1. Working in groups is often cited as an essential part of workplace but something students often either really like or loathe as part of their course assessment. Using the information from chapters 8 & 9 of the text as a starting point, how do you explain the differences between group work at university and in the workplace and how could university group work outcomes be improved?

Working with groups of people at university can be quite diverse and troublesome at times, however, understanding how people function in these groups is essential in the workplace and can save us much hassle later. Many theories have been proposed to explain the benefits of working in groups and why it is crucial in the workplace. Although the literature covers a wide variety of such theories, this review will focus on four major themes, which emerge repeatedly throughout the literature reviewed and explains the difference between group work at university and in the workplace. These themes are: why should groups be formed, the stages groups tend to go through, how do groups function effectively, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of working in a group. Although the literature presents these themes in a variety of contexts, this paper will primarily focus on their application to working in groups at university.

Andrew Carnegie, a famous businessman, once said “ Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision. The ability to direct individual accomplishments toward organizational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results ”. Individuals form groups for many reasons, which can be explained by the social identity theory. This theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979, describes that people behave in certain ways when they are associated with a group, and that groups give individuals a sense of belonging to the social world. “A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives” (Robbins et al. pg 214). At university, students need to be immersed in learning environments that promote real-life learning in real contexts that would be beneficial to them in the future work place situations. Group work helps to promote a deeper understanding of what is being learnt as it occurs through interaction, problem solving and collaboration. It is proven that students retain knowledge and gain a better understanding of study material when it is embedded in a social experience within a group environment.

Although the terms of group and team are often used interchangeably, there is a clear distinction between the two. Robbins et al defines that a “work group is a group that interacts primarily to share information and make decisions to help each group member perform within his or her area of responsibility”. Work groups performance is simply the summary of each group member’s individual contribution. Whereas, a work team is a group whose individual efforts result in performance that is greater than the sum of the individual inputs. (Robbins et al, pg 246). In essence, group work is a superior technique for theoretical learning and increasing oral language proficiency. Furthermore, it can improve social relations within a group by increasing cooperation, trust and by developing new friendships. It will also teach students skills for working in groups that can be transferred to many real life work situations.

There are two distinct models that describe the different stages in the forming of groups; the five-stage model and the punctuated-equilibrium model. Tuckman (1965) developed the four-stage model, and later added a fifth stage in the 1970s. The five stages are forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning stages. This model is often used when groups have a clear deadline and groups tend to proceed through the stages of group development at different rates. Groups 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 (Robbins et al, page 217). In the first stage, Tuckman explains this is the forming of the group and there is a high level uncertainty about the groups direction, leadership and purpose. The second stage, the storming stage is characterised by intragroup conflict, cliques form and there may be power struggles over who will be the leader within the group. The norming stage follows, and by this stage the group has developed close relationships and cohesiveness. Roles and responsibilities are accepted and the big decisions have been agreed upon. The fourth stage is performing and the group has a clear vision of what they are doing and what they need to achieve. Finally, for temporary groups there is the adjourning stage, which is the break-up of the group, where the groups purpose has been fulfilled and hopefully the task has been completed successfully. Tuckman’s five-stage model is a good reflection of what happens in groups at university level because most groups will undergo each stage in one way or another to successfully complete their assignments.

Moreover, there is an alternative model for temporary groups with deadlines. Gersick’s (1988) model suggests that “groups develop through the sudden formation, maintenance and sudden revision of performance.” This pattern is called the punctuated-equilibrium model, which is a set of phases that temporary groups go through that involves transitions between inertia and activity. (Robbin et al, page 217). Phase 1 involves the group meeting for the first time setting a direction for the project. During the first phase, groups show little visible progress and the group does not act on new insights or revise the initial framework. A transition occurs at the end of this phase, the midpoint heightens member’s awareness that their time is limited and they need start doing more work. The transition is powerful and is characterised by a burst of changes and the adoption of new perspectives. Phase 2 involves major changes where the team makes a final effort to finish the task and comprises of significant accelerated activity. This model is essentially limited to temporary task groups working under a time-constrained completion deadline. If groups in university understood the underlying concepts behind forming groups and they stages they encounter, this could improve how efficient they work together and could reduce the time it takes to complete an assignment. Many skills are needed in order for a group to work effectively together; these include commitment, interdependence, interpersonal skills, open communication and positive feedback. All these factors are essential towards university students when they are undertaking a group assignment. Harris & Harris (1996) explains that “a group has a common goal or purpose where members can develop effective, mutual relationships to achieve goals.” Group work replies upon individuals working together in a controlled environment to achieve common goals by sharing academic knowledge and personal skills. Group members must be committed to achieving success, and must be motivated engages and achieve at the highest level. Also, a “positive interdependent group environment brings out the best in each person enabling the group to achieve their goals at a far superior level” (Johnson & Johnson, 1995, 1999). Furthermore, group members must be willing to openly communicate and give and receive constructive criticism that will contribute to making the final goal better. Group members also need to be aware of their specific role and understand what is expected of them in terms of their contribution towards the assigned task. Groups are an integral part of many organizations and should also be incorporated as part of the delivery of tertiary units. “Successful cooperation relies upon team members creating an environment where they are all willing to contribute and participate in order to achieve a common academic goal.” (Luca & Tarricone, 2001).

