Group work is frequently associated with struggle ; so many theoreticians would reason that struggle within groups is necessary and utile for set uping group norms and values, which in bend, guarantee that the group performs good. However, struggle within groups can go dysfunctional and this can hold a negative impact upon the group members involved and finally the administration in which they operate.
Within this work I reflect upon my ain experiences of group work, concentrating on the dysfunctional struggle that ensued, the impact this had and what I have learnt from the experience. Following this, I outline the deductions of a similar state of affairs happening in an administration and propose a figure of enlisting and choice patterns that could be adopted to turn to the issue.
Table of Contentss
List of Tables
List of Figures
Appendixs
You can utilize these if applicable, but please include in this papers – see note at the terminal
1.0 Introduction
The cardinal intent of our group assignment was to show the ability to research and critically analyze an administration ‘s construction, civilization and attack to direction and leading: this essay evaluates one facet of that experience: my attack to conflict and determination to non set about a leading function.
The present work starts with a focal point on my group ‘s development and purposes to explicate and warrant my public presentation during this activity, placing both positive and negative facets in order to larn from the experience. While theories of group development and struggle are utile in analyzing the state of affairs, I have chosen to besides discourse my individuality and function as a leader. Not merely do I believe that this is the most appropriate and utile aspect of the experience for my personal development but it is besides an country in which I have a important involvement.
The balance of the essay is divided into four separate but interconnected subdivisions. The first considers our group ‘s formation, development – and the attendant struggle and the effects of no single pickings on a leading function. The 2nd subdivision is concerned with placing what I have learnt from this experience and detailing how I would move in the hereafter. The 3rd subdivision is focussed on placing the effects that a similar state of affairs may hold on an administration and the concluding subdivision considers which approach to leading may be most appropriate for covering with struggle. The essay concludes with drumhead comments.
2.0 Group formation and a leading vacuity
In discoursing my group ‘s formation and development I have drawn on a assortment of beginnings – my single contemplations, the notes I made in my personal journal and conversations I have had with co-workers about the event both at the clip and later. However, I have chosen non to foreground the beginnings of my informations in the undermentioned narrative as I believe that this helps to ease the flow of the narrative and therefore brings the reader closer to the world described – a desirable characteristic of qualitative work ( Stake, 1995 ) .
Tuckman ‘s ( 1965 ) theoretical account suggests that group development returns along four phases as described below ( Figure 1 ) . In what follows I describe my experiences at the different phases of this established theoretical account.
Figure 1: Phases of Group Development
Tuckman.bmp
Beginning: Adapted from Tuckman ( 1965 ) and, Ito and Brotheridge ( 2008 )
2.1 Forming
I was disappointed with the manner the groups had been chosen, as there were other pupils I really would hold liked to work with: but I ended up working with the people who sat following to me. During our initial treatments it seems that lines were drawn between the ‘strong ‘ and ‘weak ‘ as we launched into a treatment of the group assignment and the undertakings that lay in front of us. I use the footings strong and weak non in the sense that strong is good and weak is bad, but in the sense that the strong people were more blatant in category and our meetings, had more demanding occupations, including greater duty and liberty, and were older ( possibly the dominant alliance? ) ( Child 1972 ) . The other three were quiet, unagitated, hard-working and highly eager to larn from the undertaking, but expressed concern at the idea of holding to work with ‘us. ‘ I felt sad that people should experience that manner about me, and when we discussed this a few hebdomads after our formation, it emerged that whilst they thought I was strong, I was non intimidating, unlike the other two.
No leader emerged, we should hold appointed one, and if I had n’t been so selfish in desiring to be the originative, energetic one, I could hold usefully played this important function. I besides do n’t candidly cognize whether I realised how disquieted I would be with the hapless grade – or my guilt at prioritizing my ain desires to non take in this case, when clearly a leader was needed.
2.2 Ramping
As we tried to get down the undertaking – working out what we had to make, and how to make it, tensenesss emerged within and between the sub-groups, I rebelled against one of my ‘strong ‘ co-worker ‘s demand for a stiff construction and several of us resisted taking the demands of the assignment earnestly, as it did non look peculiarly pressure: 9 hebdomads seemed excessively long for such a simple undertaking. These differences of sentiment resurfaced throughout the group assignment.
