Groups
Introduction:
This essay will consider in what way groups within organisations meet the needs of both the individual and that of the organisation. In order to do this one must first consider a definition of the term group. A group may simply be defined as two or more people with something in common (Robbins 2007), whilst the word group is often used interchangeably with that of team the two are distinctly different. Whilst a group considers two or more people with something in common a team on the together hand is two or more people with a common objective (Huczynski and Buchananan 2007). As such one may deduce that all teams a necessarily groups but on the other hand a group does not necessarily automatically constitute a team.
The needs of the organisation:
The needs of an organisation is a broad and somewhat vague concept however on the basis that competitive advantage is gained by superior performance and greater efficiencies than those generated by a competitor then the essay will consider that the needs of an organisation have been met were a group generates a larger level of value than an individual.
Groups may be seen as meeting the needs of organisations from two key methods. In the first instance there is the consideration that groups may contribute directly to the value of an organisation. For instance were decision making is taken into account it may be considered that consultation of a group of people will lead to a better decision than were an individual is solely responsible for the decision (Adair 1989). The reasons for such additional value being added to the organisation directly due to group considerations in such an instance are due to such factors as an increased level of knowledge and expertise and the synergies which may be drawn from multiple ideas from numerous people.
Evidence for the success of groups in meeting the needs of organisations may be seen as demonstrated by the fact that companies often encourage the formation of groups for numerous reasons. In some instances companies encourage the formation of groups which have directly work related themes such as quality circles or other operational related improvements groups (Slack et al 2009). Such groups have been made wide spread use of in leading companies such as Toyota (DHI 2009). In other instances firms have also been seen as promoting the formation of groups which are rather more social in nature thus promoting the idea that groups deliver a benefit for an organisation even were the primary existence of that group is for a non-work related purpose.
The second way in which groups may be seen as meeting the needs of an organisation is through the indirect method in which a group benefits an employee for which the organisation then benefits. Whilst the benefits of the group will be considered in relation to the individual in the subsequent section the essay will now consider those benefits which the company derives from the group as a product of the needs of an individual being met.
In the first instance there is considerable evidence to suggest that a happy employee whilst not necessarily being motivated to greater levels of productivity is less likely to leave an organisation (Handy 1999). As such one may consider that one of the key needs of an organisation to be met by groups is a reduction in staff turnover. To contextualise this one should recognise the significant costs which are incurred by an organisation from labour turnover costs which are fristly financial with sources estimating the cost of labour turnover to be between �3,546 and �5,206 (Thornton 2000). In addition to financial costs labour turnover also has significant other costs such as the loss of tacit knowledge and general disruption to the business.
Other benefits may be seen as coming from increased levels of productivity although evidence is mixed on the subject with some doubting that the group in its self provides the link to greater levels of productivity (Handy 1999) whilst other sources indicate there were such practises as the self directing work group have been put into place productivity has increased dramatically (Williams 1995). At this point one must also consider the differentiation between the team and the group, whilst the two are often used interchangeably a differentiation has already been drawn in the introductory section. As such one argument is that groups may in fact contribute little towards increased levels of productivity and that it is the team that is the contributor towards the needs of the organisation.
Having considered the positive elements of both groups and teams there is also the consideration that in some instances groups and teams my not contribute towards the needs of an organisation. Were there is any consideration of a group or team of any size there is the consideration that there is also the need for some form of communications and the consideration of a decision being made with a greater level of collectivisation. As such one of the key disadvantages may be seen as the fact that groups and teams have the ability to slow down decision making and lead to ultimately a less decisive organisation even if one that makes decisions with reference to a greater body of knowledge.
The needs of the individual:
Firstly one must consider that the needs of an individual are not singular in nature and that what meets the needs of one individual will fail to meet the needs of another (Bratton and Gold 2007, Torrington et al 2008). As such rather than adopting a blanket approach to the consideration of how and if groups meet the needs of an individual the concept will be considered in relation to a variety of motivational and behavioural theories.
Early motivational theories such as those associated with scientific management and other theories emphasised the needs of an individual though the consideration of an extrinsic reward (Handy 1999, Taylor 1947). Such theories which are associated with motivation through the provision of extrinsic rewards would appear to suggest that at best groups are irrelevant to fulfilling the needs of an individual since it is money an extrinsic reward which form the real needs of the individual.
