George Homans (“The human group”; Harcourt, Brace and World - 1950) refers to the fact that a group is made up of a certain number of people who communicate with each other with certain frequency during a period of time, and that they are sufficiently few to communicate face-to-face with each other.
Every group is characterized by the existence of a pattern of relationships between its components that is repetitive and is sustained over time. Groups must be distinguished from "social systems", as is the case of a new factory that is opening. The social system has to do with what Muzafer Sherif (“Experiments in group conflict and cooperation”; Scientific American - 1956 / “Inter-group relations and leadership”; - 1962) calls a “situation of being together”. The situation of being together is different from what happens in groups where relationships are sustained over time since they have permanence and continuity. Therefore we can say that a "group" is a longitudinal concept.
We subscribe to the definition of “group” made by Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif (“An outline of social psychology”; Harper & Row - 1956) that is reproduced verbatim, in English:
“A group is a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who stand in (more or less) define status and role relationships to one another and which possesses a set of values and norms of its own regulating the behavior of individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group ”. And the authors detail what are the four main factors that eventually lead to the development of the groups:
a type and degree of motivation that is common to all members; the development of group norms and values; the appearance of reciprocal expectations of the members of the group in relation to the behavior of "others"; acceptance by organizational members of group norms and values and their application, even when other participants are not present.
The German psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) has been one of the experts and notable researchers in the behavioral sciences who has devoted the most energy to the study of Groups. Kurt Lewin claimed that evidence was found in training programs related to changes in eating habits, productivity at work, crime, alcoholism, and even prejudices that it is easier to achieve changes in people's behaviors when they are formed within a group that through individual treatment (“Group decision and social change” - 1947).
The groups have at some point been hybrid groups as noted by the USA anthropologist Ralph Linton ("The study of man" - 1936). So the conception of starting from thoroughbred is not always correct.
The US anthropologist, Margaret Mead (1901-1978) demonstrates "the important relative weight" that the Group has over the people that comprise it. "Any member of a group, as long as her position within the group is properly specified, is a perfect representative sample of the general pattern of the group as a whole" ("National Character" - 1953).
Also the US sociologist - William Graham Sumner - notes how groups are integrated within the conception of "evolutionary social theory", which privileges the aspects of differentiation and integration within any community (Paul Lawrence & Jay Lorsch, in " Organizations and Environment ”, Harvard University Press - 1967 develop their organizational efficiency model based on these two important variables). Sumner ("Folkways" - 1906) states, literally and in English: "A differentiation arises between ourselves, the we-group, or in-group, and everybody else, or the others-groups, out-groups".For Sumner all the people when trying to satisfy their needs do not look beyond that of obtaining immediate satisfaction ”and as a consequence of the repetitive needs that the man has, the habits in the people and the customs for the group originate.
Within any group, the variable conflict can be found "naturally" as the German sociologist Georg Simmel assures: compactly ”.
Sumner's and Simmel's claims must be strongly taken into account by all those interested in creating organizations as well as sustaining and developing them. As individuals many of us can have a long life with orientations and preferences based on operating as a result of a one-dimensional perspective but for groups it is absolutely essential to have a two-dimensional perspective and also to operate and function bi-dimensionally.
For those who consider that the findings of one unit of analysis are applicable to others (superiors) before encountering unpleasant surprises, it would be good to familiarize themselves with the thoughts and suggestions of Emile Durkheim, who makes it clear that a society is not merely the sum of their individuals. Rather, a society is rather a system made up of associations among its members that together represent a specific reality that has its own characteristics.
For Durkheim the Groups think, feel and act quite differently than their members would if the latter were isolated. Therefore, according to Durkheim, if we begin to focus on the individual (within a group) we will not be able to understand anything of everything that happens within a group (Emile Durkheim: “The rules of sociological method” - 1895).