2.3 Norming
I do n’t believe we of all time wholly got beyond the storming phase, and although we tried to be polite at first, the earlier tensenesss remained and escalated. I ‘m non certain that any ‘group norms ‘ emerged ; I felt really small sense of group individuality, and believe most of us worked as persons. When emotions ran really high, remarks became awful, sentiments were dismissed and I felt we had to interrupt. On a figure of occasions I wanted to run off, and did – both psychically and emotionally. Two ( strongs ) of the group were angered by this but if I had non been able to vent my defeats this manner, I think I would hold engaged in hostile verbal ( and possibly finally physical ) onslaughts, initiated by one of them, and would hold ended up more injuries and regretful. The other three thought it was acceptable behavior, a legitimate manner for me to get the better of my emphasis and demand for physical activity. These are the three who thought my energy and encouragement was good to the group, which I was really happy about. We merely approximately patched up differences by the terminal of hebdomad 4, but in the hebdomads following this early incident I think there was small feeling of co-operation ( Elgood 1990:159 ) . We lacked unfastened treatment of positions and feelings, did non truly listen to each other, and this could mean a deficiency of regard. I feel a spot abashed to believe I did non truly prosecute in group work after this episode. As the group broke for reading hebdomad, the three strong 1s began to discourse the deadlock – this was rather self-generated, but it seemed to the others that we had non made up, and were truly falling out. Other people got concerned, including our coach, but we needed to work through our feelings, acquiring feedback from each other, guaranting our friendly relationship and established relationships were non damaged, before we could restart work in hebdomad 8.
2.4 Performing
I believe energy was ne’er to the full diverted to constructive efforts to finish the undertaking: a tense, frustrated atmosphere continued after reading hebdomad and determinations were taken rapidly, holding with anything merely to avoid treatment – arguably grounds of group-think ( Janis, 1972 ) . I wholly lost a sense of committedness or engagement. The last stage of the undertaking was achieved through lame, and by that I mean undisputed, via media, ensuing in a hapless public presentation. I think this was accurately reflected in the grade for the study. I can about accept the grade by distancing myself from the group undertaking, and stating myself that the concluding result did non reflect my part or my ability, and hence I should non experience every bit defeated as I do. But I feel awfully sad that I did non set more attempt in. I feel guilty that I lost my forbearance and involvement that I did n’t take on a more of import function ( i.e. as the group leader ) . This procedure of reflecting has caused me an tremendous sum of hurting.
3.0 Approach to Conflict and Leadership
Reflecting upon this experience I have come to believe that there a figure of countries in which I could develop. In this subdivision I will concentrate on my attack to conflict direction and leading. I believe the experience I had during group work besides serves as a prophylactic narrative, for future University group work undertakings and for my return to work following graduation.
First, I wish to discourse my attack to conflict declaration – and in making so it is utile to pull on the work of Thomas ( 1976 ) . Thomas distinguishes five wide attacks to conflict declaration along two dimensions: Assertiveness- how self-asserting each party is in prosecuting their ain concerns, and Co-cooperativeness – how co-operative or uncooperative each party is in fulfilling the concerns of the other. The five attacks are detailed below ( see Table 3.1 ) :
Table 3.1: Five Approachs to Conflict Resolution
Approach
Aim
Rationale
Likely Result
Competing/Forcing
Achieve ain aims
The end is of import – and it is deserving aching a few feelings
You feel vindicated but the other party feels defeated and perchance humiliated
Avoiding
Avoid covering with the struggle & A ; state of affairs
Disagreements are inherently bad -they cause tenseness
Interpersonal jobs do n’t acquire resolved – long term defeats manifested diversely
Compromising
Reach a speedy understanding
Drawn-out struggles distract people from their work and do acrimonious feelings
Participants go for expedient instead than effectual solutions
Suiting
Do non upset the other individual
Keeping harmonious relationships should be our precedence
The other individual will take advantage
Collaborating
Solve the job together
Each place is of import although non needfully valid. Emphasis should be on accomplishing the right result through a just determination devising procedure.
