Group dynamic

GROUP DYNAMICS
Authors Name:
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State where it is located
The Date
Author Amy McMillan defines a group as, various individuals who unite with the aim of accomplishing a set task (Barnett). Groups provide a platform in which members can freely express themselves, be curious, challenge and confront perceptions and the issues they face at a personal, group or intergroup level (Pedersen et al., 2015; Forsyth, 2018). The term Group dynamics was initially coined by Kurt Lewi in 1943 (Khosrow- Pour 2008). Kurt based his definition on how groups and individuals respond to varying circumstances (Khosrow- Pour, 2008). Using Kurt’s definition as a foundation, Modern day authors and researchers have developed more detailed descriptions for the term group dynamic in order to facilitate a deeper understanding.
According to Hattangadi (2015), group dynamic refers to “attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of a group.” Hattangadi further explains that these group dynamics affect organizational success since the nature of a group affects the general functioning of the organization. Authors Xenikou and Furnham (2012), give an even more complex elaboration of the term as “psychological processes that take place in groups.” According to Duncan (2011), group dynamics serve as a conceptual framework that provides an approach to understanding how groups can work effectively in a given setting, such as an organization.

The Institute of Business Management (IIBM) explains that although group dynamic involves the relationship among group individuals, the individuals may still differ in attitude and behavior.
In order to grasp the concept of a group dynamic, an analysis of various aspects relating to a group is required. Such aspects include the type, structure, theories, and development. Group structure refers to the patterns of relationship within the group members (Barnett). Group structure can be identified in a number of ways such as the group roles, size, norms and cohesiveness (Barnett). Group size, according to Barnett refers to the number of people within a group. Group roles, on the other hand, is defined as predetermined duties and responsibilities assigned to individual members of a group (Barnett). Group Norms are defined as an acceptable code of conduct and behavior within the group while group cohesiveness explains the strong bond between members, a factor that makes them proud to be part of the group (Barnett).
Group dynamic can consist of formal or informal group types (Barnett). Although there lacks any direct classification of group dynamic (Levi, 2015; De Board 2014), most organizations share common group types as part of their group dynamics. Such formal group types include; Command groups that consist of supervisors and subordinates who report back to them, Task Groups consisting of members who work jointly to achieve a set objective, Functional groups which are tasked with specific goals to be achieved within an undisclosed time frame (Barnett). Informal group types include interest groups which comprise of members with common interests such as job security, friendship groups consisting of members who enjoy each other’s company and reference groups which consist of people with a need for validation and is usually characterized by social comparison (Barnett).
Numerous theories have attempted to explain the reasons for formation and development of groups and their dynamics. One theory is the Social identity theory which suggests that a person seeks and obtains a sense of identity when in a group. Moreover, the person’s self-esteem improves because the sense of belonging obtained motivates them, as they often find approval in certain aspects of their lives; such as character, personality, and goals (Hattangadi, 2015). The Social Exchange Theory, on the other hand, is more complex and explains that individuals create relationships based on the “implied expectation of mutually beneficial exchange.” Such groups, therefore, expect a positive exchange of ideas and thoughts if one is to join or even be affiliated with them; as the group is built upon trust, responsibility, and obligation towards each other (Hattangadi, 2015). The classical theory, developed by George Homans implies that group development relies on members’ interaction, activities, and sentiments (Hattangadi, 2015). This means that the group depends on the interaction of its members based on their commonality in activities and interests. Through this, members will either develop a negative or positive attitude towards one another (Hattangadi, 2015).
There are five basic steps that are involved in group formation and development. These stages include forming, storming, norming and performing Justice and Jamieson (2012). Forming is the basic stage in group formation. According to Hattangadi (2015), this stage is usually characterized by uncertainty as the members lack well-defined goals. This stage heavily relies on the leadership to provide a sense of direction to the members as they define and implement the group’s purpose. The second stage is Storming. This level just as its name suggests is normally characterized by conflicts and incongruity among members (Hattangadi, 2015; Luthans, 2015). The unrest is usually caused by members’ struggle for power and authority associated with the leadership position. This stage bears both positive and negative outcomes if the members manage to achieve resolution or fail respectively.
Norming is the third stage of group development. This stage is only reached if members successfully overcome the challenges of the previous one. At this level, cohesion kicks in and members develop a sense of identity and unity. Duties and responsibilities are usually passed to members and they begin to see the results of their cooperative efforts (Hattangadi, 2015). The fourth level is Performance. It is denoted by complete cohesion among members as members fully accept each another and resolve all former conflicts. Collective decision making is practiced and members are able to make relevant and selfless goals (Hattangadi, 2015; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Adjourning marks the final stage of group development. It is characterized by the dissolution of the group. According to Hattangadi (2015), this stage is usually not reached by most groups as they tend to stay relatively permanent. Formal groups such as tasks groups are more prone to reach this level as opposed to informal groups; which tend to stay more intact, perhaps due to an emotional connection.
Group dynamics bear numerous benefits and demerits to both individuals and their organizations. According to Marquis and Huston (2009), through group effort, productivity is increased. It has also been documented that most stable groups have been able to achieve both personal and organizational success through open and full communication (Emmitt and Gorse, 2009). Although few, the negative impacts associated with group dynamics may prove costly. These demerits include delayed decision making (O’ Connel and Cuthbertson, 2009) and group dysfunction in case of unresolved conflict, as explained by Butler (2016). It is important to understand the scope and concept of group dynamics as it plays a critical part in the creativity and quality of the decisions made in an organization (Adams, 2015; Cummings & Worley 2014).

References
Adams, A. (2015, October 16). How group dynamics affect decisions. Retrieved January 7, 2018, from https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/how-group-dynamics-affect-decisions
Barnett, T. GROUP DYNAMICS. Retrieved January 7, 2018, from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Gr-Int/Group-Dynamics.html
Butler, M.O., 2016. Evaluation: a cultural systems approach. Routledge.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage learning.
De Board, R., 2014. The psychoanalysis of organizations: A psychoanalytic approach to behaviour in groups and organizations. Routledge.
Duncun, E. (2011). Group Dynamics Essay. Retrieved January 7, 2018, from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Group-Dynamics-835655.html
Emmitt, S. and Gorse, C.A., 2009. Construction communication. John Wiley & Sons.
Forsyth, D.R., 2018. Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.
Hattangadi, V. (2015, August 17). Group dynamics in organizational behaviour. Retrieved January 7, 2018, from http://drvidyahattangadi.com/group-dynamics-in-organizational-behaviour/
Justice, T. and Jamieson, D.W., 2012. The facilitator’s fieldbook. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Khosrow-Pour, M. ed., 2008. Encyclopedia of information science and technology (Vol. 1). IGI Global.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K., 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), pp.325-340.
Levi, D., 2015. Group dynamics for teams. Sage Publications.
Luthans, F., Luthans, B.C. and Luthans, K.W., 2015. Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. IAP.
Marquis, B.L. and Huston, C.J., 2009. Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: Theory and application. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
O’Connell, T.S. and Cuthbertson, B., 2009. Group dynamics in recreation and leisure: Creating conscious groups through an experiential approach. Human Kinetics.
Pedersen, P.B., Lonner, W.J., Draguns, J.G., Trimble, J.E. and Scharron-del Rio, M.R. eds., 2015. Counseling across cultures. Sage.
Xenikou, A. and Furnham, A., 2012. Group dynamics and organizational culture: effective work groups and organizations. Palgrave Macmillan.