Charles Cooley ("Human nature and the social order" - 1902) points out how our actions are related to our "reference group" which is a term developed by Herbert Hyman ("The psychology of status" - 1942). “The reference group to which we give allegiance, and to whose standards we try to conform, is determined by our own selective affinity, choosing among all the personal influences accessible to us; and so far as we select with any independence of our palpable companions, we have the appearance of non-conformity ”. Possibly no one better than Hyman to explain and show the importance of "reference groups".
Josephine Klein ("Working with Groups"; Hutchinson University Library - 1961) highlights the strong relationship between "ideas" and groups, noting that "ideas make man circumscribe to certain social groups and at the same time certain social groups they circumscribe a man to certain ideas ”. She explains in detail how the normal sequence by which a person enters a group has to do with the “unfreezing of ideas” and highlights that this is achieved through contact with new facts and with new values. The functioning of the committees and the way in which the leader facilitates the meeting with the group are of vital importance in terms of the results to be achieved with that group.
Just as Rensis Likert ("New Patterns of Management"; McGraw-Hill - 1961 ") chooses to focus on group relationships and the important function of" linking pin ", no one has possibly accompanied this Likert's thought more closely than D. Katz and RL Kahn ("The social psychology of organizations"; Wiley - 1966). Katz & Kahn propose a specific medium as a way of relating (link) to the individual within the organization, and for this they choose the concept - and practice - of "role". For these authors all people within an organization are related (linked) to other people (both belonging to groups) carrying out functional requirements of the system that are usually implemented through the expectations that other people have about oneself (the person focal according to Katz & Kahn).
They choose as the beginning of the entire relationship cycle between people linked in groups to the "role expectations" that the members have regarding the focal person that is confirmed by sending said expectations to the focal person. The reception by the focal person is linked to her perceptions and behavior, and finally the focal person acts according to how the expectations of others impact on themselves. Katz & Kahn highlight the complexity of the situations that arise within organizational contexts, which makes it necessary to observe their behavior from a much more complex perspective than in the form of hierarchical pyramid organization.
To illustrate, the authors show that in groups within organizations situations are complex as a result of: multiple activities can be defined within a single role; multiple roles can be defined within an office; and in turn multiple offices may be run by a single person.
To these complications must be added some super-simplifications that occur in the “role episodes” (the processes): the different organizational participants usually disagree about what the focal person should do as well as the fact that the “episode role ”is usually the result of a set of organizational forces and influences. In the face of this situation, the conflict emerges that is externalized within four main categories: the “intra-sender” conflict that has to do with the incompatible expectations of a member of the group; the “inter-sender” conflict that is the result of the incompatible expectations held by two or more people in the group; the “inter-role” conflict that is manifested by the incompatibilities between two or more roles of the same focal person;and the “person-role” conflict that arises from incompatibilities between the requirements of a role and the needs or values of the person.
Italian economist and sociologist Wilfredo Pareto shows the influence groups have on people who go far beyond membership and belonging to their original group. In (“The mind and society” - 1916) he stated that the way in which different groups intermingle within a community must be carefully studied.
Pareto stressed that when a person moves from one group to another, individuals carry their inclinations, feelings, and attitudes that they bring with them from their own original group, which should not be ignored in any way. Everett Stonequist ("The marginal man" - 1937) goes even further. Everett stresses that "… the individual who through a process of migration, education, marriage or some other process and influence leaves a particular social group or culture without having previously made a satisfactory adjustment in another group must be on the sidelines of each of the groups and should never be a member of any of them. These people Stonequist assigns the name of "marginal man".
The Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas points out that “… it is absolutely natural for man more than for any other animal, to be a social and political animal, and to have to live within a group. … And therefore it is necessary and indispensable that by some means people are governed ”(On Kingship” - 1265). And this affirmation of Aquinas is taken much further, who clearly explains the need for the existence of a leader or conductor who takes charge and directs the group.
