Republic Colleges of Guinobatan Inc.

,
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Guinobatan, Albay

Topic: DYNAMICS IN SCHOOL ORGANIZATION

Subject: EDUC. 208 (Group Dynamics and Human Relation)
Student: Reniva, Nescelle Maria R
Professor: Llenaresas, Alan O. MAEd
_______________________________________________________________________________
I. Introduction:
Relationships are the foundation of the world we live in ever since we grow as an individual.
Socializing and camouflaging is inevitable as we enter the workforce. The relationships that we have
with others most especially our co-workers can and will affect our behavior. Consequently, our
relationships make us who we are as a person. As we grow, we learn not just from ourselves but from
life’s experiences along the way. Re-enforcement of values and beliefs are also what makes us who
we are as individuals.
Human Relations are very important in our life as they influence our social and professional lives.
When we talk about Group Dynamics and Human Relations, there are so many relationships we
generally see i.e. family, friendship, social, diplomatic, professional etc. But one thing is common in all
relations is that people do behave or act differently as they really are and our tendency should be to
learn the positive points/act/behaviour from others and neglect all negative ones.

II. Content:
A. INCLUSION AND IDENTITY IN GROUPS

In a social group, the feeling of belonging (identity) is crucial for the cohesion of the group.
Traditionally, the feeling of belonging is built on two processes: identification and comparison. The
identification process is based on the physical characteristics or the behavioural norms that define the
group (group culture), it is usually expected that all members of the group share these characteristics.
In parallel, the comparison process strengthens the differences with other groups, and establishes
stereotypes about «the other» and «us».
Inclusion and group identity in workplace start with the bond of mutualism. Individuals sharing a
common interest and goals. As an educator with specialized skill, I found myself grouped with
instructors I share common interests as well. The administrators played a huge part in making this
happen through meetings and assemblies. Also, the teams and committees we formed through
school activities became the basic means for us to get to know each other more. The school never
ran out of activities where we could interact, brainstorm, share opinions and socialize. Since I am
working in an institution where I am one of the youngest souls, I became anxious whether I’ll be able
to find a comfort spot amidst the group of people I belong in. With no fail, the warmth welcoming
personality of each member of the faculty and administration staff made it easy for me to adapt and
get acquainted with.

Being able to work on something you are passionate about with the help of people you share interest
and goals with while being yourself is truly rare also having the feeling of involvement and being
included in a certain group boosts our ego and therefore helps us to build a stronger bond for the
benefit of the whole group. This usually happen when each member is willing to accept diversity and
is open for new perspective.
 B. GROUP FORMATION

A group can be defined as several individuals who come together to accomplish a particular task or
goal. It refers to the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of a group. Group dynamics concern
how groups form, their structure and process, and how they function. Group dynamics are relevant in
both formal and informal groups of all types. In an organizational setting, groups are a very common
organizational entity and the study of groups and group dynamics is an important area of study in
organizational behavior.