The issue is likely to be resolved. Both parties are committed to the solution and are satisfied they have been treated reasonably.
Beginning: Adapted from Whetton et Al ( 2000 ) and Thomas ( 1976 ) .
Sing Thomas ‘s theory and my reactions to conflict during the group work assignment ( as described in subdivision 2 ) it is clear that I started out viing but when this became personally upsetting I opted to avoid struggle alternatively – and continued to avoid and compromise throughout. While the acceptance of an avoiding and viing manner of struggle declaration did function to avoid farther unfastened unpleasantness and injury feelings, it did intend, as indicated, that the issues remained ( and still remain ) unsolved. As I believe the manner in which struggle was managed in the group led to hapless public presentation it is clear that the manner in which we ( and more significantly, I ) managed struggle demands to alter.
If I had been willing, I could hold continued viing – and although ( as highlighted in Table 3.1 ) this can hold negative emotional results for others, I do believe that my preferable attack to the assignment was best, and would hold led to a high degree of attainment for all. Alternatively, given the strong feelings amongst all parties, and the shared end of accomplishing a good assignment grade it may hold been more appropriate to join forces: to find a reciprocally agreeable solution which we could all ‘buy-in ‘ to and work towards.
Yet, these were both attacks that I chose to avoid. The impressions of doing determinations and act uponing others to fall in-line and of prosecuting a collaborative attack work stoppages me as a undertaking for a director or leader: a function I was determined non to play.
However, now that a few hebdomads have past since the event, the emotion that is most prevailing is guilt. I feel finally as though I prioritized my ain desires and demands ( to be originative, energetic and take-a-break from taking ) over those of the group. While I do n’t experience this is ever a negative ( or otherwise immoral ) class of action it was in this case ( given the consequences ) clearly non contributing to my ain ends or the success of the group. By this I mean I did n’t pull off to play the function I wanted – to be originative, energetic etc ; I did non acquire to bask non being in charge and the group did non have a good class for the work.
As for the hereafter, I think that, when I feel I am the most able and capable, I should take – it may non be what I want, but I think finally it may be best class of action for all involved. Yet, I wonder if given what I know now I would make anything otherwise if I had this chance once more. After all, my failure in this group assignment has been a valuable acquisition chance.
4.0 Conflict & A ; the Leaderless Organisation…
Having described my experience and explained it with mention to a figure of theories and determined the deductions for my personal acquisition I now wish to see the deductions of my analysis for an administration that is confronting a similar state of affairs. My ain experience contained two wide constituents: struggle and an absence of leading and so I will be concentrating on these issues.
Percepts of organizational struggle vary ( Mullins, 2007 ) and the four most common frames of mention on struggle are the unitarist, pluralist, interactionist and extremist ( Fox, 1966, 1973 ) . These are detailed below ( Table 4.1 ) .
Table 4.1: Frames of Reference on Conflict
Frame of Mention
Brief Description
Unitarist
The administration is basically harmonious and any struggle is bad
Pluralist
The administration is a collective of groups, each with their ain involvements and aims
Interactionist
Conflict is a positive, necessary force for effectual public presentation
Extremist
Conflict is an inevitable result of capitalist economy
Beginning: Adapted from Fox ( 1966, 1973 ) and Hucyznski and Buchanan ( 2007 )
My ain position on struggle Bridgess both the pluralist and interactionist, I would keep that persons and groups in administrations do hold different ends but besides that struggle can be a positive and necessary force for increasing public presentation. However, following Hucyznski and Buchanan ‘s ( 2007, p.768 ) definition I would reason that the struggle I experienced ( see subdivision 2 ) is best described as dysfunctional: “ a signifier of struggle which does non back up organisational ends and hinders organisational public presentation ” .
This hinderance to organizational public presentation can be understood as holding a assortment of causes. First, struggle may take to employees being de-motivated. Maslow ‘s ( 1954 ) hierarchy of demands high spots that to go motivated persons require the satisfaction of both societal and self-esteem demands – one time lower physiological demands have been satisfied. Further, it is non merely intuitive but besides by and large accepted that motivated employees perform better ( Mullins, 2007 ) . The struggle I experienced in the group left both my societal and self-esteem demands unsated and so this positive result was non realised.