Those who "believe" that groups operate effectively and efficiently with little effort must learn to be more cautious. The economist Mancar Olson ("The logic of collective action" - 1965) highlights that "… Unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is some mechanism of coercion or some other mechanism that allows people Acting in their own common interest, individuals must respond on the basis of their own personal interests in a "rational" manner rather than directing their actions towards the achievement of common interests. " Furthermore, “… even if all individuals belonging to a large group in number were rational and guided by their personal interests, even if they could obtain personal benefits,even then they would not act voluntarily to achieve the common interests or the interests of the group in general ”.
From now on we have to delve into the phenomenon known as group decision-making.
Many of the studies regarding Groups began in the first quarter of the 20th century, which were often linked to the non-social behaviors of children that were expanded a few years later by AS Makarenko (“The road to life: An epic of education ”- 1955) who considered the importance of certain characteristics in the groups that were related to the results to be achieved within the educational field.
D. Hewitt & J. Parfit within the business field ("A note on working morale and size of group"; Occupational Psychology - 1953) and also S. Wyatt ("A study of output in two similar factories"; British Journal of Psychology - 1953) show us that the influence of the group on workers is significant in relation to productivity levels. And one of the key questions relates to: When does a set of individuals become a group? We are all familiar with forming a group, which makes it necessary for us to dedicate ourselves to studying what its characteristics, similarities and systematic distinctions are with other units of analysis, and what properties in particular are presented in groups.
Possibly one of the most famous work on Groups within organizational contexts is that carried out by Elton Mayo at the Western Electric plant (FJ Roethlisberger & WJ Dickson: “Management and the worker”; Harvard University Press - 1939). Other authors, such as the case of JL Moreno (“Who shall survive?”; Nervous and mental disease Publishing Co. - 1934) make use of the sociometric mapping methodology. Kurt Lewin, R. Lippitt & RK White (“Patterns of aggresive behavior in experimentally created social climates”; Journal of social psychology - 1939) have studied the groups from the experimental method and Muzafer Sherif (both alone and with other authors) dedicated some 20 years of his life to study group formation phenomena and their impact on individuals and context,as well as these about the groups.
Studies at the Hawthorne plant showed some unanticipated findings by the researchers. These, influenced by the impact of the conditions at work typical of the school of scientific administration, tried to show new evidence regarding physical conditions in the context of work on the productivity of workers. Light conditions ”and“ breaks at work ”were supposed to be directly related to the performance of workers. What has not been so.
In contrast, the researchers found that both psychological and social conditions - and their evolution in the project - were more powerful variables than physical aspects. The researchers learned that the fact that workers developed a strong group identity over time4 had a strong impact on group norms, and that these in turn were strongly related to group productivity levels.
Another classic work that has had a strong influence on Group behavior learning is the interesting research carried out by the Tavistock group in coal mines.
The impact of a new technology caused many groups (and their people) to distance themselves from each other, which has been attributed to the high destruction of inter-personal relationships to which groups were accustomed both within themselves and with other groups.. Finally, in the coal mines, lower productivity group standards were developed, which can be attributed to having an unwanted emotional state and the difficulties of the new technology.
L. Coch & JRP French (“Overcoming resistance to change”; Human Relations - 1948) found evidence that in the face of different “leadership” styles (participatory, representative, and non-participatory) group norms influenced productivity levels, both to increase it as to reduce it. Theodore Newcomb ("Social Psychology"; Dryden - 1954) shows how a group can influence the results of the organization very negatively. An employee could produce above the norm but the efforts to prevent it from the group achieved their objective, with which said level of productivity could not be reached. Newcomb highlights that when the group was dissolved the productivity of this same person increased 100%.
IJ Richard Hackman (“Group Influences on Individuals in Organizations”; Handbook of Industrial Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press - 1992) highlights that there are two main reasons why groups have a huge influence on people within organizations and that they have to do with two special kinds of stimuli:
“environmental” stimuli: they are those that are present anyway and the members of the group have to live with them, as is the case with the other members of the group, physical aspects of work and materials with which people have to work.
"Discretionary" stimuli: are those that are allocated to the different members of the group differentially and selectively, such as money, instructions and directives, forms of rationale, messages of approval or disapproval, among others.