According to Tuckman's theory, there are five stages of group development: forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning. During these stages group members must address several
issues and the way in which these issues are resolved determines whether the group will succeed in
accomplishing its tasks.
Forming. This stage is usually characterized by some confusion and uncertainty. The major goals of
the group have not been established. The nature of the task or leadership of the group has not been
determined (Luthans, 2005). Thus, forming is an orientation period when members get to know one
another and share expectations about the group. Members learn the purpose of the group as well as
the rules to be followed. The forming stage should not be rushed because trust and openness must
be developed. These feelings strengthen in later stages of development. Individuals are often
confused during this stage because roles are not clear and there may not be a strong leader.
Storming. In this stage, the group is likely to see the highest level of disagreement and conflict.
Members often challenge group goals and struggle for power. Individuals often vie for the leadership
position during this stage of development. This can be a positive experience for all groups if members
can achieve cohesiveness through resolution. Members often voice concern and criticism in this
phase. If members are not able to resolve the conflict, then the group will often disband or continue in
existence but will remain ineffective and never advance to the other stages.
Norming. This stage is characterized by the recognition of individual differences and shared
expectations. Hopefully, at this stage the group members will begin to develop a feeling of group
cohesion and identity. Cooperative effort should begin to yield results. Responsibilities are divided
among members and the group decides how it will evaluate progress.
Performing. Performing, occurs when the group has matured and attains a feeling of cohesiveness.
During this stage of development, individuals accept one another and conflict is resolved through
group discussion. Members of the group make decisions through a rational process that is focused on
relevant goals rather than emotional issues.
Adjourning. Not all groups experience this stage of development because it is characterized by the
disbandment of the group. Some groups are relatively permanent (Luthans, 2005). Reasons that
groups disband vary, with common reasons being the accomplishment of the task or individuals
deciding to go their own ways. Members of the group often experience feelings of closure and
sadness as they prepare to leave.
One best example of group formation in school I am affiliated with is through assigning of a group
with different task that meant to meet an expected outcome. This not only aimed to make the event a
success but also builds camaraderie among fellow teaching and non-teaching personels.
All the 5 stages of Group Formation is essential in maintaining and building stronger groups.
Understanding this pattern will help the group analyze further problems that may arise.

C. COHESION AND DEVELOPMENT

Groups, like all living things, develop over time. The group may begin as a collection of strangers, but
uncertainty gives way to cohesion as members become bound to their group by strong social forces.
Cohesion, though, is not just group unity or the friendliness of members, but a multifaceted process
that influences a wide range of interpersonal and intragroup processes. As cohesion and commitment
ebb and flow with time, the group’s influence over its members rises and falls.

Before I start talking about Team Cohesion, I want to take a closer look at cohesiveness and what it
exactly is. Cohesiveness means that you feel included, responsible for others in a group or you feel
like the group works together good. Only if the group has high cohesiveness, you will feel that way. If
you are in a group with low cohesiveness, some group members might feel excluded or are jealous of
one another. In a group with high cohesiveness, the group will be able to manage stress better and
reach goals. The group will also spend less time fighting and arguing. As a member of such a group,
your values should be similar to those of the group. Group values should also be important for the
members to keep the cohesiveness. A symbol also helps by representing the team. An example
would be a color or handshake or mascot. This symbol will help feel united as one. Another factor that
helps cohesiveness is if the members are committed to the group. That includes having certain
purposes in a group that might not be so important alone, but with the purposes of the other
members, it might get the group to a great result. Some members will have to make sacrifices in a
group for it to be successful and you as a member have to accept that fact. If you do not do that, your
groups cohesiveness can be lowered and even lead to the breakup of the group (McLeod, 1974).
If we take that information of cohesiveness, we can apply it to a team. That means team cohesion
exists, when the team works together and stays united. Every team member has to know their role
and be satisfied with it. The team goals and values should be influenced by the individual ones. To
understand team cohesion better, we will have to look at task cohesion, social cohesion, direct and
indirect measurement.
Task cohesion includes team members working together to reach a goal. An example would be that
several team members set up a play and score a goal by doing this. Social cohesion on the other
hand involves how much the team members like each other and being part of the group. Without
social cohesion, the team will not work together good, split up in small groups and that might break
the team apart in the end if it gets worse. It is important to understand those different types of
cohesion, especially if you want to evaluate a team. If you do not do that, you might get the wrong
results from your evaluation.
Now, we have to distinguish between the indirect and direct measurement approach. The indirect
measurement approach is when you ask every team member about how much they like all the
members of the team. If you add up the score of all the team members, you will get a measurement
for your team’s cohesion. This way of measuring team cohesion is not used a lot because it does not
show a significant relationship between the behavior and the cohesion of a team and its individuals.
The direct measurement approach is when you ask every player if they enjoy playing for the team
and if they feel the team works together as a team. With those two measurements, it is also important
to clarify which measurement you are using to get the right result of your team’s cohesion. Otherwise
your results might be very different than what would have been expected.

