UNDERSTAND GROUPS

There are two types of group’s namely informal groups and formal groups. These are discussed in Table 4.

Table 4: Types of groups

Informal Groups

An informal group can either be an ‘interest’ group or a ‘friendship’ group. ‘Interest’ groups are groups where members share a common interest (Du Toit, Erasmus and Strydom, 2010: 105).

‘Friendship’ groups exist to satisfy a social need.

Formal Groups

Formal groups can be a ‘command’ group or a ‘task’ group. Command groups have a formal organogram and line of authority. Tasks groups are created to complete a specific task or project.

(Du Toit, Erasmus and Strydom, 2010: 105)

© Regenesys Business School 41 Characteristics of a group

Group size affects the performance of the group. If the group is too big it lends itself to ‘social loafing’; a tendency of individuals to put in less effort when working in a group than when working individually. Group composition also influences performance. Status in groups can be formal or informal and are assigned by members of the group based on age, experience, or social influence.

Norms and standards also affect a group as norms can be positive or negative.

In groups, the formal leader is normally identified by a title. Sometimes the informal leader has more influence in a group. Cohesiveness is the “standing together” of the group.

Groups versus teams

Many people think that there is no difference between a group and team. However, literature will show that there is a clear distinction between a group and a team. As a manager or leader, it is important that you know what the similarities and differences are between groups and teams.

We have all had at least one experience of being part of a group. Sadly, we are not all able to share glowing stories about how wonderful it is to work in a group. In fact, some people have had such horrific group experiences that the idea of instituting group-work in a more formalised way sends nervous shivers down their spine. Then, on the other hand, others would say that group-work is the ideal method to get group-work done effectively and efficiently. How is it possible for people to perceive group-work in such polarised ways?

This section is dedicated to unlocking the factors to why certain people have such wonderful experiences of groups, yet others have terrible experiences of working in groups, even when the conditions of group-work are similar in both cases. To put it in another way: How is it possible for one group to be high performing and produce dramatic results, whilst another group with the same number of people, doing a similar task with similar resources, is under-performing?

“Group behaviour has ranged from total chaos to dramatic success, but it is increasingly evident that groups enjoy their greatest success when they become more productive units called teams.

(Maddux, 1988:10).”

The above quotation explains partly how groups can become effective. The notion of teams is central to discovering why certain groups are successful and why others are not. Maddux (ibid.) defines a team as a group which becomes a more productive unit. The familiar saying of ‘a team is greater than the sum of all its individual parts’ echoes similar sentiments about a team being different to a group. A team is able to yield far greater results than a group.

Table 5 characterises the differences between groups and teams (Maddux, 1988: 10).

© Regenesys Business School 42 Table 5: Differences between groups and teams

GROUPS TEAMS

Members think that they are grouped together for administrative purposes only. Individuals work independently, sometimes at cross-purposes with others.

Members recognise their interdependence and understand both personal and team goals are best accomplished with mutual support. Time is not wasted struggling over territory or seeking personal gain at the expense of others.

Members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the unit’s objectives.

They approach their job as simply hired hands.

Members feel a sense of ownership for their jobs and

Members contribute to the organisation’s success by applying their unique talent and knowledge to team objectives.

Members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members.

Differences in opinion or disagreements are considered as divisive.

Members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to express ideas, opinions, disagreement and feelings openly. Questions are welcomed.

Members are cautious about what they say as they believe that real understanding is not possible. Game playing may occur and communication traps are set to catch the unwary.

Members practise open and honest communication.

They make an effort to understand one another’s point of view.

Members may receive good training but are limited in applying it to the job by the supervisor or other group members.

Members are encouraged to develop skills and apply what they learn on the job. They receive the support of the team.

Members find themselves in conflict situations that they do not know how to resolve. Their supervisor may put off interventions until serious damage is done.

Members recognise that conflict is a normal aspect of human interaction but they view such situations as an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to resolve conflict quickly and constructively.

Members may or may not participate in decisions affecting the team. Conformity often appears more important than positive results.

Members participate in decisions affecting the team but understand that their leader must make a final ruling whenever the team cannot decide, or when an emergency exists. The goal is positive results, not conformity.

© Regenesys Business School 43