On the other hand, Hackman (already cited) highlights that stimuli can produce three different types of consequences in groups, such as: the informational situation (affects people's beliefs and knowledge), the affective situation (affects attitudes, values, and emotions), and their behaviors. As a result of the combination of the 2 types of stimuli (environmental and discretionary) and the 3 different sources of impact of the stimuli (the consequences) there are six possible situations.
The discretionary stimulus is of utmost importance for the executives, executives and managers in the companies since, unlike the environmental stimulus, it is directly under the control of the group and is also administered to the different members of the group depending on the punctual behavior of each one of the group members (or their attitudes, words, and beliefs).
Every successful group has the need to be extremely precise regarding the handling of "discretionary" stimuli, since these stimuli are very good at influencing the attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions, and behaviors of the different members of the group. Therefore, groups and organizations can obtain interesting benefits by making use of them during their initial phase.
Normative organizations (Amitai Etzioni: "Modern Organizations"; Prentice Hall - 1964) dedicate much of their energies to directing different discretionary stimuli by carrying out "selective" groups of people who receive different services. One of the reasons why organizations make use of discretionary stimuli has to do with their great utility in educating - training and also socializing their personnel. Discretionary stimuli are of great benefit so that the different members of the group can identify and distinguish which ideas, thoughts, attitudes and actions are correct, compared to those that are not.
Richard Hackman (already cited) highlights that another purpose of discretionary stimulation has to do with the need to produce a certain type of uniformity within and within the group. Uniformity is necessary for groups to be efficient in the development of their processes and also in determining and specifying a particular orientation towards their Clients.
The author highlights that both orchestras and sports teams require a certain uniformity to reach high levels of performance; in the cases of orchestras and athletes, its members must have a high level of knowledge, abilities and skills. Organizations - like groups - also require certain uniforms in order to protect the maintenance of the group (and the organization). The maintenance sub-function (D. Katz & R. Kahn: “The social psychology of organizations”; New York, John Wiley - 1978) is vital for companies, as is the creation or research sub-system. and development.
There are, of course, some circumstances where an excess in the orientation towards “maintenance” of the group can end up shooting us against, as is the case mentioned by IL Janis (“Victims of groupthink”; New York: Houghton Mifflin - 1982) • in relation to the invasion of the United States of America into the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. According to Janis, if the group discussing the Bay of Pigs invasion had not had so much pressure for uniformity and had openly expressed reservations about the invasion plan, it would have been possible to prevent the disaster.
Diversity orientation occurs in all groups very shortly after the group starts. Members have to differentiate very quickly between those who have the responsibility to lead and those who have to be followers, then between those who present themselves as subordinates to each particular leader and finally there is an additional differentiation between those who carry out tasks and activities typical of the group of those that are rather maintenance.
Over time, additional differentiations emerge as a result of a necessary division of labor that can be done "naturally" or "in an imposed way." Maintenance functions become more specialized over time, with members who specialize as mediators, others provide energy in difficult times, and a third group may be dedicated to caring for those who feel "hurt."
There is a natural differentiation of roles within groups and "someone" must fill in with said "expected roles"; When a member stops fulfilling the role that is expected by other members of the group, certain dysfunctional consequences may occur for the group and it is necessary to “fill that role” as soon as possible.
We can say that almost all groups create a differentiation between their members and then stabilize over time. FH Allport ("Theories of perception and the concept of structure"; New York: Wiley & Sons - 1955) highlights that all systems have a natural tendency towards disorder but that it is counteracted by certain controls that help sustain and maintain it. Something similar has been found by Paul Lawrence & Jay Lorsch (“Organizations & Environment”; Harvard University Press - 1967) who found evidence that shows that successful organizations are those that are capable of “differentiating and integrating” at the same time.
Although there are still some important aspects to take into account related to decision-making in groups, we are going to do a little intermission and we must now focus on trying to identify those essential aspects that must be taken into account in the “Training” process. of a Group ”.