D. STRUCTURE
Group structure is a pattern of relationships among members that hold the group together and help it
achieve assigned goals. Structure can be described in a variety of ways. Among the more common
considerations are group size, group roles, group norms, and group cohesiveness.

Group size can vary from 2 people to a very large number of people. Small groups of two to ten are
thought to be more effective because each member has ample opportunity to participate and become
actively involved in the group. Large groups may waste time by deciding on processes and trying to
decide who should participate next. Group size will affect not only participation but satisfaction as
well. Evidence supports the notion that as the size of the group increases, satisfaction increases up to
a certain point. In other words, a group of six members has twice as many opportunities for
interaction and participation as a group of three people. Beyond 10 or 12 members, increasing the
size of the group results in decreased satisfaction. It is increasingly difficult for members of large
groups to identify with one another and experience cohesion.

In formal groups, roles are usually predetermined and assigned to members. Each role will have
specific responsibilities and duties. There are, however, emergent roles that develop naturally to meet
the needs of the groups. These emergent roles will often replace the assigned roles as individuals
begin to express themselves and become more assertive. Group roles can then be classified into
work roles, maintenance roles, and blocking roles.
Work roles are task-oriented activities that involve accomplishing the group's goals. They involve a
variety of specific roles such as initiator, informer, clarifier, summarizer, and reality tester. The initiator
defines problems, proposes action, and suggests procedures.
The informer role involves finding facts and giving advice or opinions. Clarifiers will interpret ideas,
define terms, and clarify issues for the group. Summarizers restate suggestions, offer decisions, and
come to conclusions for the group. Finally, reality testers analyze ideas and test the ideas in real
situations.
Maintenance roles are social-emotional activities that help members maintain their involvement in the
group and raise their personal commitment to the group. The maintenance roles are harmonizer,
gatekeeper, consensus tester, encourager, and compromiser. The harmonizer will reduce tension in
the group, reconcile differences, and explore opportunities. Gatekeepers often keep communication
channels open and make suggestions that encourage participation. The consensus tester will ask if
the group is nearing a decision and test possible conclusions. Encouragers are friendly, warm, and
responsive to other group members. The last maintenance role is the compromiser. This role involves
modifying decisions, offering compromises, and admitting errors.
Blocking roles are activities that disrupt the group. They make take the form of dominating
discussions, verbally attacking other group members, and distracting the group with trivial information
or unnecessary humor. Often times the blocking behavior may not be intended as negative.
Sometimes a member may share a joke in order to break the tension, or may question a decision in
order to force group members to rethink the issue. The blocking roles are aggressor, blocker,
dominator, comedian, and avoidance behavior. The aggressor criticizes members' values and makes
jokes in a sarcastic or semi-concealed manner.
Blockers will stubbornly resist the group's ideas, disagree with group members for personal reasons,
and will have hidden agendas. The dominator role attempts to control conversations by patronizing
others. They often interrupt others and assert authority in order to manipulate members. Comedians