Second, if these demands remain unsated in the workplace it is possible that this could take to a diminution in occupation satisfaction – I surely was non satisfied with the group assignment! Such a state of affairs may hold dearly-won deductions for an administration. Mangione and Quinn ( 1975 ) have demonstrated a important association between occupation satisfaction and counterproductive behavior such as industrial sabotage, drug usage, physical and non-physical non-participation amongst some demographics of the work force. It is clear that such effects could be dearly-won for any administration.
Third, struggle is sometimes dealt with through the acceptance of turning away behaviors ( Fox, 1966, 1973 ) and when this becomes the prevailing attack to conflict amongst all squad members there is the danger that the phenomenon of group-think will happen. Group-think, a theory pioneered by Janis ( 1972 ) describes a state of affairs in which thoughts of the group are non challenged and are accepted without inquiry. Such a state of affairs is unfortunate – bad determinations may be made, and potentially good thoughts and subsequent determinations that would hold otherwise surfaced may non emerge.
However, I must repeat that I do believe struggle is valuable – it is something that can be to the benefit of persons, groups and administrations ( Kakabadse et al, 2005 ) . Indeed, the free flow of sentiment that can ensue from difference of sentiment is an of import facet of cognition sharing ( Hislop, 2009 ) and knowledge sharing in bend has been argued to be to the benefit of administrations and helps to increase their competitory advantage ( Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995 ; Nonaka and Kanno, 1998 ; Grant, 2005 ) .
Given that there is a possible for administrations to profit from struggle, I contend that struggle needs to be managed and I am non entirely in this position ( see for illustration, Hatch 1997 ; Taffinder, 1998 ; Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006 ) . Indeed, Hatch ( 1997 ) and Robbins ( 1998 ) both argue that there is an optimum degree of struggle to back up organizational public presentation – and that one should seek to cut down or excite struggle consequently.
While it seems slightly fiddling to reason that administrations will profit from leaders and leading, it is frequently argued that leading is important to organizational success ( Stodgill 1974 ; Harung, 1996 ; Kakabadse et Al 2004 ; Hucyznski and Buchanan 2007 ; Avolio 2010 ; Tseng et Al, 2010 ) and I do believe that the absence of leading in our group led to us neglecting to gain our potency.
Furthermore, I would anticipate that any administration that lacked a leader would confront the same effects as our group. Indeed, one of the maps of a leader is to supply way and vision for their squad ( Avolio, 2011 ) and an expert leader may hold been able to use our personal, professional and ideological differences to make a dynamic and high-functioning squad. As Holtzman and Anderberg ( 2011 ) high spot in their recent survey, heterogenous squads can add a great trade of value to administrations by optimising efficiency, quality and invention.
Therefore, pulling on the above I would reason that the deductions of unmanaged dysfunctional struggle in administrations may be – at the really least – a failure to gain the greatest possible organizational public presentation and – at the worst – the outgrowth of counterproductive and dysfunctional behavior from employees.
5.0 Which Leadership Approach?
I have argued that struggle can be good to administrations but that it needs to be managed and besides that leading is valuable for organizational success. In add-on, leading may besides be utile in transforming dysfunctional struggle into functional struggle. Therefore, it is necessary to find the attack to leading that is most contributing to these purposes.
Kent ( 2005 ) high spots that the survey of leading is a complex and slightly convoluted country of research, with many bookmans neglecting to happen common land ; so, Crainer ( 1995 ) identifies over 400 definitions of the term leading, and it is likely, given continued involvement in the topic ( Huczynski and Buchanan, 2008 ) that farther definitions have been offered in recent old ages. However, the undertaking of finding the most appropriate definition of leading is beyond the range of this essay, and therefore, the following wide definition offered by Kakabadse et Al ( 2004, p. 122 ) is adopted:
aˆ? Leadership is an influencing procedure ;
aˆ? There are two or more people involved – a leader and one or more followings,
aˆ? Leadership occurs when people are seeking to accomplish given, implied or unconscious aims.