Alvar Elbing (“Behavioral decisions in organizations”; Scott, Foresman and Co - 1970) distinguish the following essential aspects in the group formation process:
- the existence of a motivational base that causes repetitive interactions between members the formation of some type of organizational structure, made up of roles and positions with status (rank within power) the formation and development of rules, certain traditions, values and norms the development of effects Differentials regarding the different properties of the group in the attitudes and behaviors of the participants over time.
Hawthorne's studies showed the importance of norms in the behavior - and results - of groups. And the rules are extremely important from the very beginning and formation of the group. A norm can be defined as an evaluative scale, where a “latitude of acceptance” is defined for each of the individual members as well as a “latitude of rejection”, which allows regulating people's behaviors in matters and issues that have consequences for the group (Carolyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif & R. Nebergall: "Attitude and Attitude Change"; Saunders - 1965).
A question that assistants to different Courses, Workshops and Conferences have usually asked me, has to do with "How can I identify a Group". Alvar Elbing (already quoted) points out that there are three different objective ways of detecting the existence of a group:
Observing similarities and regularities in behaviors (words and deeds) that are present in one set of people but not in another set of people under the same situation.
Observing corrective actions such as sanctions in relation to certain behaviors and also praise or rewards for others. Reactions to possible deviations are among the best evidences regarding the limits of acceptable behavior. They can range from a range of disapproval to threats and punishments.
Observing the increasing similarity and convergence over time regarding the behaviors of people who initially behaved differently. For example, the entry of a new person to the group provides a good opportunity to detect the existence of its norms.
The stabilization of a set of norms, rules and procedures is strongly linked to the development of a group and, although it has a positive impact in the first stage of group formation, its rigidity over time in a turbulent context can be fatal for the group's own existence.
Groups have the extraordinary property of regulating the behaviors and attitudes of their members, and many times this can be done both through sanctions and external controls and in the absence of them. In this sense, they have a parallel with the behavior of the "Diplomatic Professionals" whose behaviors are frequently regulated by their own professional associations rather than by their superiors within corporations.
The formation of a group presents particular aspects that we have described above and the "growth" of the group is what we must now focus on. Herbert Thelen and Watson Dickerman collected valuable experiences as a result of the group sessions carried out by The National Training Laboratory in 1948, which has helped them identify different stages of development in the growth of the groups as well as the presence of certain stereotypes (see "Educational Leadership"; The association for supervision and curriculum development - 1949). The process of choosing a leader, that of group decision-making and problem solving, as well as the assignment and appropriation of different roles and status, are aspects that decisively affect group behavior and productivity,performance and results thereof.
According to both authors, in the first phase of the group's development, the different members quickly try to establish themselves in their “usual positions and positions” within the leadership scale, which suggests that attempts are made to organize under “a chicken coop law”.
In the second stage of development, many members seem to resist the concept and practice of the “chicken coop law7” as well as the prevailing authority system that finds its root in said law. During the third phase, the development of cohesion between the different participants of the group is manifested, which is usually accompanied by a certain degree of “complacency”. Herbert Thelen and Watson Dickerman (already cited) point out that this phase is largely highly unstable since it is unrealistic and leads us to the next and last phase (the fourth) where the members seem to focus on the group and characterize the different members for developing together a purpose and a certain sense of urgency that ultimately makes the group potentially an effective instrument.
Different stereotypes are outlined and characterize each of these stages. In the first phase, the authors emphasize that the group “is focused on individuals” and that each group requires a leader. Membership and belonging to a group requires an active participation both orally and actively by its members since the lack of these (the lack of verbal communication) does not reflect the existence of good members. At this stage one of the leader's main tasks is to mobilize the group towards appropriate objectives based on their own authority and competence.
As a consequence of the frustration and conflict that arises as a consequence of the “chicken coop law” (first phase) and the constitution of a leader, the election is tested during the second phase of the type of leadership. It can be an authoritarian type based on strong, dominant and autocratic leadership versus a laissez faire type of leadership. The authors suggest that a question is usually asked related to: Under what conditions is this a good policy to carry out? When in reality the question should be reformulated as: Under what conditions is the policy to be applied?
