Home

CODE 931_ HBOR 1013 (Human Behavior in Organization)

Week 9 Lesson
NEOLMS MODULE

HBOR 1013 Human Behavior in Organization

AY 2022-2023

Lesson 9: Foundations of Group Behavior

Topic:
Foundations of Group Behavior; Classifying groups; Stages of group development

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:

Differentiate between formal and informal groups

1. Identify the stages of group development

Lesson Proper:

Foundations of Group

Groups have their place and their pitfalls. Before we discuss them, examine your own attitude toward working in groups. The objectives of this chapter and are to introduce you to basic group
concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups work, and show you how to create effective teams.

Let’s begin by defining group and explaining why people join groups.

Command- a manager and his or her immediate subordinates determined by the organizational chart subordinates that reports to a manager.

Task groups- also organizational determined, represent those working together to complete a job task. Those who work together for a certain task.

Interest group- those who work together for a specific objective.

Friendship- brought together because they share one or more common characteristics.

Why Do People Form Groups?

Why do people form groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow a sports team’s winning a national championship. Fans have staked their own self-
image on the performance of someone else. The winner’s supporters are elated, and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats declaring support for the team skyrocket. Fans of the losing team
feel dejected, even embarrassed. Our tendency to take personal pride or offense for the accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory.

Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the group’s performance.

1. When your group does well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might feel bad about yourself, or you might even reject that part of your identity, like
“fair weather fans.” Social identities also help people reduce uncertainty about who they are and what they should do.
2. People develop a lot of identities through the course of their lives. You might define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live in, your profession, your religious background, your
ethnicity, or your gender.
3. Social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, but they can have a negative side as well.

In group favoritism means we see members of us in group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. This obviously paves the way for stereotyping. When do people develop a social
identity? Several characteristics make a social identity important to a person:

Stages of Group Development

Groups generally pass through a predictable sequence in their evolution. Although not all groups follow this five-stage model, it is a useful framework for understanding group development. In this section, we describe
the five stage model and an alternative for temporary groups with deadlines.

The Five-Stage Model

The five-stage group-development model characterizes groups as proceeding through the distinct stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed a group becomes more effective as it progresses through the first four stages. Although this may be generally true, what makes a group
effective is actually more complex. First, groups proceed through the stages of group development at different rates. Those with a strong sense of purpose and strategy rapidly achieve high
performance and improve over time, whereas those with less sense of purpose actually see their performance worsen over time. Similarly, groups that begin with a positive social focus appear to
achieve the “performing” stage more rapidly. Nor do groups always proceed clearly from one stage to the next. Storming and performing can occur simultaneously, and groups can even regress to
previous stages.

AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL: FOR TEMPORARY GROUPS WITH DEADLINES

Temporary groups with deadlines don't seem to follow the previous model. Studies indicate that they have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction):

(1) Their first meeting sets the group's direction;

(2) this first phase of group activity is one of inertia;

(3) a transition takes place at the end of this first phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time;

(4) a transition initiates major changes;

(5) a second phase of inertia follows the transition; and

(6) the group's last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. This pattern is called the punctuated equilibrium model. Temporary groups go through transitions between
inertia and activity.

The first meeting sets the group's direction. A framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges in this first meeting. These lasting
patterns can appear as early as the first few seconds of the group's life.

Once set, the group's direction becomes "written in stone" and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of the group's life. This is a period of inertia—that is, the group tends to stand still
or become locked into a fixed course of action. Even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions, the group is incapable of acting on these new insights in Phase 1.

One of the more interesting discoveries made in these studies was that each group experienced its transition at the same point in its calendar-precisely halfway between its first meeting and its
official deadline-despite the fact that some groups spent as little as an hour on their project while others spent six months. It was as if the groups universally experienced a midlife crisis at this
point. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members' awareness that their time is limited and that they need to "get moving." This transition ends Phase 1 and is
characterized by a concentrated burst of changes in which old patterns are dropped and new perspectives are adopted. The transition sets a revised direction for Phase 2.

Phase 2 is a new equilibrium or period of inertia. In this phase, the group executes plans created during the transition period. The group's last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to
finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by their
members' awareness of time and deadlines. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn't apply to all groups. It's essentially limited to temporary task groups that are working under a time-
constrained completion deadline.

SOCIOMETRY: ANALYZING GROUP INTERACTION

Key Terms in Sociogram:

Group Properties: Roles, Norms, Status, Size, Cohesiveness, and Diversity

Work groups are not unorganized mobs; they have properties that shape members’ behavior and help explain and predict individual behavior within the group as well as the performance of the group itself. Some of
these properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity.

In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the psychological contract: an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employer. This agreement sets out mutual
expectations: what management expects from workers and vice versa. Management is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions, clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and
give feedback on how well an employee is doing. Employees are expected to respond by demonstrating a good attitude, following directions, and showing loyalty to the organization.

