Psychology Psychology research assignment 2

3

Group Formation and Structure

Social Support

Even after a short period of time together, it was evident that the All-Stars collectively displayed a strong value for social support for one another within the group. Once formed, the group would meet and sit altogether in the same area of the class awaiting their next task. This offered members a sense of inclusion, belonging and identification with the group, which was continuously strengthened by the various academic tasks assigned. Informational support was evident when members would provide helpful knowledge, guidance and diverse exclusive problem-solving methods when working on group activities. Interchange of support is found to be a crucial aspect of managing potential conflict and overall group processes and performance, specifically within groups (Brown et al. 2008; Humphreys 2004).

In a study by Bothin, Schmid-Loertzer, Hertel, Hüffmeier, & Wessolowski (2014), researchers examined how social support can trigger and affect supplementary support and performance from members’ in-group dynamics. This study consisted of 3 groups, all of which were voluntary participants, and contained professional group work experience from multiple occupational workplaces. Group A consisted of 130 employees from assorted organizations, whose present beliefs about encouraging group work were assessed using self-report measures such surveys. Group B consisted of 94 athletes, who were assessed on effort intentions in-group training scenarios using self-report measures such surveys. Group C consisted of 88 students who were assessed on their performance on a given academic task as a measure of effort in an experimental group situation. The results of this study indicate that social support does in fact trigger additional support and performance from fellow members in respect to beliefs about group work, effort intentions, and performance behaviour (Bothin et. al., 2014).

The group’s experience is well aligned with the research of Bothin et. al (2014). Initially, when individual members learned that group work was required of the course, many seemed to display negative beliefs and a lack of motivation to participate and contribute. However, as tasks were gradually assigned, it became evident that those beliefs had changed as explicit effort and performance from fellow members led to the motivating group work of others. This continued until the group as a whole was motivated to contribute, support one another, and, most importantly, succeed. This was again evident through the All-Stars’ experience through various types of support, which achieved higher effort and improved performance, as well as member satisfaction. If not for continuous support between members, the All-Stars likely would have come into conflict and tasks would have been made more difficult to complete resulting in potential failure.

Leadership

Power Tactics In order to work together, specific strategies must have been used in order to influence members of the All-Stars to achieve a particular objective and did so by enforcing soft, rational, and bilateral power tactics. These power tactics allowed the group to collaborate, socialize, and exploit up-and-coming (if not already existing) friendships to influence one another, doing so in a reasonable, rationale and logical way, where all members had to give-and-take to achieve the desired objective. Only in one circumstance was a hard power tactic enforced. This occurred during the in-class ‘Survival’ task whereby member E directly and harshly enforced that we go with her method of completing the task, forcefully enough, all other members complied. The combination of such power tactics allowed the group to become a stronger, unified and cohesive group by respectively acknowledging everyone’s inputs, thus successfully completing each and every task in a positive and successful manner. Also prevalent, according to Boughton (2012), is the use of personal power in groups where no formal power exists. Personal power derives from the use of one’s own traits, characteristics, behaviours, and resources that emerge when applicable and are subject to change based on the conditions of the environment (Boughton, 2012). In a study by Bélanger, Pierro, & Kruglanski (2015), researchers assessed the dimensions of compliance and the type of power tactics that leaders employ among subordinates to influence them. The study consisted of two cross-sectional studies that were conducted within five different organizations such as, a bank, small businesses, a security company, an oil company, and a hospital. The first study consisted of 142 voluntary employees and the second study consisted of 63 voluntary employees, both of which were assessed based on self-report measures such as questionnaires known as the Need for Closure Scale and a 33-item measure of compliance with power tactics. The results indicated that hard power tactics are found to be more effective than soft power tactics, as subordinates are more likely to comply with those who enforce hard power tactics (Bélanger, 2015). The All-Stars group experiences are aligned with the research conducted by Boughton et. al (2015) however not with the research of Bélanger et. al (2015). Through the use of soft power tactics, members were able to contribute their own personal strengths, traits, characteristics, etc., in times deemed appropriate with great success. On the other hand, although it is suggested that hard power tactics are more effective, the group managed to collaborate with one another in just as an effective and efficient manner, completing all necessary tasks respectively. The effectiveness of the use of hard versus soft power tactics can be seen to vary between individuals and groups.