Therefore in this second phase - and in relation to stereotypes - an important task is to be able to ask the right questions which is much more relevant than jumping to the correct answers. The authors suggest that in this phase the leader's task may also have to do with a leadership style and the creation of a climate that allows the different members of the group to have certain permissions that allow them to release their personal anxieties that, in case On the contrary, they would eventually translate into potentially conflictive situations above the appropriate level.
All the type of conflict that could threaten the development of the group during the second phase can be eliminated as long as the focus is on reducing or reducing the level of conflict. For this reason, the authors point out that they find the following predominant stereotypes at this stage:
- group goal is cohesion rather than productivity People must control their own impulses so that conflict does not manifest itself fully in an open way Leader style is very close to the type of leadership laissez faire Committees should be developed of planning future actions and project definitions We must not forget those people who remain silent and rather we should encourage them to express their opinions by letting us know if they are not satisfied with the process. The level of satisfaction of the people is extremely important. people within the group
During the last stage - the fourth - the authors emphasize that the profiles and stereotypes are not as sharp as in the other previous phases. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the group is moving in the direction of being more objective and fair in relation to the different individual roles. And they have also observed that it is easier for the group to make and adopt decisions and to use greater flexibility in relation to the control of group processes.
Herbert Thelen and Watson Dickerman point out that among the most useful questions at this point we can include these two:
- What is our purpose right now? What is the problem that we are trying to solve?
In general, the authors conclude that group development begins with the task being that individual needs are to find safety and protection. It goes from an initial emotional involvement of people with each other to a group-type involvement. Individual security based on the position that is presented initially loses strength as people occupy roles that have allowed the group to solve the problem and the situation it faces.
Uno de los hallazgos más importante en materia de Grupos tiene que ver con su tremendo impacto sobre las acciones aprendidas y como pueden las mismas ponerse en acción. D. Cartwright (“Some principles of mass persuassion: Selected findings of research on the sale of United Status war bonds”; Human Relations – 1949) destaca los pobres resultados en cuanto a conseguir cambios en las personas como resultado de la persuasión en masa y los medios masivos a través de educadores, propagandistas, publicistas y otros profesionales. La efectividad que tienen las “clases” y charlas en cuanto a conseguir cambios que deben ser llevados a la acción son también señaladas por Cartwright quien incluso llega a asegurar “que algo debe andar mal con nuestras teorías sobre el aprendizaje, la motivación y la psicología social”.
It seems that we are having strong indicators that show us how, through a method based on group discussion, where the group as a "whole" makes a decision aimed at its members changing their behavior, it was 100% to 1000% more effective in producing real change compared to a talk or conference. We still don't know exactly what causes these differences, but we do know that these differences are present.
The force of group dynamics is very powerful (the word dynamic "has a Greek origin that means" force "). R. Lippitt found evidence ("Training in community relations"; Harper & Row - 1949) that people who had been "trained" in a group were much more active and likely to implement behavioral changes than those who were trained in isolated.
This leads D. Cartwright to affirm (“Human Relations”; Plenjum Publishing Co. - 1951) that the behaviors, attitudes, beliefs and values of individual people are highly affirmed with the group to which they belong. The nature of these groups is what determines whether these people are to resist or accept change. Although the objective is to achieve changes in individual people, our target must be to produce changes in the group. Groups can be powerful mechanisms for bringing about change and their effectiveness must be strongly linked to the way the group is organized, the satisfactions that the different members of the group receive (or not), the extent to which the objectives are established clearly and precisely, the prevailing reward system,in other aspects.