What happens if management is derelict in keeping its part of the bargain? We can expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study among restaurant managers found that psychological
contact violations were related to greater intentions to quit the job, while another study of a variety of different industries found they were associated with lower levels of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater
work withdrawal.

REFERENCES

Textbooks

Mcshane, Steven L. &Glinow, Mary Ann Von, Organiza onal behavior: emerging knowledge. global reality, McGraw-Hill Educa on, 2018

Books:

Serrano, AngelitaOngCamilar and Flores, Marivic Francisco(2016). Management of human behavior in an organiza on. Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing Inc., Manila

Flores, Marivic F.(2016). Organiza on development. Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing Inc., Manila

Online Reference

https://www.google.com/search?q=displayed+emotions&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwja6YKbxujrAhWUAZQKHRFHBcUQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=displayed+emotions&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQGDIECAAQGDIECAAQGDoGCAAQBxAeOggIABAHEAUQHjoICAAQCBAHEB46BggAEAgQHlD88A5YwfsOYIiBD2gAcAB4AIABUYgBqwWSAQE5mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=x1RfX5rqHJSD0ASRjpWoDA&bih=625&biw
Home

CODE 931_ HBOR 1013 (Human Behavior in Organization)

Lesson 10
NEO LMS MODULE

HBOR 1013 Human Behavior in Organization

AY 2022-2023

Lesson 10: More on Foundations of Group Behavior

Topic:
Continuation of Group Properties; Group Decision Making

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:

1. Identify different group properties

2. Differentiate the different group properties according to characteristics

3. Determine ways on how groups make decisions

LEARNING CONTENT

Lesson Proper:

Continuation of Group Properties

Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting on the green or that employees don’t criticize their bosses in public? Why not? The answer is norms.

Group Property 2: Norms

Other norms include appearance norms (dress codes, unspoken rules about when to look busy), social arrangement norms (with whom to eat lunch, whether to form friendships on and off the
job), and resource allocation norms (assignment of difficult jobs, distribution of resources like pay or equipment).

Full-scale appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the early 1930s, following studies undertaken between 1924 and 1932 at the Western Electric Company’s
Hawthorne Works in Chicago.

The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts.” Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your
peers. How did the group enforce these norms? The methods included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arm of any member who violated the group’s norms. Members
also ostracized individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest.

Do individuals conform to the pressures of all the groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. So what do
people do? They conform to the important groups to which they belong or hope to belong. These important groups are reference groups, in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a
member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members.

Like norms in general, individual employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant workplace behavior is likely to flourish
where it’s supported by group norms. Workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves. What this means for
managers is that when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely to suffer.

Group Property 3: Status

Even the smallest group will develop roles, rights, and rituals to differentiate its members. Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a
disparity between what they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be.

What Determines Status? According to status characteristics theory, status tends to derive from one of three sources:
 One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social loafing, the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than alone. It directly
challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it.

What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort. Another explanation
is the dispersion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to
become free riders and coast on the group’s efforts. The implications for OB are significant. When managers use collective work situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must also be able to identify
individual efforts. Otherwise, they must weigh the potential losses in productivity from using groups against the possible gains in worker satisfaction. There are several ways to prevent social loafing:

Group Property 6: Diversity

Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics
such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions.

The impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded
and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support
based on the extant research.”

Group Decision Making

The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those of many other countries. Today,
many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees.

Groups versus the Individual

Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on a number of factors. Let’s begin by
looking at the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than an individual tackling the same problem alone. The
exceptions tend to be the instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding
whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.

Groupthink and Groupshift

Two by-products of group decision making have the potential to affect a group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and arrive at high-quality solutions.
Group Decision-Making Techniques

Each of the four group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off.

“Madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups”.—Friedrich Nietzsche

*** END of LESSON 10***

REFERENCES

Textbooks

Mcshane, Steven L. &Glinow, Mary Ann Von, Organiza onal behavior: emerging knowledge. global reality, McGraw-Hill Educa on, 2018

Books:

Serrano, AngelitaOngCamilar and Flores, Marivic Francisco(2016). Management of human behavior in an organiza on. Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing Inc., Manila

Flores, Marivic F.(2016). Organiza on development. Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing Inc., Manila

Online Reference

https://www.google.com/search?q=displayed+emotions&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwja6YKbxujrAhWUAZQKHRFHBcUQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=displayed+emotions&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQGDIECAAQGDIECAAQGDoGCAAQBxAeOggIABAHEAUQHjoICAAQCBAHEB46BggAEAgQHlD88A5YwfsOYIiBD2gAcAB4AIABUYgBqwWSAQE5mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=x1RfX5rqHJSD0ASRjpWoDA&bih=625&biw
Home

CODE 931_ HBOR 1013 (Human Behavior in Organization)

Week 11 Lesson

For this week, the following shall be your guide for the different lessons and tasks that you need to accomplish. Be patient, read them carefully before proceeding to the tasks expected of you.