often abandon the group even though they may physically still be a part. They are attention-getters in
ways that are not relevant to the accomplishment of the group's objectives. The last blocking role,
avoidance behavior, involves pursuing goals not related to the group and changing the subject to
avoid commitment to the group.
Role ambiguity concerns the discrepancy between the sent role and the received role, as shown in
Exhibit 1. Supervisors, directors, or other group leaders often send (assign) roles to group members
in formal groups. Group members receive roles by being ready and willing to undertake the tasks
associated with that role. Ambiguity results when members are confused about the delegation of job
responsibilities. This confusion may occur because the members do not have specific job descriptions
or because the instructions regarding the task were not clear. Group members who experience
ambiguity often have feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction, which ultimately lead to turnover.
Role conflict occurs when there is inconsistency between the perceived role and role behavior. There
are several different forms of role conflict. Interrole conflict occurs when there is conflict between the
different roles that people have. For example, work roles and family roles often compete with one
another and cause conflict. Intrarole conflict occurs when individuals must handle conflicting demands
from different sources while performing the tasks associated with the same role.
Norms are acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the members of the
group. Norms define the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. They are typically
created in order to facilitate group survival, make behavior more predictable, avoid embarrassing
situations, and express the values of the group. Each group will establish its own set of norms that
might determine anything from the appropriate dress to how many comments to make in a meeting.
Groups exert pressure on members to force them to conform to the group's standards. The norms
often reflect the level of commitment, motivation, and performance of the group.
Performance norms determine how quickly members should work and how much they should
produce. They are created in an effort to determine levels of individual effort. They can be very
frustrating to managers because they are not always in line with the organization's goals. Members of
a group may have the skill and ability to perform at higher levels but they don't because of the group's
performance norms. For example, workers may stop working a production machine at 20 minutes
before quitting time in order to wash up, even though they produced fewer items that day than
management intended.
Reward-allocation norms determine how rewards are bestowed upon group members. For example,
the norm of equality dictates equal treatment of all members. Every member shares equally so
rewards are distributed equally to everyone. Equity norms suggest that rewards are distributed
according to the member's contribution. In other words, members who contribute the most receive the
largest share of the rewards. Members may contribute through effort, skill, or ability. Social
responsibility norms reward on the basis of need. Members who have special needs therefore receive
the largest share of the reward.
The majority of the group must agree that the norms are appropriate in order for the behavior to be
accepted. There must also be a shared understanding that the group supports the norms. It should be
noted, however, that members might violate group norms from time to time. If the majority of
members do not adhere to the norms, then they will eventually change and will no longer serve as a
standard for evaluating behavior. Group members who do not conform to the norms will be punished
by being excluded, ignored, or asked to leave the group.

