Challenges of Working in Groups - Coursework Example

Organizational Behaviour Name Institution Date Introduction Human beings are social beings meant to interact with other people as well as the surrounding. The most sophisticated form of interaction is the social interaction among people (Miner, 2002). According to McGinnis (2012), the social nature, way of thinking, cultural differences and personal interest vary that makes this form of interaction a complex one. The aspect of interaction brings an interesting topic of human behaviour in the social world (Bauer and Erdogan, 2012). Human behaviour is diverse and given the fact that different cultural norms are responsible for moulding behaviour. Even within a community, human behaviour varies as a result of different family background (Ashraf, 2013). According to Schermerhorn et al. (2011), the concept of human behaviour varies among individuals within and across families, within and across cultures. Despite all this variance in human behaviour, the human nature as stated before is social and can adapt stomach or regulate behaviour when interacting. It is this attempt to regulate or entertaining human behaviour at workplaces that create the concept of organizational behaviour. The topic of organization behaviour tries to investigate how people act within an organization and how they should act to enhance performance. The concept is relevant to all types of human organizations like groups projects. The video making and presentation project involved working in groups. The group consisted of different students who behave, think and respond in many varying ways. It is for this reason that the analysis of organizational behaviour was necessary to investigate the advantages, challenges of working, how to work in groups and my personal experience of working in groups. Challenges of working in groups The video making and presentation project required all students to work in groups, and the whole idea had some challenges that we had to overcome. One serious challenge was making all the students understand the seriousness of the project. As a routine, a team leader was to be selected of which I was elected to be one after a long debate. It was so difficult to make students who have socialized more like friends to work as professional. Professionalism is one important aspect that is necessary to complete and produce a quality in a project (McGinnis (2012)). The concept of a friend being a team leader could not effectively be used to give direction on what to do. This is consistent with Bauer and Erdogan (2012); and Hellriegel and Slocum, (2010) opinions. Another challenge of working in groups is the difficulty involved in decision making. The fact that all students feel equal, they are free to air opinion and free to engage in arguments. The time involved in discussions was often long that almost seemed to put the project in jeopardy. For instance selection of scenes and themes brought up so many suggestions that needed a long time to identify the best. Opinions may have varied due to cultural preference or personal preference (McGinnis (2012)). There was also a challenge in assigning of roles especially when some students felt that they are doing the entire project alone. Some students did not completely want to be involved in some tasks making it a challenge to convince and assemble the team. It reached a point when the group had to create norms for all members to adhere to them. However, the rules were not taken seriously. The deadline for the project came close and the pressure of working extra time under pressure became real. It was evident that not everyone in the group got the experience brought by the project. The case was so since not all were serious about the assignment. The various challenges in the group did not exceed the advantages. The extended argument that was common whenever a decision was to be made was healthy despite the time wasted. Moderating the discussion gave fellow other students and me an understanding of the entire concept of organization behaviour. Though not efficient, the relevance of structure in organization behaviour was realized. The relevance of a team leader, formalization, centralization, division of labour and complexity was realized. Working in groups enables one to expand a way of thinking by learning from ideas brought up by group members (Bauer and Erdogan, 2012). Working in groups creates more innovative approach towards a project that is a motivating factor. Working as a team leader and facing a hard time provided an opportunity to understand the diversity of human behaviour and experience of dealing with such cases Organizational Theory Various theories have been developed that attempt to explain how human being behave in an organization (Miner, 2014). Theory X and Theory Y were designed to explain two different ways in which people behave in groups and how they should be managed (McGinnis (2012)). The theories made a couple of assumption with regards to people's attitude towards work. For instance, Theory X stated that people are prone to avoiding work and duties in that they have to be forced to perform. This was evident at the group when specific roles were assigned; some students had to be forced to perform their duties. Theory Y, on the other hand, assumes that human beings have the natural capacity to be committed and motivated (Bauer and Erdogan, 2012). This potential can be tapped by a motivational leader to make them work. At various instances, motivation brought the best contribution out of the group members. Expectancy theory of human motivation is cognitive in nature and relies on anticipation that an individual group member can