managment class

THIS IS FOR Question No.1

The Group Development Process

TO THE POINT

Why is it important to know the stages of group development when creating effective work groups and teams?

LO.2

Groups and teams in the workplace go through a maturation process, such as one would find in any life-cycle situation (e.g., humans, organizations, products). While there is general agreement among theorists that the group development process occurs in identifiable stages, they disagree about the exact number, sequence, length, and nature of those stages.19 One oft-cited model is the one proposed in 1965 by educational psychologist Bruce W Tuckman. His original model involved only four stages (forming, storming, norming, and performing).

Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for an interactive exercise to test your knowledge of the group development process.

The five-stage model in Figure 10–2 evolved when Tuckman and a doctoral student added “adjourning” in 1977.20 A word of caution is in order. Somewhat akin to Maslow's need hierarchy theory, Tuckman's theory has been repeated and taught so often and for so long that many have come to view it as documented fact, not merely a theory. Even today, it is good to remember Tuckman's own caution that his group development model was derived more from group therapy sessions than from natural-life groups. Still, many in the organizational behavior (OB) field like Tuckman's five-stage model of group development because of its easy-to-remember labels and commonsense appeal.

Figure 10–2

Tuckman's Five-Stage Theory of Group Development

Five Stages

Let us walk through the five stages in Tuckman's model. Notice in Figure 10–2 how individuals give up a measure of their independence when they join and participate in a group. Also, the various stages are not necessarily of the same duration or intensity. For instance, the storming stage may be practically nonexistent or painfully long, depending on the goal clarity and the commitment and maturity of the members. You can make this process come to life by relating the various stages to your own experiences with work groups, committees, athletic teams, social or religious groups, or class project teams. Some group happenings that surprised you when they occurred may now make sense or strike you as inevitable when seen as part of a natural development process.

Page 274

Stage 1: Forming During this ice-breaking stage, group members tend to be uncertain and anxious about such things as their roles, who is in charge, and the group's goals. Also, prior experience between members of the group can create friction, according to a new study.21 Mutual trust is low, and there is a good deal of holding back to see who takes charge and how. If the formal leader (e.g., a supervisor) does not assert his or her authority, an emergent leader will eventually step in to fulfill the group's need for leadership and direction. Leaders typically mistake this honeymoon period as a mandate for permanent control. But later problems may force a leadership change.

Recent research found improved communication among members of new problem-solving teams comprised of specialists possessing unique knowledge22 (a common situation today). So teambuilding, discussed in the next chapter, can give new groups a helpful running start.

Stage 2: Storming This is a time of testing. Individuals test the leader's policies and assumptions as they try to determine how they fit into the power structure. Subgroups take shape, and subtle forms of rebellion, such as procrastination, occur. Many groups stall in stage 2 because power politics erupts into open rebellion.23

Stage 3: Norming Groups that make it through stage 2 generally do so because a respected member, other than the leader, challenges the group to resolve its power struggles so something can be accomplished. Questions about authority and power are resolved through unemotional, matter-of-fact group discussion. A feeling of team spirit is experienced because members believe they have found their proper roles. Group cohesiveness, defined as the “we feeling” that binds members of a group together, is the principal by-product of stage 3.24 (For a good laugh, see the golfing explanation below the photo.)

Page 275

Stage 4: Performing Activity during this vital stage is focused on solving task problems. As members of a mature group, contributors get their work done without hampering others. There is a climate of open communication, strong cooperation, and lots of helping behavior. Conflicts and job boundary disputes are handled constructively and efficiently. Cohesiveness and personal commitment to group goals help the group achieve more than any one individual could acting alone. According to a pair of group development experts,

Example. the group structure can become flexible and adjust to fit the requirements of the situation without causing problems for the members. Influence can shift depending on who has the particular expertise or skills required for the group task or activity. Subgroups can work on special problems or subproblems without posing threats to the authority or cohesiveness of the rest of the group.25

A Fortune article examined the question, Why do people love to mix golf and business? (Hint: It's all about group dynamics.): Ask people why they golf with business associates, and the answer is always the same: It's a great way to build relationships. They say this far more about golf than about going to dinner or attending a baseball game, and for good reason. Indeed, this may be the central fact about corporate golf, though it's rarely said: When people golf together, they see one another humiliated. At least 95% of all golfers are terrible, which means that in 18 holes everyone in the foursome will hit a tree, take three strokes in one bunker, or four-putt, with everyone else watching. Bonding is simply a matter of people jointly going through adversity, and a round of golf will furnish plenty of it. Of course it's only a game, but of course it isn't, so the bonds can be surprisingly strong. And what's that worth?

