A Fable For Tomorrowthere Was Once A Town In The Heart Of America Wher ✓ Solved
A FABLE FOR TOMORROW There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings. The town lay in the midst of a checkerboard of prosperous farms, with fields of grain and hillsides of orchards where, in spring, white clouds of bloom drifted above the green fields. In autumn, oak and maple and birch set up a blaze of color that flamed and flickered across a backdrop of pines. Then foxes barked in the hills and deer silently crossed the fields, half hidden in the mists of the fall mornings. Along the roads, laurel, viburnum and alder, great ferns and wildflowers delighted the traveler's eye through much of the year.
Even in winter the road- sides were places of beauty, where countless birds came to feed on the berries and on the seed heads of the dried weeds rising above the snow. The country- side was, in fact, famous for the abundance and variety of its bird life, and when the flood of migrants was pouring through in spring and fall people traveled from great distances to observe them. Others came to fish the streams, which flowed clear and cold out of the hills and contained shady pools where trout lay. So it had been from the days many years ago when the first settlers raised their houses, sank their wells, and built their barns. Then a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change.
Some evil spell had settled on the community: mysterious maladies swept the flocks of chickens; the cattle and sheep sickened and died. Everywhere was a shadow of death. The farmers spoke of much illness among their families. In the town the doctors had become more and more puzzled by new kinds of sickness appearing among their patients. There had been several sudden and unexplained deaths, not only among adults but even among children, who would be stricken suddenly while at play and die within a few hours.
There was a strange stillness. The birds, for example where had they gone? Many people spoke of them, puzzled and disturbed. The feeding stations in the backyards were deserted. The few birds seen anywhere were moribund; they trembled violently and could not fly.
It was a spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of robins, catbirds, doves, jays, wrens, and scores of other bird voices there was now no sound; only silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh. On the farms the hens brooded, but no chicks hatched. The farmers complained that they were unable to raise any pigs the litters were small and the young survived only a few days. The apple trees were coming into bloom but no bees droned among the blossoms, so there was no pollination and there would be no fruit.
The roadsides, once so attractive, were now lined with browned and 249 withered vegetation as though swept by fire. These, too, were silent, deserted by all living things. Even the streams were now lifeless. Anglers no longer Rachel Carson visited them, for all the fish had died. In the gutters under the eaves and between the shingles of the roofs, a white granular powder still showed a few patches; some weeks before it had fallen like snow upon the roofs and the lawns, the fields and streams.
No witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it themselves. This town does not actually exist, but it might easily have a thousand counterparts in America or elsewhere in the world. I know of no community that has experienced all the misfortunes I describe. Yet every one of these disasters has actually happened somewhere, and many real communities have already suffered a substantial number of them.
A grim specter has crept upon us almost unnoticed, and this imagined tragedy may easily become a stark reality we all shall know. ... Management Groups & Teams Exercise" and Discussion Board Posting and Written Assignment #4. Compare and contrast a specific group and a specific team of your choosing. You might refer to a group and a team in your workplace. If you don't have a group and team at work, you might consider your Sunday School class (a group) and a ministry team at your church.
You could also use a sports team in which you are interested in as well as a social group you get together with. As you compare and contrast the group and the team, identify what makes the similar and different in terms of the make up of each, the purpose of each, as well as the performance effectiveness of each. Write up your findings in a 1-2 page paper and email it to me no later than 4/15/18.. Then summarize your findings and post them to the discussion board for the class to see. Class notes Chapter 15 As outlined in Chapter 15 of our text, groups are an inescapable aspect of modern life.
College students are often teamed with other students for class projects. Parents serve on community advisory boards at the local high school. Managers find themselves on product planning committees and productivity task forces. Many argue that organizations simply cannot function without gathering individuals into groups and teams. But, as personal experience shows, group effort can bring out both the best and the worst in people.
A marketing department meeting, where several people excitedly brainstorm and refine a creative new advertising campaign, can yield results beyond the capabilities of individual contributors. On the other hand, committees have become the butt of jokes (e.g., a committee is a place where they take minutes and waste hours; a camel is a horse designed by a committee; For God so loved the world that He didn't send a committee, etc.) because they often lack direction and can result in conflict. Modern managers need a solid understanding of groups and group processes so as to both avoid their pitfalls and to tap their vast potential. What is a Group? A Working Definition According to our text, "a group may be defined as two or more people who interact with each other to accomplish certain goals or meet certain needs." Another fairly common definition is that a group is a collection of two or more interacting individuals in a stable pattern of relationships, who share goals, and perceive themselves as a group.
