Group dynamics deals with how employees and the employers interrelate with each other in a given business environment. This covers how workers interact with each other, their behavior and character traits. In addition, it covers the interpersonal relationships between the managers and their subordinates in the corporate world as well as the roles played by each of the members to bring harmony and coexistence in the workplace. The main benefits derived from this kind of a network is that service delivery to the clients is achieved more efficiently and that workers feel well motivated enough to keep up with the demands of their jobs.
Group dynamics plays an important role in establishing the culture of an organization. It should be noted however, that team members in a given group will only give the greatest output if only the function of the crew is based on positive group dynamics. In this case, if well applied, group dynamics can produce twice the output than if the team members are allowed to work independently. The contrary can occur in a group with poor dynamics, in which full potential of each individual member is not fully exploited, which leads to shallow thinking and poor decision-making. Therefore, much responsibility lies on the team leader to identify the strengths of his team and, thus provide a suitable platform for each of the members to collectively participate in realization of the goals of the team as a whole (Eyre, 2014).
Eyre argues that leadership in a group is what determines whether the outcome of the group work would be satisfactory or would lead to failure. Eyre points out that if the leader remains unfocused or non-competent, an individual from the team may take the dominance and shift the attention of the entire group towards unnecessary endeavors. This can lead to arguments in the group, disagreements, and fights that may disrupt the achievement of the objectives. A well-coordinated group stays focused on the matters at hand, proficiently allocating priority to what is most important. Thus, leadership needs to be placed on that member who has the skill of synchronizing activities and integrating the personal efforts of each player.
A short back of excessive expression of authority can also derail an organization from attaining its objectives. The fear of the management prevents the team members from airing their opinion on certain issues. Inability to express ideas makes it difficult for the rest of the team participants to put forward ideas that could shift the plan of action. In these cases, uncontrolled dominance of the leadership may provide a loophole for wrong decision-making. As a result, the disadvantage of undesirable results of negative group dynamics ensues. Individual characteristics of each accomplice also determine the accomplishments to be made. For instance, in situations where a certain member targets to negate the opinion raised by others or withdraws from the team play all together, minimal achievement occurs (Eyre, 2014).
Every member in a group should contribute to enable effective functioning and activity sharing. Nevertheless, in some disadvantage, there are cases in which some participants take the easy way out and become joy riders in the group. Such dishonor is called social loafing, and it has an immense impact on the operations of the team. This limitation overburdens the rest of the players, leading to a deficit. There is an increased demand for extra works for the rest of the members to cover for the duties of the underperformer. It is not uncommon in such situations to find out that the free rider in the group couples the troublemaker as well.
Evidence suggests that those group supervisors that tackle problems quickly have higher success rates than those who wait and intervene when the matter exacerbates. It is worth mentioning that the more time it takes to solve an insufficiency in the performance of the group, the more likely the problem will develop into an overwhelmingly uncontrollable state. The best way to go about this is by identifying the defiant member and challenging him for a change or taking the necessary repercussion to control the matter. A good way to avoid the occurrence of this behavior is by clearly defining the roles so that each individual’s work is monitored throughout the group activities. It is easier to supervise people when each of them has been allocated their own tasks. This enhances compliance and improves credibility for each person in as much as the activities are group centered.
From these articles, I have learned that the size of a group is equally important in the quest to maximize results. Although the number of participants can vary greatly depending on the roles assigned and the general preferences for the managers in a given corporate, small numbers of members have been proven more efficient than large groups in which tracking of each individual may be difficult. The optimal number of people that would collectively work in cohesion and resourcefully produce a plausible outcome lies somewhere in between two to ten individuals (“Group Dynamics”, 2015). In cases where this is impossible to realize, a maximum of twelve members may constitute a group. The larger the group is, the more the time it takes to arrive at conclusions in decision-making. This so happens because so many contributions have to be analyzed before a final stand is made. Evidence proposes that as level of achievement increases proportionately with the number of individuals recruited into a team up to a certain level after which productivity starts decreasing. Satisfaction among the members is highly dependent on the number of members in a group, and it can be well found in cases where the count is small with enhanced cohesion and interaction.
Certain limitations can be noted from these articles. First, the evidence that supports the information has been sources from a limited number of studies, which indicates that its generalizability to corporates and the business arena is of questionable significance. Secondly, the writers have dwelt much more on the benefits of application of group dynamics while the dysfunctions that may exist in this system have not been exhaustively elaborated. This, therefore, means that most of the information provided describes a single side of rather than a global picture of how group dynamics affects the organizations. Issues pertaining the implications of culture, age, personal preferences, and socio-economic influences that may affect the level of interaction in the group dynamics have not been analyzed.
Not only do work experience and output rely on the employer-worker healthy relationship but also on the motivation that the employee receives. Performance appraisal and promotions are some of the key indicators of proper rewarding together with offering incentives as it is done in my work place. A proper way to grant incentives is by gifting the workers with retreats, night outs, and office dinners that facilitate more bonding and sharing in informal forums. By giving these, there is positive reinforcement that leads to an increase in the personal drive for work without need for supervision.
Employee training on group dynamics and communication skills, which are core in establishment of virtuous organizational relationships, also needs to be considered. The value and importance that has been attached to these two has greatly boosted the reputation and employee loyalty in the organization I work with. The content from these articles can help the future businesses in improving their productivity, providing better customer service by brainstorming on ways to diversify output lines as well as give future managers insight on how to run organizations with increased adeptness.