Cartwright (already cited) goes on to consider two prevailing situations related to the process of change in relation to group actions:
The group as a means of change. Within this context, the author points out five prevailing principles:
- The possibilities of improving "re-education" are linked to a sense of belonging among the different actors, even if they are teacher-student, superior-subordinate. The more attractive a group is to its members, the greater the influence that the group must have. It has to exercise in them. When we try to change attitudes, values or behaviors, the more relevant they are with respect to the attraction to the group, the greater must be the degree of influence that the group can in turn exercise over them. The greater the degree of prestige that a member of the group has with respect to other members, the greater the influence that can exert on them. All kinds of efforts aimed at changing individuals or members of a group "producing deviations in group norms" must find strong resistance.
2. The group as a target for change. The author highlights 3 principles to keep in mind:
- Strong pressures can be established to produce changes in the group as a result of creating a common perception among its different members regarding the need to change, thus making the pressure for change "within the group itself." it relates to the need for change, the plans for change, and the consequences of change must be shared by all relevant group members. Changes in some part of the group must create tension in other parts of the group that are linked; and they can only be reduced by actions conducive to eliminating the change or as a result of making adjustments in the different parts.
A very prominent author regarding his contributions to the behavioral sciences is Edgar Schein, who also analyzed in detail the impact of "others in groups" on a person. His concerns stemmed from his own research and learning as a result of what was happening to both US civilians and military who had been prisoners in the Korean War. These original studies and works by Edgar Schein were later complemented by field work where students and members of the faculty were analyzed, as well as employees, professionals, executives and managers in companies.
Apparently there was evidence that people change according to whom we interact with and that this change does not remain permanent but rather changes over time as a result of our transfers in career development. Schein calls this process as that of "organizational socialization" in his own perspective, recognizing that possibly sociologists would define it as "occupational socialization".
In reality the process by which people change during the course of our lives is "so natural" that we rarely pay attention to it. But this is something that "management" can not fail to observe or take into account if it is really interested in achieving organizational efficiency. Since if the management does not pay attention to it, the change has to happen anyway, but possibly these changes are directed in the opposite direction of the interests of the management.
Paying attention to the impact of groups on people's behavior, from the very beginning of a person's relationship with the group is of vital importance to Edgar Schein. The entrance of the person to the group, as loase, his initial steps, the degree of socialization reached are very large influences that are strongly related to the loyalty of the staff and their efficiency.
Being successful in socialization processes is not an easy task and usually three possible responses to this process are presented:
the “rebel” emerges, rejecting both the organization's values and norms. The existence of "rebels" is a clear sign of the failure of the socialization process since the person is expelled from the organization or remains in it dedicating energies that are directed towards the failure of organizational objectives.
The "conformist" that also means a failure from the point of view of the socialization process. This type of character accepts all values and all rules. Failure consists in that this person has to dedicate most of his energies and efforts to accept everything that exists and therefore his behavior profile must be similar to that of the bureaucratic type. This type of character tends to "feel comfortable" within the organization, and that location within a "comfort zone" must curb developer impulses.
The “creative individualist” is one who accepts only the fundamental values and norms (the main pillars) and at the same time rejects other values and norms. The success of a socialization process lies in creating characters that fall within this third category since with them the organization must be in a position to deal advantageously with the uncertainties of the context and the risks of the business.
Edgar Schein affirms that it is very difficult for the “creative individualist” to be sustained over time, since there are both promotions and lateral transfers, and each time these movements occur, the natural forces are towards “conformity” or “rebellion”. "
The influence of groups and the socialization process that occurs within organizations with their professionals, managers and executives has been detailed by Donald Cole and Eric Gaynor (“Professional Suicide or Organizational Murder”; The Organization Development Institute International - 2005) where It is shown how the failure of socialization within companies facilitates the creation of "rebellious" characters that move towards moving away from the company or "do things to end up being expelled."
There is no doubt that Leaders, and the way they operate, have a very strong impact on organizational results. But we must not forget the findings of Cecil Gibb ("Leadership"; Handbook of social psychology - 1954) that shows that the status of a leader is "within the group" to a greater extent than outside of it. Cecil concludes that the leader is not immune from sanctions and punishments if he deviates too much from the limits of behaviors accepted by his own group.
Thanks for sharing.