SOURCE: G Colvin, “Why Execs Love Golf,” Fortune, April 30, 2001, p 46.

Stage 5: Adjourning The work is done; it is time to move on to other things. Having worked so hard to get along and get something done, many members feel a compelling sense of loss. The return to independence can be eased by rituals celebrating “the end” and “new beginnings.” Parties, award ceremonies, graduations, or mock funerals can provide the needed punctuation at the end of a significant group project. Leaders need to emphasize valuable lessons learned in group dynamics to prepare everyone for future group and team efforts.

Back to the Chapter-Opening Case

What evidence of stage 5 in Tuckman's group development model can you find in Pat McDonald's handling of the plant closing?

Group Development: Research and Practical Implications

A growing body of group development research provides managers with some practical insights.

Page 276

Extending the Tuckman Model: Group Decay An interesting study of 10 software development teams, ranging in size from 5 to 16 members, enhanced the practical significance of Tuckman's model.26 Unlike Tuckman's laboratory groups who worked together only briefly, the teams of software engineers worked on projects lasting years. Consequently, the researchers discovered more than simply a five-stage group development process. Groups were observed actually shifting into reverse once Tuckman's “performing” stage was reached, in what the researchers called group decay. In keeping with Tuckman's terminology, the three observed stages of group decay were labeled “de-norming,” “de-storming,” and “de-forming.” These additional stages take shape as follows:

1. De-norming. As the project evolves, there is a natural erosion of standards of conduct. Group members drift in different directions as their interests and expectations change.

1. De-storming. This stage of group decay is a mirror opposite of the storming stage. Whereas disagreements and conflicts arise rather suddenly during the storming stage, an undercurrent of discontent slowly comes to the surface during the de-storming stage. Individual resistance increases and cohesiveness declines.

1. De-forming. The work group literally falls apart as subgroups battle for control. Those pieces of the project that are not claimed by individuals or subgroups are abandoned. “Group members begin isolating themselves from each other and from their leaders. Performance declines rapidly because the whole job is no longer being done and group members little care what happens beyond their self-imposed borders.”27

The primary management lesson from this study is that group leaders should not become complacent upon reaching the performing stage. According to the researchers, “The performing stage is a knife edge or saddle point, not a point of static equilibrium.”28 Awareness is the first line of defense. Beyond that, constructive steps need to be taken to reinforce norms, bolster cohesiveness, and reaffirm the common goal—even when work groups seem to be doing their best.

Feedback Another fruitful study was carried out by a pair of Dutch social psychologists. They hypothesized that interpersonal feedback would vary systematically during the group development process. “The unit of feedback measured was a verbal message directed from one participant to another in which some aspect of behavior was addressed.”29 After collecting and categorizing 1,600 instances of feedback from four different eight-person groups, they concluded the following:

1. Interpersonal feedback increases as the group develops through successive stages.

1. Interpersonal feedback becomes more specific as the group develops.

1. As the group develops, positive feedback increases and negative feedback decreases.

1. The credibility of peer feedback increases as the group develops.30

These findings hold important lessons for managers. The content and delivery of interpersonal feedback among work group or committee members can be used as a gauge of whether the group is developing properly. For example, the onset of stage 2 (storming) will be signaled by a noticeable increase in negative feedback. Effort can then be directed at generating specific, positive feedback among the members so the group's development will not stall. Our discussion of feedback in Chapter 9 is helpful in this regard.

Deadlines Field and laboratory studies found uncertainty about deadlines to be a major disruptive force in both group development and intergroup relations. The practical implications of this finding were summed up by the researcher as follows:

Page 277

Example. Uncertain or shifting deadlines are a fact of life in many organizations. Interdependent organizational units and groups may keep each other waiting, may suddenly move deadlines forward or back, or may create deadlines that are known to be earlier than is necessary in efforts to control erratic workflows. The current research suggests that the consequences of such uncertainty may involve more than stress, wasted time, overtime work, and intergroup conflicts. Synchrony in group members' expectations about deadlines may be critical to groups' abilities to accomplish successful transitions in their work.31

Thus, effective group management involves clarifying not only tasks and goals, but schedules and deadlines as well. When group members accurately perceive important deadlines, the pacing of work and timing of interdependent tasks tend to be more efficient.

Leadership Styles Along a somewhat different line, experts in the area of leadership contend that different leadership styles are needed as work groups develop.