E. INFLUENCE
The concept of a “role” has been rode hard by social scientists. From allusions to its source (e.g.,
“Did you know, the concept actually comes from the roll of paper where the actor’s lines were
written”) to debates over its meaning (e.g., , “Did you know that roles, statuses, and positions are as
different from each other as night and day?”) and it’s casual use by consultants to create insight into
how the best teams can be created (e.g., Did you know you need make sure every group has at least
one “opinion giver,” one “nurse/do-gooder,” and one “devil’s advocate”?), its hardly any wonder that
serious researchers sometimes roll their eyes when the concept is offered as an explanation for an
interesting social phenomenon.
But roles, as a basic concept, offer an explanation for two of the most fascinating facts about people
in groups.
First, when people join a group, they sometimes seem to leave their personalities and individual
proclivities behind. The quiet recluse, taciturn by nature, may become quite convivial when given
responsibility for organizing the group’s annual fund raising event. The otherwise mild mannered
colleague may become habitually critical of process when taking part in group discussions. The
staffer with the messiest office may become methodical and precise when elected the group’s
secretary. Sometimes (not always, of course), there is a discontinuity between who the person is,
when alone, and who that person becomes when in a group: an individual discontinuity effect (paying,
of course, homage to Chet Inkso).
Second, many groups operating in a range of different circumstances–children at play, executives
debating a course of action, a jury rendering a decision about guilt, a sports team huddling before a
play–exhibit certain dissimilarities in the types of behaviors members display. Much has been said
about the pronounced capacity for individuals to conform to others’ behavior, and certainly Asch and
others have demonstrated that yes: people will make certain that their opinions match those of others
in the group. But, in organized, long-term groups, people do NOT act similarly to one another. They,
in fact, differentiate themselves from others in the group by displaying certain behaviors consistently–
behaviors that others in the group do not enact. Over time, someone will be the person who seems
bored by the group. Someone will consistently keep the group on course.
The concept of a role explains both of these tendencies. A role requires certain behavior, and when
the individual adopts the role–or is forced into it–he or she must enact the required behaviors or suffer
rejection by the group. This role enactment requirement causes the individual discontinuity effect–the
display of behaviors in the group that are not in keeping with individualistic proclivities. A role exists,
in the first place, because the group (a) requires the actions performed by the role holder to function;
(b) the requirements are shared/distributed among members, because no one person can fulfill them
all; and (c) these functions are so essential that group must be reasonably certain that someone will
perform them. Because of the continuities in the demands that groups face across situations–the
need for coordination, for communication, for influence, for unity, for stability, for conflict
management–certain roles are common across groups: hence, continuities in roles emerge.
F. SOCIAL POWER AND OBIDIENCE
Social power is the potential for social influence. The available tools one has to exert influence over
another can lead to a change in that person. Social power and social influence are separate and
distinct concepts. Although social power is potential (which may or may not be used), social influence
is an effect, an actual change (or deliberate maintenance) in the beliefs, attitudes, behavior,
emotions, and so on, of someone because of the actions or presence of another. The person or
group that is the source of influence is commonly known as the influencing agent, whereas the object
of the attempted or successful influence attempt is commonly known as the target (of the influence).
Thus, influencing agents have social power, which are the means they may use to influence targets.
The type of social power used in an influence attempt often depends on a person’s motivations.
Sometimes people are consciously aware of their motivations, and sometimes they are not. Clever
influencing agents often choose the kind of influence they use based on considerations of potential
effectiveness and other factors. These factors can be quite varied. For example, some people are
motivated by the desire to appear powerful. To feel powerful, an influencing agent may choose a type
of influence strategy that makes him or her feel as though he or she is in control of the target of
influence. If so, the influencing agent may choose to use coercion or reward in the influence attempt.
Similarly, a desire to enhance one’s sense of power in the eyes of others, status, security, role
requirements, the desire to harm a target of influence, and self-esteem considerations might lead one
to choose the more controlling, stronger, or harsher types of influence tactics (such as coercion).
Others may wish to maintain a friendship or appear humble. In that case, they would rely more on
information.
Much of what humans do as individuals and society involves influencing others. People want and
need things from others, things such as affection, money, opportunity, work, and justice. How they get
those things often depends on their abilities to influence others to grant their desires. In addition,
people are also the constant targets of the influence attempts of others. Thus, it is important to
understand what causes people to comply with others’ wishes, and how the exercise of power affects
both targets and influencing agents. The study of social power provides that knowledge.

