We can define organizational behavior as a study of people. The way they relate in their respective working environments, psychologically, socially, their communication skills, and their managerial skills all come into play. We usually apply this topic within a group or team in the workstation context (Schermerhorn et al., 2003).
In this study, we take into account the following factors.
- How various team members are likely to behave if placed in a certain situation
- Their competences when applied to different areas in the organization
- Different backgrounds from which they come; if diverse, what benefits can they introduce into the organization?
- Their diverse cultural settings; if they are different, how do they affect the way the employees relate at work?
All these factors are important in understanding the significant behavioral differences in the organization’s workforce.
Definitions of a group and a team
We determine the differences between individuals in the workforce by carrying out various research methods. A questionnaire would work just as well as interviews and surveys. These people in the workstation, at times, perform duties in numbers. It is in these grouping mentalities that we identify how well certain characters can incorporate into the groups or teams.
In the workplace, we may have a number of groups collected into different forms and with people of different characteristics. Each member brings his unique talent to build to the success of the team (Schermerhorn et al., 2003). These individuals would ordinarily seek personal accomplishment, but for the sake of the group’s achievement, they compromise their interests and go for the group’s need to achieve. Working together in this manner means that not only will they achieve the team’s goals but theirs as well. They bear a competitive skill as they try to outdo another team on the same work level. Different teams may each have a specific goal. In a team, therefore, members contribute to decision-making and to the eventual success of the whole team.
We can define a group as a collection of individuals geared at interacting with each other towards a common goal, but they each strive to excel personally. Each person’s actions directly affect the other person’s performance, and as a whole, the degree with which they interact and function together has great ramifications. Where the members conflict often, they give other group members a certain level of demoralization. On the other hand, where the group members exhibit great coordination, they raise the stakes and are likely to exhibit good performance. They merely seek to accomplish what they are required to do but do not play any role in decision-making (Schermerhorn et al., 2003).
Differences between a team and a group
Group members bear no sense of belonging or ownership of the team; they, therefore, play little part in driving the motives of the group, except for their assigned duties. Team members, on the other hand, device plans to conquer a certain success-block collectively. Each person brings forth their knowledge and creativity to drive the team’s objectives. The whole team acts in the interest of the firm (Robbins & Judge, 2010).
We also identify another difference in the level of trust that the members invest in the team. Team members bear trust in their constitution since it is in their common interest that the team succeeds. Group members find it hard to trust each other because, for the larger part of the collective working experience, each person secretly tries to pursue their individual goals. We also identify such barriers as communication barriers in groups, where the members usually play their respective roles rather than layout their non-subjective opinion about the running of the administrative tasks in the group; they do not ask straightforward questions. Team members question the team’s strategies since they equally contribute to the success of the collective group (Robbins & Judge, 2010).
Group mentality desires that there be a leader in solving problems like disagreements in progress. Team members, despite having a leader, they come together to understand the conflict at hand; they view it as a non-subjective opinion directed toward the chief goal, but in a different route. A team welcomes conflicts and solves it constructively and immediately (Robbins & Judge, 2010).
The leader spearheads leadership roles in teams since he is part of the workforce contributing ideas, rather than directing people from his post while the role players take on the execution part. In groups, he leads from a passive position rather than the active position. This demoralizes the group as well. Team leaders should work with the people they lead in order to achieve the goals effectively. Leaders who get their hands dirty while pushing their teams in the direction they want them to receive maximum performance from motivating their minors. This creates a positive mentality and strengthens the team.
A difference in performance due to excesses in numbers may be noted. The larger the group, the more they tend to achieve. This is because the group has more capability to execute its commands. This is not the case with teams. A team works best when the number of ideas generated is adequate to build a coalition of successful ideas but small enough to avoid confusion when trying to incorporate all the individual ideas. If the team bears a large number of people, each contributing, they make decision-making difficult and therefore hinder development, at times forming smaller subgroups within the team. This might set off a fallback in the achievement of the eventual goal (Robbins & Judge, 2010).
The following are the most relevant tasks to identify whenever an organization is trying to establish a group or a team:
There must be a facilitator who can use his people skills to enhance the whole process of progress. This is cultivated from the individual’s cultural background. Once the person is identified, the group then seeks out a decision-maker. This person usually becomes the leader in the end. Teams welcome a difference in opinion. The incorporation of a resistor would be welcome in constituting a team, but it would prove difficult for a group. Supporters would also come in handy for an efficient team. All the above characters cultivate a sense of consciousness in the workforce (Schermerhorn et al., 2003).
Identifying the various characters in the workplace could be very necessary to allow for growth and progress. The diversity in the workforce is quite welcome for team-building purposes. However, the institution of the following traits builds trust and strength in teams depending on what level of each trait the team requires: Interdependence, Consistency, Honesty, Affability, and Extend Trust to Others (Robbins & Judge, 2010). Team dynamics play the role of presenting various options from a diverse group of people who can each contribute to the growth of the firm.
Robbins, S.R. & Judge, T.A. (2010). Organizational behaviour. New York: Prentice Hall.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, G., Osborn, N., & Uhl-Bien M. (2003). Organizational Behaviour. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.