Furthermore, each group member needs to communicate effectively and build a sense of community and collaborate to reach a common goal. The members need to be open and honest about possible ideas or disagreements on certain issues. Each member needs to learn how to participate within a group, so everyone can work together efficiently. Team communication also helps a person learn and build lifelong skills and the most important part of effective communication is to learn time management and to prioritize activities. Without these skills, a team could essentially fall apart and every group member will learn how to balance between their professional and personal lives. This skill is crucial to learn well in university, as it is often very difficult to master in the work force when you are working full time. Conversely, poor communication skills in a learning team are detrimental and can harm every student in the group academically and professionally. Some groups have an individual who is labelled the "bad-apple” and this particular individual does not contribute to the team on purpose. The lazy student's purpose is to hurt the team not help it (Amble, 2007). Another problem with team communication is an individual with no motivation, which often leads to no interaction with other group members. When very little or no interaction arises in a group, the rest of the members often have to accommodate for the missing person. This sort of behaviour is harmful in a learning group at university as it is each members responsibility to complete their assigned task and it is unfair to neglect their role and leave their team members to suffer.

There are many advantages to working in groups, but come benefits there are also certain weaknesses that groups encounter then working together and therefore must avoid. It could be considered that one important advantage of working in groups is the fact that each member is mutually accountable for the group’s actions and are motivated to succeed as a whole. The theory of Cohen & Morman (1995) helps us to develop this idea further, that members become a “motivator and encourage each team member to work harder for fear of letting the team down.” Turner (1982) also presents a relevant argument in that “competition between groups could be seen as a significant motivator within a team”. This ties in with our human nature, and having people to impress within our group brings out our competitive streak and we will strive to achieve higher objectives. However, disadvantages of working in a group may occur, for instance there is a tendency for one person to take on more workload and responsibility than the rest of the group, therefore certain team members may become isolated from the group and become not only less accountable, but also less motivated. Groupthink (Janie, 1982) is the idea that “in an environment where people are too friendly, they do not wish to disagree with their team members for fear of upsetting the social environment.” Therefore, poor quality ideas are often formed due to lack of groups members contesting which in turn causes productivity and group efficiency to fall dramatically.

Moreover, an important advantage of group work that can not be overlooked, is the sense of group identity that is formed. Tajfel, (1978); Turner, (1991); Brewer and Miller, (1996) presented that “staying together in a group for a length of time encouraged a powerful group identity”, which became stronger with time. Group members did not wish to jeopardize the entire group’s identity through the actions of one individual, and the stronger social bond is between the team members, the more this argument applies. Conversely, a disadvantage of this theory is the presence of social loafing (West, 1996), in which “members become too sociable with one another and treat group sessions as a sociable event at the sacrifice of group productivity”. This encourages group meetings to go on for longer and can result in a fall in the quality of the work, even though they are working for longer hours. This problem often occurs in university group work as often friends are a part of the same group and tend to be easily distracted. In essence, the underlying implications of working in a group during university acts as the building blocks for effective group work in the workplace. Often the skills, such as social interaction, problem solving and cooperation are imperative life skills that can be applied to real life situations. In order for groups to function effectively there must be good communication, a strong sense of commitment and interdependence. At university level, group work is conducted in a very controlled environment, with all members working towards achieving a mutual goal and shared vision of success.
REFERENCES

Bradley, J. H., & Frederic, J. H. (1997). The Effect of Personality Type on Team Performance. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), p. 337-353.

Cartney, P. and Rouse, A. (2006, Jan), The Emotional Impact of Learning in Small Groups: Highlighting the Impact on Student Progression and Retention, Teaching in Higher Education, 11(1), p. 79-91.

Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J,N. (2012, July). A Theory of Subgroups in Work Teams. Academy of Management Review. 37(3), p. 441-470.

Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 50 (3), p. 352

Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, p. 939-941.

Huckman, R., & Staats, B. (2013, Dec). The Hidden Benefits of Keeping Teams Intact. Harvard Business Review. 91(2), p. 27-29.

Kolb, J. A. (2013). Conflict Management Principles for Groups and Teams” Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(2), p. 79-86.

Khanbabaei, A., Lajevardi, S. J., & Kohsari, H. J (2011). The Study of Relationship Between Work Teams and Favouring Knowledge Management. The Iranian Jounral of Management Studies, 4(1), p. 79-99.

Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999, March) The Relationship Between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of Teams. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), p.28-45.

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., Millet, B., & Boyle, M. (2014). Organisational Behaviour (7th Edition.). Australia: Pearson Australia

Williams, P. (1995). Natural Work Groups. The TQM Magazine, 7(6), 31-36.

Verville, J., & Halingten, A. (2003). The Effect of Team Composition and Group Role Definition, Team Performance Management, 9(5/6), p. 115-130.