G. LEADERSHIP
While we’ve examined roles we can play in groups, the role that often gets the most attention is that
of the leader. Like defining communication, many people have an idea of what a leader is, but can’t
really come up with a good definition for the term as there are many ways to conceptualize the role of
leader. One way to do this is to think of leaders in terms of their leadership styles. Let’s look at three
broad leadership styles to better understand the communication choices leaders can make, as well as
the outcome of such choices, in a group.
First, let’s visualize leadership styles by seeing them as a continuum. The position to the left (Laissez-
faire) indicates a leader who exerts little to no control over a group, while the position on the right
(Authoritarian) indicates a leader who seeks complete control. The position in the middle
(Democratic) is one where a leader maintains a moderate level of control or influence in a group with
the group’s permission (Bass & Stogdill; Berkowitz).

H. PERFORMANCE IN GROUPS
Task performance or the outcome of some behavioral or intellectual goal is a key function of many
groups. Task-performing groups include various decision-making groups, sports teams, and work
teams. One would expect groups to benefit from their multiple and potentially complementary skills. It
is true that the more able or skilled the group or team members are, the better the group is. Yet
researchers have shown that there are a number of factors that inhibit productivity in groups.
However, groups can also reach high levels of productivity under the right conditions and with the
right group member composition.
There is an endless range of tasks that groups could potentially perform. Some of these require a
simple addition of effort, whereas others require that each group member fulfill a particular role. On
some tasks, the focus may be on quantity or speed of output, and on others, the concern may be with
quality of work. Some tasks are mainly cognitive in that they require some degree of ideation,
whereas others may be mostly behavioral (e.g., sports or music performance). According to Ivan
Steiner, the effectiveness of groups may depend on the nature of the task they are required to
perform. Group task performance may often be less than optimal because of two types of process
losses that occur in groups: coordination and motivation. When group members work together, they
have to coordinate with one another, and this requirement may make it difficult for each member to
contribute his or her best effort. Group members may also be less motivated in groups than they
would be if they were working by themselves.
When group members work together, they have to mesh their various talents and perspectives in
addition to coordinating their group activities. Groups have to decide who does what, when, and how.
This is seen clearly in sports teams and highly trained military units that require careful coordination
for success. A lack of effort or mistake in coordination by one or more group members can mean
failure for the group. Research has documented several of these types of coordination problems.
Garold Stasser has shown that groups do not fully share their unique knowledge but tend to focus on
what they have in common. This may be because the discussion of shared information makes group
members feel more comfortable and validated. In group decisions, individuals often are more
concerned about being agreeable than being right. In the case of problem solving, someone with a
correct answer often has a hard time persuading the group of its veracity unless it can be easily
demonstrated and/or support is gained from at least one other group member. In group task
performance situations, groups are also faced with the problem of coordinating the input of individual
group members into the group task. For these reasons, it is not difficult to see why so few studies
have been able to show group synergy cases in which the performance of interacting groups exceeds
the combined performance of individual members.
Today many people do most of their work on computers, including a lot of information exchange with
coworkers. How effective is such electronic group interaction? For tasks that are fairly individualistic,
such as generating solutions to simple problems or idea generation, the absence of coordination
issues makes the electronic medium beneficial. However, for more complex tasks requiring decision
making or negotiation, computer interaction does not work as well. The computer format makes it
difficult to deal with all of the interactional subtleties required in these situations because there are no
nonverbal communication channels available to augment the group’s verbal interaction.

I. TEAMS
I think that meaning of "group" and "team" differ across cultures. Groups can be formed by some
principle (for example, a class in school based on pupils' residence and age). In a similar manner
group can be any subdivision in any organization, based on task, location, etc. Groups can also
emerge endogenously, like hobby group based on common interest. In the second case
psychological links are taken into account, while in organization typically not (and his can lead to
some conflict).
Team, to my mind, is oriented at some goal. Let just think about football team. Members have
different skills (to defend or to attack) and they complement each other following the common
objective. Team in organizations can be formed on permanent or temporary basis depending on the
task. In general, team is more goal oriented. Skill composition as a perfect mix for a certain task is an
objective to form a good team. In a group it can be whatever.

J. DECISION MAKING

Group decision-making (also known as collaborative decision-making) is a situation faced when

individuals collectively make a choice from the alternatives before them. The decision is then no
longer attributable to any single individual who is a member of the group. This is because all the
individuals and social group processes such as social influence contribute to the outcome. The
decisions made by groups are often different from those made by individuals. Group polarization is
one clear example: groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme than those of its individual
members, in the direction of the individual inclinations.
There is much debate as to whether this difference results in decisions that are better or worse.
According to the idea of synergy, decisions made collectively tend to be more effective than decisions
made by a single individual. However, there are also examples where the decisions made by a group
are flawed, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the incident on which the groupthink model of group
decision-making is based.
Factors that impact other social group behaviours also affect group decisions. For example, groups
high in cohesion, in combination with other antecedent conditions (e.g. ideological homogeneity and
insulation from dissenting opinions) have been noted to have a negative effect on group decision-
making and hence on group effectiveness.shared information bias), as opposed to unshared
information.