Example. In general, it has been documented that leadership behavior that is active, aggressive, directive, structured, and task-oriented seems to have favorable results early in the group's history. However, when those behaviors are maintained throughout the life of the group, they seem to have a negative impact on cohesiveness and quality of work. Conversely, leadership behavior that is supportive, democratic, decentralized, and participative seems to be related to poorer functioning in the early group development stages. However, when these behaviors are maintained throughout the life of the group, more productivity, satisfaction, and creativity result.32

The practical punch line here is that managers are advised to shift from a directive and structured leadership style to a participative and supportive style as the group develops.33

This question No.3

LO.1

Make no mistake about it. Conflict is an unavoidable aspect of organizational life. These major trends conspire to make organizational conflict inevitable:

1. Constant change.

1. Greater employee diversity.

1. More teams (virtual and self-managed).

1. Less face-to-face communication (more electronic interaction).

1. A global economy with increased cross-cultural dealings.

Dean Tjosvold, at Hong Kong's Lingnan University, notes that “change begets conflict, conflict begets change”2 and challenges us to do better with this sobering global perspective:

Example. Learning to manage conflict is a critical investment in improving how we, our families, and our organizations adapt and take advantage of change. Managing conflicts well does not insulate us from change, nor does it mean that we will always come out on top or get all that we want. However, effective conflict management helps us keep in touch with new developments and create solutions appropriate for new threats and opportunities.

Much evidence shows we have often failed to manage our conflicts and respond to change effectively. High divorce rates, disheartening examples of sexual and physical abuse of children, the expensive failures of international joint ventures, and bloody ethnic violence have convinced many people that we do not have the abilities to cope with our complex interpersonal, organizational, and global conflicts.3

Page 367

But respond we must. As outlined in this chapter, tools and solutions are available, if only we develop the ability and will to use them persistently. The choice is ours: Be active managers of conflict, or be managed by conflict.

A comprehensive review of the conflict literature yielded this consensus definition: “conflict is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party.”4 The word perceives reminds us that sources of conflict and issues can be real or imagined. The resulting conflict is the same. Conflict can escalate (strengthen) or deescalate (weaken) over time. “The conflict process unfolds in a context, and whenever conflict, escalated or not, occurs the disputants or third parties can attempt to manage it in some manner.”5 Consequently, current and future managers need to understand the dynamics of conflict and know how to handle it effectively (both as disputants and as third parties). This call to action is bolstered by a survey asking employees what their manager's New Year's resolution should be. The number-one response was “Deal with workplace conflicts faster.”6

The Language of Conflict: Metaphors and Meaning

Conflict is a complex subject for several reasons.7 Primary among them is the reality that conflict often carries a lot of emotional luggage. Fear of losing or fear of change quickly raises the emotional stakes in a conflict. Conflicts also vary widely in magnitude. Conflicts have both participants and observers. Some observers may be interested and active; others, disinterested and passive. Consequently, the term conflict can take on vastly different meanings, depending on the circumstances and one's involvement. For example, consider these three metaphors and accompanying workplace expressions:

1. Conflict as war: “We shot down that idea.”

1. Conflict as opportunity: “What will it take to resolve this disagreement?”

1. Conflict as journey: “Let's search for common ground and all learn something useful.”8

If you think yoga is a tough stretch, try being a manager today. Christine Day, CEO of Lululemon Athletica, strives hard to work out goal-focused agreements among the employees of her rapidly growing yoga apparel company.

Anyone viewing a conflict as war or a sports contest will try to win at all costs and wipe out the enemy. For example, Donald Trump has said, “In life, you have fighters and nonfighters. You have winners and losers. I am both a fighter and a winner.”9 Alternatively, those seeing a conflict as an opportunity and a journey will tend to be more positive, open-minded, and constructive. In a hostile world, combative and destructive warlike thinking often prevails. But typical daily workplace conflicts are not war. So when dealing with organizational conflicts, we are challenged to rely less on the metaphor and language of war and more on the metaphors and language of opportunity and journey. For instance, Christine Day, CEO of yoga apparel retailer Lululemon Athletica, offers this advice: “You might disagree with your co-workers on how to get there, but make sure you agree on what you're trying to accomplish.”10 We need to monitor our choice of words in conflict situations carefully.

Page 368

While explaining the three metaphors, conflict experts Kenneth Cloke and Joan Goldsmith made this instructive observation that we want to keep in mind for the balance of this chapter:

Example. Conflict gives you an opportunity to deepen your capacity for empathy and intimacy with your opponent. Your anger transforms the “Other” into a stereotyped demon or villain. Similarly, defensiveness will prevent you from communicating openly with your opponents, or listening carefully to what they are saying. On the other hand, once you engage in dialogue with that person, you will resurrect the human side of their personality—and express your own as well.

