation of temporary work groups; the more the staff members get involved in the long-aspired direction of research, the easier and more smoothly they will accept formation of a new group and appointment of a new leader, the Vice President of Enrolment Management. The emergence of a new group will inevitably cause conflicting interests, the troublesome process of goal alignment and task formation. As it comes from the work of Forsyth (2009), the group has to be structurally analyzed because the internal group interactions follow a predictable and organized pattern because of being subject to the forces of the strong interpersonal structure inside it. Thus, in case the structure is altered or changed with the help of external forces, there will always be a certain measure of turbulence and disagreement. Being distracted from the main event, the appointment of a new administrative employee and the creation of a new enrolment management unit will be paid less attention to and will cause fewer emotions than the event that all employees have been waiting for a long time.

Second, it is essential to approach the creation of a new administrative unit with the application of group dynamics norms. The new leader should be a strong personality possessing the necessary set of skills for managing enrolment issues (Levi, 2001). The staff that will be included into the new unit should clearly realize the roles they will have in it, as lack of cohesion and role problems may arise from ambiguous and conflicting roles within a group (Levi, 2001). To ensure the correct staff selection, the provost should apply the technique of assessing group dynamics first; a survey ensuring the employees’ understanding of group goals and the measure of commitment to them, support thereof etc. Dimock and Devine (1997) advise to include such assessment criteria as mission clarity, team unity, role clarity, empowerment, trust and support, skills, commitment and innovation into the survey. Under the condition of complying to the present set of criteria, the provost and the new Vice President will be able to create a homogeneous group with similar goals, diverse skills and high potential for teamwork (Levi, 2001).

As soon as the groups are established and given the tasks to accomplish, the provost together with the new Vice President should establish the whole scope of norms for all groups, including the prescriptive, proscriptive, descriptive and injunctive ones (Forsyth, 2009). Creation of norms will be essential for role distribution and legalization of all interactions between groups that are an inevitable necessity for the preservation of the cohesive structure of the whole faculty. It is possible to create prescriptive norms identifying the key directions for each group’s activities, the common points in which all three groups would overlap and the key responsibilities of each group to avoid doubling duties. The injunctive norms should concern the aspects in which the possible conflict of group interests may arise, and the key duties that should not be neglected for the sake of group task accomplishment. It is essential to remember that all group members, except the administrative unit of enrolment management, are also professors and have to do their daily teaching duties first, and only then proceed to secondary duties.

The key elements for all groups’ success dictate commitment to task completion, maintenance of social relations and diversity of knowledge and skills (Levi, 2001). These issues should be included in the formation of group strategy – only with its clear direction and goals, good leadership, tasks suited for teamwork, availability of adequate resources for task completion and presence of a positive organizational environment the success of all groups can be guaranteed (Levi, 2001). Thus, it becomes clear in which direction both the leaders and group members have to work: establishing healthy social climate in the group, choosing a strong leader, ensuring task alignment for all group members, clarification of tasks to avoid ambiguity and mistakes.

Finally, close attention to the group behavior of various group members is an essential part of arranging the work of groups under the principles of positive group dynamics. There is a set of functional and dysfunctional group behavior types, so the leader who has authoritative powers should reduce dysfunctional behaviors and promote constructive ones, such as initiating and contributing, giving and seeking information and opinions, coordination etc. (Forsyth, 2009). Encouragement of employees to engage in constructive behaviors will considerably increase group effectiveness and will accelerate task completion.

Instead of a conclusion one should note that each group’s success is surely vital for the success of the whole innovation scope that the new provost is planning, and the division of roles will substantially help in task division, role clarification and responsibility distribution, which in its turn will ease the work of the faculty and will structure it accordingly. However, the provost and the new Vice President should realize that the faculty is a large social network and all administrative and teaching staff are members thereof. In case three distinctive groups with separate tasks are created, the pattern of their interactions will inevitably change, and the risk of tearing some important social ties is rather high. Thus, the number one priority after group establishment, cohesion and alignment should be the support of alternative social relations that should be established instead f the previous ones. Weekly meetings, cooperative tasks of short-term character and systematic experience exchange affairs may be of much help for achievement of these purposes.

References

Dimock, H., & Devine, I. (1997). Assessing Group Dynamics. (3^rd ed.). Captus Press.

Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Little, Brown and Company.

Levi, D. (2001). Group Dynamics for Teams. SAGE.