Decision-making in groups is sometimes examined separately as process and outcome. Process

refers to the group interactions. Some relevant ideas include coalitions among participants as well as
influence and persuasion. The use of politics is often judged negatively, but it is a useful way to
approach problems when preferences among actors are in conflict, when dependencies exist that
cannot be avoided, when there are no super-ordinate authorities, and when the technical or scientific
merit of the options is ambiguous.
In addition to the different processes involved in making decisions, group decision support systems
(GDSSs) may have different decision rules. A decision rule is the GDSS protocol a group uses to
choose among scenario planning alternatives.
Groups have many advantages and disadvantages when making decisions. Groups, by definition, are
composed of two or more people, and for this reason naturally have access to more information and
have a greater capacity to process this informationDecide
The leader of the group uses other group members as sources of information, but makes the final
decision independently and does not explain to group members why s/he required that information.
Consult (individual)
The leader talks to each group member alone and never consults a group meeting. S/he then makes
the final decision in light of the information obtained in this manner.
Consult (group)
The group and the leader meet and s/he consults the entire group at once, asking for opinions and
information, then comes to a decision.
Facilitate
The leader takes on a cooperative holistic approach, collaborating with the group as a whole as they
work toward a unified and consensual decision. The leader is non-directive and never imposes a
particular solution on the group. In this case, the final decision is one made by the group, not by the
leader.
Delegate
The leader takes a backseat approach, passing the problem over to the group. The leader is
supportive, but allows the group to come to a decision without their direct collaboration.

K. CONFLICT IN GROUPS

Group conflict, or hostilities between different groups, is a feature common to all forms of human
social organization (e.g., sports teams, ethnic groups, nations, religions, gangs) nearly doubled
between the years 1914 to 1964 as a result of further group conflict.
Group conflict can be separated into two sub-categories of conflict: inter-group conflict (in which
distinct groups of individuals are at odds with one another), and intra-group conflict (in which select
individuals that are part of the same group clash with one another). Although both forms of conflict
have the ability to spiral upward in severity, it has been noted that conflict present at the group level
(i.e., inter-group rivalries) is generally considered to be more powerful than conflict present at an
individual level – a phenomenon known as the discontinuity effect.
Social psychology, specifically the discontinuity effect of inter-group conflict, suggests that "groups
are generally even more competitive and aggressive than individuals".Two main sources of intergroup
conflict have been identified: "competition for valued material resources, according to realistic conflict
theory, or for social rewards like respect and esteem...as described by relative deprivation theory"
Group conflict can easily enter an escalating spiral of hostility marked by polarisation of views into
black and white, with comparable actions viewed in diametrically opposite ways: "we offer
concessions, but they attempt to lure us with ploys. We are steadfast and courageous, but they are
unyielding, irrational, stubborn, and blinded by ideology".
It is widely believed that intergroup and intragroup hostility are (at least to some degree) inversely
related: that "there is, unhappily, an inverse relationship between external wars and internal
strife".Thus "in politics, for example, everyone can get an extraordinarily comforting feeling of mutual
support from their group by focussing on an enemy". Freud described a similarly quasi-benign
version, whereby "it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in
other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other – like the Spaniards
and Portuguese, for instance... a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to
aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier".
The harder version of the theory would suggest that "pent-up sub-group aggression, if it cannot
combine with the pent-up aggression of other sub-groups to attack a common, foreign enemy, will
vent itself in the form of riots, persecutions and rebellions".