Moreover, when you process your conflicts with integrity, they lead to growth, increased awareness, and self-improvement. Uncontrolled anger, defensiveness, and shame defeat these possibilities. Everyone feels better when they overcome their problems and reach resolution, and worse when they succumb and fail to resolve them. It is a bitter truth that victories won in anger lead to long-term defeat. Those defeated turn away, feeling betrayed and lost, and carry this feeling with them into their next conflict.

Conflict can be seen simply as a way of learning more about what is not working and discovering how to fix it. The usefulness of the solution depends on the depth of your understanding of the problem. This depends on your ability to listen to the issue as you would to a teacher, which depends on halting the cycle of escalation and searching for opportunities for improvement.11

In short, win–win beats win–lose in both conflict management and negotiation.

A Conflict Continuum

Ideas about managing conflict underwent an interesting evolution during the 20th century. Initially, scientific management experts such as Frederick W Taylor believed all conflict ultimately threatened management's authority and thus had to be avoided or quickly resolved. Later, human relationists recognized the inevitability of conflict and advised managers to learn to live with it. Emphasis remained on resolving conflict whenever possible, however. Beginning in the 1970s, organizational behavior specialists realized conflict had both positive and negative outcomes, depending on its nature and intensity. This perspective introduced the revolutionary idea that organizations could suffer from too little conflict. Figure 13–1 illustrates the relationship between conflict intensity and outcomes.

Figure 13–1

The Relationship between Conflict Intensity and Outcomes

SOURCE: From L D Brown, Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces, 1st ed. Copyright © 1983. Reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Page 369

real WORLD // real PEOPLE

Software Maker 37signals Thrives on Functional Conflict

Jason Fried, co-founder of Chicago-based 37signals:

We're an opinionated bunch at 37signals.… That is true whether we're dealing with the outside world (in our blog posts, conference talks, interviews, etc.) or with one another. And since we're a semivirtual company with people in 12 different cities, we don't have the benefit of body language to help inform the subtleties of discussion. Because we can't see one another, we can't serve up a smile or a “You know what I mean” glance to defuse a conflict in the making.

So we've learned a few things about managing conflict. Conflict, of course, can be a downer. But managed conflict is a good thing—it's fertile ground for a great exchange of ideas. When people dig in and defend their positions, a deeper understanding of a problem is possible. As long as people are defending a genuine idea and not just their pride, much can be learned.

How comfortable would you be working in this sort of confrontational environment?

SOURCE: J Fried, “I Know You Are, But What Am I?” Inc, July–August 2010, p 39.

Work groups, departments, or organizations experiencing too little conflict tend to be plagued by apathy, lack of creativity, indecision, and missed deadlines. Excessive conflict, on the other hand, can erode organizational performance because of political infighting, dissatisfaction, lack of teamwork, and turnover. Workplace bullying, reportedly experienced by one-third of the employees in a recent survey,12 is unhealthy conflict. Workplace aggression and violence also can be manifestations of excessive conflict.13 Appropriate types and levels of conflict energize people in constructive directions.

Functional versus Dysfunctional Conflict

LO.2

The distinction between functional conflict and dysfunctional conflict pivots on whether the organization's interests are served. According to one conflict expert,

Example. Some [types of conflict] support the goals of the organization and improve performance; these are functional, constructive forms of conflict. They benefit or support the main purposes of the organization. Additionally, there are those types of conflict that hinder organizational performance; these are dysfunctional or destructive forms. They are undesirable and the manager should seek their eradication.14

Functional conflict is commonly referred to in management circles as constructive or cooperative conflict. In terms of what we just discussed about the language of conflict, those engaging in functional conflict apply a win–win attitude to solve problems and find common ground (see Real World/Real People above). Organizational psychologist Kerry Sulkowicz draws an important distinction between aggressiveness and assertiveness when giving this advice about functional conflict:

Example. The best CEOs I work with know how to exert pressure, say no, and start and win a fight when necessary. So much for teamwork? Actually, collaboration and confrontation aren't mutually exclusive. There's aggression—a basic survival mechanism—and then there's its tamer, more socially adaptive cousin, assertiveness, which can be deployed usefully, including with people working on the “same side.”

