The paper "Overview of the Group, Including the Type, Size, Composition and Purpose of the Group" is a great example of management coursework. Groups are composed of different individuals. It is also important to note that groups have specific identities that different from those of its individual members. It has been noted that individuals within the group demonstrate their behaviors and values, attitudes as their identifiable patterns that are accepted by the group members. The idea of conformity has been considered important in a group, without it no groups can be formed.
On the other hand, group work cohesiveness, commonly referred to as the group members’ attraction to one another as well as the desire for members to continue being uniquely identified by the group has over time been considered a significant element of the group dynamics. Norms are perceived as a set of behavior standards required in a group and are shared by all the members of the group. Therefore, norms are used to control unwanted social situations, individual and group behaviors (Frey & Wolf, 2004). For this case of a group visited, the level of cohesion, a discussion of the norms, the stage of development, the group’ s dynamics, leadership abilities and focal conflicts, as well as the overall effectiveness of a group involved in software development, will be assessed. An overview of the group, including the type, size, composition and purpose of the group The recently visited group was in the field of software development teamwork.
It was formed by the computer science students who received complaints from the new students that traveling to specific universities for application is time-consuming. Since the computer science students needed a topic for their final project that was required to complete their undergraduate degree, they agreed to form a group of eight people among them four boys and girls to develop a universal online application system for undergraduate students.
Although the software development group were aware that online application systems have already been developed in certain universities across the world, their main objective was to introduce a universal online application system through which the new applicants can submit their details especially scanned academic papers and email address.
This could enable the new applicants to get all the feedbacks or updated status of their application in specific universities. The group also agreed that after developing and successfully testing the system, could be sold to different universities that would prefer to link it on their main website. The students presented the plan for their project to their course coordinator who approved it and recommended them to work on the project. The students organized themselves as research assistants who took the role of data collection, system requirements analysts, system designers and programmers for coding the system.
The implementation and validation as the last stage of their system development were initially agreed among the members to be shared role across the group. The group also appointed one of their members as their group leader to oversee their project. The formation is a critical phase of group development and management. Therefore, careful considerations must be given on the size and composition of a group. Davis (1998) examined that the most appropriate size for a group depends on the nature group members and the tasks to be accomplished.
Davis noted that a group of 2-3 people can work better for the less experienced members and shorter tasks, while a group of 4-6 can be relevant for the more experienced members and the larger tasks. A small group is advantageous over the bigger group because of its reduced chances of freeloading and minimal cases of conflicts among the group members. On the other hand, group composition raises a concern of whether the group members need to be the same or varied ability. It also involves determining whether the grouping can be random, haphazard or simply systematic.
However, the responses to the above questions can be determined only if the purpose of the group, as well as its context of working, is clearly stated (Davis, 1998).
Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A & Johnson, J. (2002). Cohesion in the group psychotherapy. Practical guide to effective psychotherapy relationships. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Cuseo, J. (1999). Cooperative Learning as opposed to the Small-Group. Group Projects their critical Differences. Cooperative Learning, 2 (3), 5-10.
Davis, B. (1998). Collaborative learning through Group work and Study teams. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Frey, L & Wolf, S. (2004). The Symbolic view of Group Dynamics, Research based on Small Group, 35(3), 277–316.
Hackman, R. (1998). The impact of task characteristics on group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(2), 162-187.
Hackman, R & Wageman, R. (2005). Important role played by Team leaders. The theory of team training. Academy of Management Review, 26, 37-74.
Heywood, J & Oystein, A. (1999). The social norms and their encounter Preferences. Leisure Sciences, 21(2), 133-144.
Rickards, T., & Moger, S., (2000). Inspiring leadership processes within the project team development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model, British Journal of Management, 4, 273-283.
Stockton, R., Morran, D & Clark, M. (2004). Monitoring the group leaders' intentions. Group Dynamics, 8, 196-206.
University of Queensland (2001). Group Assessment–student on group-based tasks and issues. Retrieved April 30, 2013 from,
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders promotes self-managing team effectiveness. Organization Science, 12, 559-577.
Woolley, A. W. (1998). How intervention content and the timing on group task affect performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 30-49.