accomplish a task (Miner, 2002). Leaders and managers have to have expectations of the capacity of their juniors or workers (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2010). In assigning of various roles among group members, people’s abilities were considered. Some students seemed naturally capable of performing specific tasks well in an attempt to develop the best project. Another theory of organizational behaviour is the attribution theory (Golembiewski, 2000). The attribution theory indicates that; human beings have an uncontrollable tendency to attempt to explain other group members’ behaviour. These attributions can be drawn from people’s character or nature in a social setting (Kaifi and Noori, 2011). A leader’s attribution cannot always be right especially when some behaviour of an employee or group member is beyond personal control (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Response to issues Many issues needed solution as the group worked on the project. The first serious problem was the absence of professionalism at the beginning of the group work. One very important measure to bring back professionalism was to set rules. Rules set were based on time consciousness and task commitment. Generating the projects ideas involved open discussions moderated by the leader. The best opinion and ideas were voted and approved by the group members. The best-chosen idea and option was to adhere to and supported by all members. Fines were at times involved for the less important group members. Some of the fines included buying lunch for all the group members. The last minute rush made all the students cooperate and effectively perform their functions. All the group members were positive about cultural diversity. Analysis of issues According to the classical theory, setting of norms or rules and developing a mode of punishment are necessary tools in the management of an organization (Chance, 2013). Classical theory is mostly applied in the school setting. The classical theory also recommends that a hierarchy be developed within an organization with distinct position or authority and specified roles and responsibility (Ashraf, 2013; Bauer and Erdogan, 2012). Every individual in an organization must have a particular well-defined duty to perform (Miner, 2002). It is necessary for responsibilities and duties within an organization be standardized to ensure success of a project. As stated before, human beings are interactive in nature, and this interactivity developed the system theory. According to the interactive theory, organizations comprise of a system of interaction(s) that may either have a formal or informal approach (Kaifi and Noori, 2011; Hellriegel and Slocum, 2010). Also, there is constant input and output between the organization and system with various subsystems. Understanding the interactive theory enabled solving of issues through mutual agreement and consideration of all ideas. Considering all group members inputs motivates all the members and enhances participation (Ashraf, 2013). Conclusion Working in groups to develop a video and a presentation provided an excellent opportunity to understand how individuals behave in an organization. Human beings are interactive in nature and will interact differently depending on culture, personality or background, individual differences, and values. Human being behaves differently, and this was evident from the video project conducted in groups. Some challenges in the group included issues of professionalism in the project. Some students did not take the project seriously. However, at a personal level, the challenges provided an opportunity to learn how to deal with pressure relating to organizational behaviour. I realized that it was challenging to get professionalism from peers. Creating a hierarchy and division of roles will be the first activity if another project is to be developed. It will be necessary to attach deadlines for various activities, create rules governing the social interaction during work and develop various punishments or fines for members who break the rules. There can be instances of wrong attributions during assigning of roles. For this reason, in future projects, all students have to be considered equal to potential and ability to perform any task within the group. References Chance P, 2013, Introduction to Educational Leadership & Organizational Behaviour, Routledge. Miner J.B, 2014, Organizational Behaviour 2: Essential Theories of Process and Structure, Volume 2, Routledge Miner J.B, 2002, Organizational Behaviour: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses, Oxford, University Press McGinnis S, 2012, organizational Behaviour and Management Thinking, Jones and Bartlett Publishers Bauer T & Erdogan B, 2012, An Introduction to Organizational Behaviour, Retrieved on October 29th, 2015 from http://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/an-introduction-to-organizational-behavior-v1.1.pdf Kaifi A.B & Noori S.A, 2011, Organizational Behaviour: A Study on Managers, Employees, and Teams, Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 12(1) 2011. Retrieved on October 29th, 2015 from http://www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/KaifiWeb.pdf ASHRAF T, 2013, Organizational Behavior 14, Retrieved on October 29th, 2015 from. http://www.unesco.org/education/aladin/paldin/pdf/course02/unit_14.pdf Schermerhorn J.R, Osborn R.N, Uhl-Bien M & Hunt J.G, 2011, Organizational Behavior John, Wiley & Sons Hellriegel D & Slocum J, 2010, Organizational Behaviour, Cengage Learning Golembiewski R.T, 2000, Handbook of Organizational Behaviour, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, CRC Press Read More