HAVE A FRUITFUL LEARNING EXPERIENCEJ

Date Topics Activities or Tasks

Creating Effective Teams

Beware! Teams Aren’t Always the Answer

Quiz

Submission of Learning Task

NEOLMS MODULE

HBOR 1013 Human Behavior in Organization

AY 2022-2023

Module 11: More on Understanding Work Teams

Topic:
Creating Effective Teams; Turning Individuals into Team Players; Beware! Teams Aren’t Always the Answer

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:

1. Identify the components of a team

LEARNING CONTENT

Lesson Proper:

Team Composition

The team composition category includes variables that relate to how teams should be staffed—the ability and personality of team members, allocation of roles and diversity, size of the team, and members’ preference for teamwork.

Key Components of Making up Effective Teams

We’ve made a strong case for the value and growing popularity of teams. But many people are not inherently team players, and many organizations have historically nurtured individual accomplishments. Finally, teams fit well in
countries that score high on collectivism. But what if an organization wants to introduce teams into a work population of individuals born and raised in an individualistic society? A veteran employee of a large company, who had done well
working in an individualistic company in an individualist country, described the experience of joining a team: “I’m learning my lesson. I just had my first negative performance appraisal in 20 years.”
LESSON KEY TAKEAWAY

Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities and are committed to a common plan and purpose, an accurate shared mental model of what is to be accomplished, specific team goals, a
manageable level of conflict, and a minimal degree of social loafing.

*** END of LESSON 11***

CODE 931_ HBOR 1013 (Human Behavior in Organization)

Week 12 Lesson

For this week, the following shall be your guide for the different lessons and tasks that you need to accomplish. Be patient, read them carefully before proceeding to the tasks expected of you.

HAVE A FRUITFUL LEARNING EXPERIENCEJ

Date Topics Activities or Tasks

Read Lessons
Work Teams

Synchronous Quiz (for LMS) Prepare for a Quiz ( Synchronous-for the Online Mode)

Submission of Learning Task

NEOLMS MODULE

HBOR 1013 Human Behavior in Organization

AY 2022-2023

Module 12: Work Teams

Topic:
Discuss the strength of working in teams and its side effect to the organization

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:

1. Emphasize teamwork and relationship among the students through group dynamics.
2. Value human relationship with a situational analysis.

LEARNING CONTENT

Lesson Proper:

Understanding Work Teams

Teams are increasingly the primary means for organizing work in contemporary business firms. In fact, there are few more damaging insults than “not a team player.” Do you think you’re a team player?

Work teams are groups of employees that work together on a task. Work teams are most efficient when job content changes and expert advice are needed to complete a set of work with different skills.

Differences Between Groups and Teams

Groups and teams are not the same thing. In this section, we define and clarify the difference between work groups and work teams.

In the previous module, we defined a group as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives.
These definitions help clarify why so many organizations have recently restructured work processes around teams. Management is looking for positive synergy that will allow the organizations to increase performance. The extensive use
of teams creates the potential for an organization to generate greater outputs with no increase in inputs. Notice, however, that we said potential. There is nothing inherently magical that ensures the achievement of positive synergy in the
creation of teams. Merely calling a group a team doesn’t automatically improve its performance. As we show later in this chapter, effective teams have certain common characteristics. If management hopes to gain increases in
organizational performance through the use of teams, its teams must possess these.

Types of Teams

Teams can make products, provide services, negotiate deals, coordinate projects, offer advice, and make decisions. In this section, we describe the four most common types of teams in an organization: problem-
solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, and virtual teams.

1. Problem-Solving Teams. In the past, teams were typically composed of 5 to 12 hourly employees from the same department who met for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work
environment. These problem-solving teams rarely have the authority to unilaterally implement any of their suggestions. Merrill Lynch created a problem-solving team to figure out ways to reduce the number of days it took to open a new
cash management account.

Self-Managed Work Teams. Problem-solving teams only make recommendations. Some organizations have gone further and created teams that not only solve problems but implement solutions and take responsibility for outcomes.

Self-managed work teams are groups of employees (typically 10 to 15 in number) who perform highly related or interdependent jobs and take on many of the responsibilities of their former
supervisors. 5 Typically, these tasks are planning and scheduling work, assigning tasks to members, making operating decisions, taking action on problems, and working with suppliers and
customers. Fully self-managed work teams even select their own members and evaluate each other’s performance. Supervisory positions take on decreased importance and are sometimes even
eliminated.