L. INTERGROUP CONFLICT
Webster's Dictionary defines a group as "a number of persons near, placed, or classified together."
Others define a group as a "social unit that consists of a number of individuals (1) who, at a given
time, have role and status relationships with one another, stabilized in some degree and (2) who
possess a set of values or norms regulating the attitude and behavior of individual members, at least
in matters of consequence to them."
Intergroup relations between two or more groups and their respective members are often necessary
to complete the work required to operate a business. Many times, groups inter-relate to accomplish
the organization's goals and objectives, and conflict can occur. Some conflict, called functional
conflict, is considered positive, because it enhances performance and identifies weaknesses.
Dysfunctional conflict, however, is confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the
organization or hinders attainment of goals or objectives.
One of the most prominent reasons for intergroup conflict is simply the nature of the group. Other
reasons may be work interdependence, goal variances, differences in perceptions, and the increased
demand for specialists. Also, individual members of a group often play a role in the initiation of group
conflict. Any given group embodies various qualities, values, or unique traits that are created,
followed, and even defended. These clans can then distinguish "us" from "them." Members who
violate important aspects of the group, and especially outsiders, who offend these ideals in some
way, normally receive some type of corrective or defensive response. Relationships between groups
often reflect the opinions they hold of each other's characteristics. When groups share some interests
and their directions seem parallel, each group may view the other positively; however, if the activities
and goals of groups differ, they may view each other in a negative manner. When trying to prevent or
correct intergroup conflict, it is important to consider the history of relations between the groups in
conflict. History will repeat itself if left to its own devices.
Limited resources and reward structures can foster intergroup conflict by making the differences in
group goals more apparent. Differences in perceptions among groups regarding time and status,
when coupled with different group goals, can also create conflict. Reorganization of the workplace
and integration of services and facilities can be stressful to some and create negative conflict. Some
individuals within the group have inherent traits or social histories that impact intergroup conflict, but
problems within intergroup relations are not usually caused by the deviate behavior of a few
individuals.
ntergroup conflict causes changes to occur, both within the groups in conflict and between them.
Within the groups, members will usually overlook individual differences in an effort to unite against the
other side, and with this concerted effort the focus is on the task. The group can become more
efficient and effective at what they do, and members can become more loyal, closely following group
norms. Problems can occur, however, when the group loses focus of the organization's goals and
becomes closed off from other groups. Haughtiness and isolation quickly lead to decreased
communication. Communication is the key between groups in reciprocal interdependence, and these
have the highest negative consequences for lack of effective communication. Miscommunication can
be the death knell of any organization.
There are numerous choices available to circumvent conflict, to keep it from becoming damaging, and
to resolve conflict that is more serious. These include simple avoidance where possible, problem
solving, changing certain variables in the workplace, and in-house alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) programs. Any resolution method should depend on why the conflict occurred, the seriousness
of the conflict, and the type. A face-to-face meeting, as in problem solving, can be very effective in
conflicts of misunderstanding or language barriers. The groups can discuss issues and relevant
information, with or without a facilitator, to reach resolution.
Where groups have differing goals, it may be prudent to establish some type of goal that can only be
reached when the conflicting groups work together. A superordinate goal not only helps alleviate
conflict, it focuses more on performance, which is what the organization needs to survive. A downside
to this option is the identification of a common enemy of the conflicting groups, who must come
together to prevail. Eventually, the solidarity crumbles and groups begin to again turn against each
other.
Another stopgap solution to conflict is simply avoiding it. Although this does not resolve the problem,
it can help get a group through a period of time, in which those involved may become more objective,
or a greater, more immediate goal would have been met. Along those lines, another solution is
smoothing the groups by focusing on common interests and de-emphasizing the differences between
them. This approach is especially effective on relatively simple conflicts and is viewed as a short-term
remedy.
Yet another quick fix is the authoritative command, where groups, who cannot satisfactorily resolve
their conflict, are commanded by management. This response does not usually deal with the
underlying cause of the conflict, which is likely to surface again in some way. This would probably be
a choice of last resort in this era of individual independence and self-determination.
Although it is not always possible to change a person's behavior, by focusing on the cause of the
conflict and the attitudes of those involved, it will lead to a more permanent resolution. It is also
possible to change the structural variables involving the conflicting groups, such as changing jobs or
rearranging reporting responsibilities. This approach is much more effective when the groups
themselves participate in structural change decisions. Without meaningful input, this resolution
method resembles avoidance or forcing and is not likely to succeed, further frustrating all involved.
II. REFERENCES
Oas Community College
Oas, Albay
Read more: https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Gr-Int/Group-
Dynamics.html#ixzz5pQ05IY1h
https://www.coursehero.com/file/13173650/Individual-Reflection-on-Group-Consulting-Experience/
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/team-cohesion-psychology-essay.php
https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-influence/social-power/
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_importance_of_the_group_and_team_within_an_or
ganization