Page 370

The need to be assertive comes up all the time. It's essential in negotiating contracts, rejecting bad work, criticizing a strategy, or firing (or defending) an employee. Yet some people will do almost anything to avoid confrontation.…

The key, oddly enough, is to empathize with the person you're confronting. To that end, marshal useful facts rather than impressions, offer alternatives along with your objections, and limit comments to the deed, not the doer. Your opponent won't hear anything you say after an attack on his or her character. And don't be self-righteous. Or gloat if you prevail. Nobody likes a poor winner.15

Why People Avoid Conflict

Are you uncomfortable in conflict situations? Do you go out of your way to avoid conflict? If so, you're not alone. Many of us avoid conflict for a variety of both good and bad reasons. Tim Ursiny, in his entertaining and instructive book The Coward's Guide to Conflict, contends that we avoid conflict because we fear various combinations of the following things: “harm,” “rejection,” “loss of relationship,” “anger,” “being seen as selfish,” “saying the wrong thing,” “failing,” “hurting someone else,” “getting what you want,” and “intimacy.”16 This list is self-explanatory, except for the fear of “getting what you want.” By this, Ursiny is referring to those who, for personal reasons, feel undeserving or fear the consequences of success, or both (so they tend to sabotage themselves).17 For our present purposes, it is sufficient to become consciously aware of our fears and practice overcoming them. Reading, understanding, and acting on the material in this chapter are steps in a positive direction.

Page 371

Back to the Chapter-Opening Case

Are you a conflict avoider like Lowrie Beacham? If yes, what problems does it cause, and what can you do to improve?

Antecedents of Conflict

LO.3

Certain situations produce more conflict than others. By knowing the antecedents of conflict, managers are better able to anticipate it and take steps to resolve it if it becomes dysfunctional. Among the situations tending to produce either functional or dysfunctional conflict are

1. Incompatible personalities or value systems.

1. Overlapping or unclear job boundaries.

1. Interdepartment/intergroup competition.

1. Competition for limited resources.

1. Inadequate communication.

1. Interdependent tasks (e.g., one person cannot complete his or her assignment until others have completed their work).

1. Organizational complexity (conflict tends to increase as the number of hierarchical layers and specialized tasks increase).

1. Unreasonable or unclear policies, standards, or rules.

1. Unreasonable deadlines or extreme time pressure.

1. Collective decision making (the greater the number of people participating in a decision, the greater the potential for conflict).

1. Decision making by consensus.

1. Unmet expectations (employees who have unrealistic expectations about job assignments, pay, or promotions are more prone to conflict).

1. Unresolved or suppressed conflicts.18

The 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants created a perfect storm of dysfunctional conflict as fingers pointed in all directions among Tokyo Electric Power Company officials, national and local government leaders, and an outraged public. How many antecedents of conflict in the accompanying list do you think played a contributing role?

Proactive managers carefully read these early warnings and take appropriate action.

Back to the Chapter-Opening Case

Which antecedents of conflict are primarily responsible for the problems in the opening case? What are the cause-and-effect relationships?

Desired Conflict Outcomes

Within organizations, conflict management is more than simply a quest for agreement. If progress is to be made and dysfunctional conflict minimized, a broader agenda is in order. Tjosvold's cooperative conflict model calls for three desired outcomes:

1. Agreement. But at what cost? Equitable and fair agreements are best. An agreement that leaves one party feeling exploited or defeated will tend to breed resentment and subsequent conflict.

1. Stronger relationships. Good agreements enable conflicting parties to build bridges of goodwill and trust for future use. Moreover, conflicting parties who trust each other are more likely to keep their end of the bargain.

1. Learning. Functional conflict can promote greater self-awareness and creative problem solving. Like the practice of management itself, successful conflict handling is learned primarily by doing. Knowledge of the concepts and techniques in this chapter is a necessary first step, but there is no substitute for hands-on practice. In a contentious world, there are plenty of opportunities to strive for better conflict outcomes.19

A prime example is education reform. As evidenced by recent headlines, school boards and administrators, teacher's unions, and parents too often wallow in unfruitful conflict to the detriment of students. A refreshing and instructive exception is Hillsborough County, with the eighth-largest US school district that encompasses Tampa and St Petersburg, Florida. Can you spot the three desired conflict outcomes in the following situation?

Example. In recent years, teamwork between the union and management has resulted in a longer, eight-hour school day; higher pay for the most effective teachers; and a comprehensive coaching program for struggling teachers. They have also worked together to refine a rigorous teacher-evaluation system that considers student-achievement gains along with the observations of principals and outside peer reviewers.20