But research on the effectiveness of self-managed work teams has not been uniformly positive. Self-managed teams do not typically manage conflicts well. When disputes arise, members stop cooperating and power struggles ensue,
which leads to lower group performance.

Cross-Functional Teams. Starbucks created a team of individuals from production, global PR, global communications, and U.S. marketing to develop its Via brand of instant coffee. The team’s
suggestions resulted in a product that would be cost-effective to produce and distribute and that was marketed through a tightly integrated, multifaceted strategy. This example illustrates the use
of cross-functional teams, made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level but different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task.
Many organizations have used horizontal, boundary-spanning groups for decades. In the 1960s, IBM created a large task force of employees from across departments to develop its highly
successful System 360. Today cross-functional teams are so widely used it is hard to imagine a major organizational undertaking without one. All the major automobile manufacturers—Toyota,
Honda, Nissan, BMW, GM, Ford, and Chrysler—currently use this form of team to coordinate complex projects.
Cross-functional teams are an effective means of allowing people from diverse areas within or even between organizations to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems, and
coordinate complex projects. Of course, cross-functional teams are no picnic to manage. Their early stages of development are often long, as members learn to work with diversity and
complexity.

Virtual Teams. The teams described in the preceding section do their work face to face. Virtual teams use computer technology to unite physically dispersed members and achieve a common
goal. 11 They collaborate online—using communication links such as wide-area networks, videoconferencing, or e-mail—whether they’re a room away or continents apart. Virtual teams are so
pervasive, and technology has advanced so far, that it’s probably a bit of a misnomer to call them “virtual.” Nearly all teams today do at least some of their work remotely.
Despite their ubiquity, virtual teams face special challenges. They may suffer because there is less social rapport and direct interaction among members. Evidence from 94 studies entailing more
than 5,000 groups found that virtual teams are better at sharing unique information (information held by individual members but not the entire group), but they tend to share less information
overall.

Creating Effective Teams

Many have tried to identify factors related to team effectiveness. However, some studies have organized what was once a “veritable laundry list of characteristics” into a relatively focused model.

Keep in mind two points. First, teams differ in form and structure. The model attempts to generalize across all varieties of teams, but avoid rigidly applying its predictions to all teams. Use it as a guide. Second, the model assumes
teamwork is preferable to individual work. Creating “effective” teams when individuals can do the job better is like perfectly solving the wrong problem.

We can organize the key components of effective teams into three general categories. First are the resources and other contextual influences that make teams effective. The second relates to the team’s composition. Finally, process
variables are events within the team that influence effectiveness. What does team effectiveness mean in this aspect? Typically, it has included objective measures of the team’s productivity, managers’ ratings of the team’s
performance, and aggregate measures of member satisfaction.

Adequate Resources. Teams are part of a larger organization system; every work team relies on resources outside the group to sustain it. A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of a team to perform its job effectively and
achieve its goals. As one study concluded, after looking at factors related to group performance, “perhaps one of the most important characteristics of an effective work group is the support the group receives from the organization.” This
support includes timely information, proper equipment, adequate staffing, encouragement, and administrative assistance.

Leadership and Structure Teams can’t function if they can’t agree on who is to do what and ensure all members share the workload. Agreeing on the specifics of work and how they fit together to integrate individual skills requires
leadership and structure, either from management or from the team members themselves. It’s true in self-managed teams that team members absorb many of the duties typically assumed by managers. However, a manager’s job then
becomes managing outside (rather than inside) the team.

Leadership is especially important in multiteam systems, in which different teams coordinate their efforts to produce a desired outcome. Here, leaders need to empower teams by delegating responsibility to them, and they play the role of
facilitator, making sure the teams work together rather than against one another. Teams that establish shared leadership by effectively delegating it are more effective than teams with a traditional single-leader structure.

Climate of Trust. Members of effective teams trust each other. They also exhibit trust in their leaders. Interpersonal trust among team members facilitates cooperation, reduces the need to monitor each other’s’ behavior, and bonds
members around the belief that others on the team won’t take advantage of them. Team members are more likely to take risks and expose vulnerabilities when they believe they can trust others on their team. Trust is the foundation of
leadership. It allows a team to accept and commit to its leader’s goals and decisions.

Key Components making up effective Teams

Performance Evaluation and Reward Systems. How do you get team members to be both individually and jointly accountable? Individual performance evaluations and incentives may interfere with the development of high-performance
teams. So, in addition to evaluating and rewarding employees for their individual contributions, management should modify the traditional, individually oriented evaluation and reward system to reflect team performance and focus on hybrid
systems that recognize individual members for their exceptional contributions and reward the entire group for positive outcomes. Group based appraisals, profit sharing, gain sharing, small-group incentives, and other system modifications
can reinforce team effort and commitment.

*** END of LESSON 12***