Group size has an unprecedented impact on the nature of social interaction. Studies have shown that as group size increase individuals typically reduce their efforts. Imagine something as gigantic as our government, between the House and the Senate there are five hundred and thirty five members in the United States Congress. Groups of that magnitude fall victim to groupthink, or decision making that ignores alternate solutions in order to keep group harmony. Although after reading this article I highly doubt there will be any harmony between the two political parties anytime soon. The article describes how members of Congress followed the example of their party instead of looking for alternative solutions.…
My paper will identify a group decision making experience. The existence for any organization to be successful it must have a group of participants wanting to attain the identical purpose. The successful example I like to use is the real world experience that happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis that nearly led the Nation into a nuclear war with the USSR. The movie, “The Missiles of October” (Page, 1974), was a great illustration that challenged the group decision making process. When groups come together for the purpose of discussing ideas and formulate plans that will affect the organization and in this case the security of the Nation, several issues will arise. To be more successful and effective, the techniques used in performance to complete the task or activity are essential. The nominal group technique of brainstorming and even electronic meetings can potentially assist…
The definition of a group is “two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives” (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. 277). As a group, you can either work together well, or poorly. Groups can appoint individual members to certain parts of assignments, or individual tasks and then collaborate later together in a group discussion. This can cause functional or dysfunctional conflict. Functional conflict can be worked through even when individuals have different points of view (conflict). Dysfunctional conflict however, can ruin the integrity of the group and cause extreme conflicts. “One researcher says that the problems of brainstorming demonstrate the problems of groups. If you leave groups to their own devices, he says, they’re going to do a very miserable job” (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. 278).…
In the article "Committees, juries and teams: The columbia disaster and how small groups can be made to work" James Surioweicki outlines the potential problems and solutions small groups face. He brings up dilemmas such as diversity, group polarization, leadership and overall structure. After comparatively reading Marshall Poe's "The Hive" I feel these problems are not ones small groups face, but in fact problems the small group creates. Poe's text supports the theory that all types of groups face similar problems. Be that as it may, using Wikipedia's extreme programming structure he continues his argument; implying that when transferred to a large scale group all problems are hindered, if not completely eradicated.…
In the above situation, I can see that there are a couple of different examples of Groupthink occurring. First, Self-Censorship, which is when an individual decides not to say, or do something that may offend someone else. In our case, we didn’t want to get Susan going on a rant because we dared to oppose her. We were afraid of her. Trust me, we had seen it happen when someone clashed with her and it was not pretty.…
Groupthink is a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressure (Verderber, Verderber, & Sellnow, 2011). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups (Miller, 2010). A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making (Miller, 2010).…
This factor causes individuals the need to achieve a quick and albeit painless unanimity on issues that are confronted by the group. Individuals within these groups tend to suppress personal doubts, seek to silence those that do not agree with the overall product, and strongly back the group leader’s suggestions. The idea of groupthink quickly became a catch-all…
Even though when we work in groups we usually strive for a harmonious and cooperative environment, this does not mean that an environment in which all members are in total agreement is desirable. The phenomenon termed groupthink describes the kind of situations in which each member of a group attempts to conform his/her opinion to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. Whereas this might be seen by some as a way of keeping the peace among group members, it is a rather negative attitude to have, as concentrating on "playing nice" usually detracts from the process of actually tackling the issues and exploring creative solutions. Thus, it becomes imperative to identify the symptoms of groupthink in order to correct it.…
This essay is basically going to focus on the inherent stages a group usually go through when proceeding to become a team and how conflict arises in these groups and conclude by giving an overview on how these conflicts are settled. To begin with, a group is defined as two or more collaborating and attached individuals who come together to accomplish a specific target while work teams are groups whose associates work fiercely on a peculiar common aims using their actual alliance, associated accountability and complemental skills. With Tuckman’s (1965) theory, he describes stages which a team goes through when becoming a group, these stages are Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning he begins by explaining the forming stage where…
According to Carol Travris in “Individuals in Groups,” people behave differently when faced with danger when they are alone than when they are in groups. Psychologists believe that the cause of this phenomenon is that people always think there are others who will take the responsibility instead of themselves. This particular idea people have when they are in groups called “diffusion of responsibility” or “social loafing.” In my opinion, the “social loafing” has caused a lot of troubles and leaded the society into a dangerous and desperate situation.…
Group polarization is the tendency for individuals to form and make decisions that are more extreme than they would in individual situations. For instance, if a number of individuals who support abortion sat down and discussed their perspectives, at the end of the discussion each person would have a stronger, more extreme opinion of why abortion is acceptable. As individuals who support the procedure will typically support their arguments with points such as “the woman should have autonomy over her body,” “a fetus is not yet a child,” etc. Because they all agree on these ideas already, it is not likely that they will discuss that some individuals consider a fetus to be a child, in fact, they may purposefully avoid this point in order to come to a conclusion more easily. In order to advance as a society on the issue of abortion, we need to see and accept other people’s views and opinions and not just our own, so we can come to a middle ground agreement about the polarizing…
In my opinion the success of a group can only be achieved by turning our individual skills, thoughts, and research into a melting pot of ideas. As individuals in a group we are dependent on each others strengths, qualities, and views; as well as the recognition of our flaws to be successful. The…
Informal Groups. In addition to the groups that businesses formally organize and recognize—such as committees, work groups, and teams—most organizations have a number of informal groups. These groups are usually composed of individuals, often from the same department, who have similar interests and band together for companionship or for purposes that may or may not be relevant to the goals of the organization. For example, four or five people who have similar tastes in outdoor activities and music may discuss their interests while working, and they may meet outside work for dinner, concerts, sports events, or other activities. Other informal groups may evolve to form a union, improve working conditions or benefits, get a manager fired, or protest work practices that they view as unfair. Informal groups may generate disagreement and conflict, or they may enhance morale and job satisfaction. Informal groups help develop informal channels of communication, sometimes called the “grapevine,” which are important in every organization. Informal communication flows up, down, diagonally, and horizontally, not necessarily following the communication lines on a company’s organization chart. Information passed along the grapevine may relate to the job, the organization, or an ethical issue; or it may simply be gossip and rumors. The grapevine can act as an early warning system for employees. If employees learn informally that their company may be sold or that a particular action will be condemned as unethical by top management or the community, they have time to think about what they will do. Because gossip is not uncommon in an organization, the information passed along the grapevine is not always accurate. Managers who understand how the grapevine works can use it to reinforce acceptable values and beliefs. The grapevine is also an important source of information for individuals to assess ethical behavior within their organization. One way an employee can determine…
Groups that are strategically formed and active will prosper though their endeavors. Creating a successful group can be seen as a difficult task. In reality, numerous factors must be accounted for in the process of organizing an efficient group for important situations and decisions. In his essay, “Small Change” Malcolm Gladwell states, “…if you’re taking on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy” (237). The group must create a thorough plan with objectives for each individual participating in order for all aspects to be controlled. In the essay, “Committees, Juries, and Teams”, James Surowiecki claims, “One of the real dangers that small groups face is emphasizing consensus over dissent” (476). Often groups feel the need to agree on their points of view. In each strong group, a “devil’s advocate” is an important role that must be filled. Instead of each person agreeing on every problem in question, one person must support the opposing side in order to reach a well thought out solution. Then, those in charge of the group consider the ideas presented and include their beliefs as well. As each person in the hierarchy states their opinion, the conclusions become stronger.…
The size of a group influences its nature in many ways, for a group with only…