Despite this later theorists highlighted the fact that such extrinsic theories provided too basic a model to explain the needs and motivations of individuals. Theorists such as Maslow and Herzberg who may be considered as forming the basis of the intrinsic school of though considered that individuals have needs beyond those of the basic physiological needs met by money. Maslow for instance highlighted a number of needs which are highlighted in the popular diagram below:
(Adapted from Maslow 1970)
Considering the above elements one can see how the consideration of a group may help to meet the needs of an individual in several ways. In the first instance there is the consideration that membership alone may meet certain needs for instance membership of a group such as a trade union may provide the feeling of protection and security this fulfilling the need for safety. In the second instance membership alone may also provide the element of belongingness which could not be provided from an individualistic perspective were no group exists.
Further elements of an individuals needs may be met by a group such as those of esteem however in these cases there is the consideration that membership of a group is not enough alone to achieve such levels of satisfaction. For example in order for the group to meet the need of esteem the group must formally or informally have a way of recognising and highlighting the achievements of its members. Such recognition may take the form or formal recognition such as with awards and ceremonies on the other hand it may include such informal and seemingly minor actions as a slap on the back from some one who is seen as senior within the group when a person has performed well.
Despite the consideration of the meeting of an individuals needs at the higher levels there is also the consideration that a group will in no way contribute towards the first level of needs of an individual, those of the physiological for which wages and salary my be considered as the only way of meeting these needs. In addition according to Maslow’s theory in order to meet higher levels of need the basic levels must be met first as a prerequisite. As such it may be considered that the group will meet none of the needs of the individual if the prerequisite needs of the individual are not first met through the consideration of extrinsic reward.
Herzberg (1959) offers a similar approach to considering the needs of individual’s by highlighting a number of hygiene factors, those needs for which without a worker would become dissatisfied with their job. Herzberg also identified what he called motivators which he believed the presence of would aid the motivation of workers. Herzberg’s hygiene and motivational factors are given below and will now be considered in greater detail:
| Hygiene Factors | Motivational Factors |
| Company policy | Achievement |
| Supervision | Recognition |
| Salary | Responsibility |
| Interpersonal relations | Advancement |
| Working conditions |
Again one may make similar conclusions as the way in which groups may help meet the needs of individuals, under Herzberg’s considerations membership of a group would not appear to meet any of the motivational factors but may be seen as in some ways contributing towards the hygiene elements of interpersonal relations. Again the needs of the individual which are to be met by the group requires action on behalf of the group to promote the relevant motivational factors in the same way as was previously considered in relation to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Despite these considerations commentators (Mullins 2009) highlight that there are a set of individuals who find motivation from the hygiene factors and as such are referred to in the literature as hygiene seekers. In these cases there is the consideration that a group will contribute very little to the needs of this specific type of individual who probably has a greater resonance with earlier extrinsic reward models.
Conclusion:
Having considered the evidence one may consider that groups have the potential to meet both the needs of the individual and the organisation however the existence of groups do not necessarily mean that the needs of both parties will automatically be meet. Whether or not the needs of the individual will be met by the group will largely be dependent on the nature of the individual in question and is thus inextricably linked to their personal aims and aspirations with those who have more individualistic ambitions gaining less utility from the membership of a group than those who have more collective or social aims and ambitions.
Bibliography
Adair, J. 1989. The effective communicator. London: The industry society
Bratton, J, Gold, J. 2007. Human resource management theory and practise. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
DHI. 2009. Toyota and Honda endorse quality circles on a global scale. Available online at: http://www.hutchins.co.uk/NW_Toyota.aspx [Accessed on 21/02/10].
Handy, C. 1999. Understanding organizations. 4th ed. London: Penguin Books.
Herzberg, F, Mausner, B, Snyderman, B, B. 1959. The motivation to work. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Huczynski, A, A, Buchananan, D, A. 2007. Organizational Behaviour. 6th ed. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Maslow, A. 1970. Motivation and personality. Harper Row.
Mullins, L, J. 2009. Management and organisational behaviour. 8th ed. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S, P, Judge, T, A. 2007. Organizational behaviour. 12th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Slack, N, Chambers, S, Johnston, R, Betts, A. 2009. Operations and process management. 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, F, W. 1947. The principals of scientific management. New York: Norton Library.
Thornton, J. 2000 Oct 25th. Costs of staff turnover surge to an all-time record high. The Independent. Available online at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/costs-of-staff-turnover-surge-to-an-alltime-record-high-635784.html [Accessed online 27/07/09].
Torrington, D, Hall, L, Taylor, S. 2008. Human resource management. 7th ed. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Williams, R. 1995, Dec. Self-directed work teams: A competitive advantage. Quality digest. Available online at: http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov95/html/self-dir.html [Accessed on 14/07/09].