However, the complexnesss of leading research extend beyond finding an appropriate definition – there are multiple attacks to the survey of leading ( Mullins, 2007 ) . The manners approach to leading focal points on “ The manner in which the maps of leading are carried out and the behavior adopted by directors towards low-level staff… . concerned with the effects of leading on those being led ” ( Mullins 2007 p. 366 ) . I would reason that most administrations should follow the manners approach to leading.
This attack has become popular in recent old ages and the most popular theories that autumn within this attack to leading are those of transformational and transactional leading ( D’Alessio 2008 ) . While popularity does non ask veracity or public-service corporation it could be argued that the popularity of these theories, which were pioneered by Burns ( 1978 ) and more late developed by Bass ( 1985 ) ; Bass and Avolio ( 2004 ) and Avolio ( 2011 ) , is due to their public-service corporation in administrations. This seems an intuitive line of statement and there is a great trade of empirical support: a figure of surveies highlight the benefits of following such a leading manner ( see Avolio, 2010 for inside informations ) . Furthermore, even the most preliminary web-search reveals legion companies that offer to develop persons in these leading styles – possibly doing this a practical pick. The following tabular array ( Table 4.1 ) high spots the cardinal characteristics of both manners of leading:
Table 5.1: Cardinal characteristics of the Transformational and Transactional leading manners
Leadership Style
Description
Transformational
A procedure of act uponing whereby leaders modify their associates ‘ consciousness of what is of import, and travel them to see themselves and the chances and challenges of their environment in a new manner. Transformational leaders are proactive: they seek to optimise single, group and organizational development and invention. They convince their associates to endeavor for higher degrees of potency every bit good as higher degrees of moral and ethical criterions.
Transactional
Transactional leaders display behaviours associated with constructive and disciplinary minutess. Transactional leading defines outlooks and promotes public presentation to accomplish these degrees: offering wagess for conformity and countenances for non-compliance
Beginning: Adapted from Avolio and Bass ( 2004, pp. 95-96 )
It could be convincingly argued that an administration whose leaders adopt either of these manners may be successful in cut downing dysfunctional struggle and advancing functional struggle.
A cardinal characteristic of the transformational attack is to modify followings ‘ perceptual experiences of what is of import and therefore, person who adopts such a manner may be able to maneuver their followings off from their viing places and towards agreed ends and aims. Furthermore, since this manner of leading involves disputing followings ‘ thoughts and ideals and exciting them to be originative it could arguably assist to bring forth the free flow of thoughts.
Alternatively, the acceptance of the transactional manner, which involves specifying criterions and outlooks, supervising public presentation and providing wagess for conformity and countenances for non-compliance, may be every bit effectual. Such a leader may be able to incentivise action towards agreed aims ( sharing thoughts, working together ) – and supply countenances for the show of dysfunctional behaviors. Indeed, wagess and reward systems frequently provide a valuable inducement for employees ( Mullins, 2007 ) .
However, possibly the inquiry should non be – “ which manner of leading? ” As Avolio ( 2010 ) high spots, both manners are of import and should be used in concurrence with each other. Indeed, it is beyond the range of the paper to find the most appropriate manner of leading for such a state of affairs described, and so I will shut with the commonplace statement that: the acceptance of any leading styleaˆ¦ is better than none at all.
5.0 Decision
Within this essay I have considered my experiences of struggle and ( a deficiency of ) leading within the group assignment and reflected on these experiences to find the deductions for my ain acquisition. The cardinal lessons learned are that it takes considerable attempt to develop an effectual group, and it is necessary to try to come on through the assorted phases ( Tuckman 1965 ) to accomplish ultimate public presentation. Conflict can be a important issue within group work, and we did non adequately decide this within this group. A concluding key larning point is the demand to see leading functions within group activity. Having reflected on my ain experiences, I have besides considered the deductions of my analysis for administrations. Ultimately, the same decisions were reached: struggle can be positive – but it must be managed, and therefore one person must ever be willing to take.