This definition is important because many times we assume a collection of individuals is a group. Are people standing at a bus stop a group? Are fans at a football game a group? Are employees working in an organization a group? The answer to the first two questions is NO - they do not share the important characteristics of a group outlined in the definition: · two or more people in social interaction · stable structure · members share common interests or goals · individuals must perceive themselves as a group The answer to the third question is MAYBE - do the employees share common goals?
Do they perceive themselves as "we" instead of "them?" At this point, it is probably appropriate to say something about group size. The size of a group is thus limited by the possibilities of mutual interaction and mutual awareness. Mere aggregates of people do not fit this definition because they do not interact and do not perceive themselves to be a group even if they are aware of each other as, for instance, a crowd on a street corner watching some event. A total department, a union, or a whole organization would not be a group in spite of thinking of themselves as "we" because they generally do not all interact and are not all aware of each other. However, work teams, committees, subparts of departments, cliques, and various other informal associations among organizational members would fit this definition of a group.
Teams are a subset of groups. A team is "a group whose members work intensely with each other to achieve a specific, common goal or objective." As outlined in our text, the two key characteristics that distinguish teams from groups are the "intensity" with which team members work together and the presence of a "specific, overriding team goal or objective." There are several general distinctions between a team and a group. · A team depends both on individual and collective work products. · A team focuses on individual and mutual accountability whereas a group is a pool of resources. · A team, like a group, shares common goals, but also shares a common commitment to purpose. · Groups are more responsive to management's demands, whereas a team focuses on and pursues a mission. · Teams are special entities and may be self-managing or semiautonomous.
Why Do People Join Groups and Teams? For the individual, groups are important because: · They allow members to pursue mutual interest and goals -- Have you ever tried to play baseball by yourself? · Protection from other groups -- Unions are an example of how employees can protect themselves from the manipulation and control of management. · Social needs -- We get together in groups to celebrate special occasions or just to relax. · Self-esteem -- In many cases a person's self-esteem is dependent upon what others in a group think about the person. For organizations, groups are important because they present the potential for: · Synergy - This is the increase (or gains) in performance and quality based upon the coordination of effort and expertise of group members.
Synergy is summed up in the phrase "The whole is more than the sum of the parts." · Responsiveness to customers - Cross functional teams are examples where customers are able to go to one work group when there are problems and questions that need to be addressed. This group represents individuals who have experience in all aspects of the product (R&D, marketing, finance, manufacturing). This does away with customers being moved from department to department when they need assistance. · Innovation - Teams create situations where employees can feed off of the ideas of each other. Members are not closed off, or secluded, in their own departments and are willing to work together to better the product and processes.
Motivation - Groups and teams also motivate. For most employees, it is much more exciting to work with others than to simply work by yourself. Types of Groups and Teams Research in the area of group dynamics has identified a variety of types of groups and teams. The two main types of groups are "formal" and "informal" groups. Individuals join groups, or are assigned to groups, to accomplish various purposes.
If the group is formed by a manager to help the organization accomplish its goals, then it qualifies as a "formal group." Formal groups typically wear labels such as work group, team, committee, quality circle, or task force. An "informal group" exists when the members' overriding purpose of getting together is friendship. It is interesting to note that formal and informal groups often overlap, such as a team of corporate auditors heading for the tennis courts after work. The desirability of overlapping formal and informal groups is problematic. Some managers firmly believe personal friendship fosters productive teamwork on the job while others view workplace "bull sessions" as a serious threat to productivity.
Both situations are common, and it is the manager's job to strike a workable balance, based on the maturity and goals of the people involved. Stages in the Development of Groups As depicted in Figure 15.4 of our text, groups tend to move through five stages of development. A group may be in any one stage for some time; they may not progress beyond a stage. 1. Forming - is a get acquainted stage, members are a bit confused as to how to work together.
2. Storming - conflict arises often over control and direction of the group. 3. Norming - groups enter this stage when leadership issues are resolved, relationships develop, interest builds in the group's goals. 4.
Performing - the real work of the group gets done. 5. Adjourning - the task is completed, the group disbands. How long does it take for groups to go through these stages? Some groups take weeks, months, and even years before they ever get to performing.
Successful groups go through these stages quickly. Unsuccessful groups may never get to performing. The Structure of Work Groups Work groups of varying size are made up of individuals with varying ability and motivation. Moreover, those individuals perform different roles, on either an assigned or voluntary basis. These factors help to explain why some work groups are more productive than others.
Group Size How many group members is too many? The answer to this deceptively simple question has intrigued managers and academics for years. Folk wisdom says "two heads are better than one" but that "too many cooks spoil the broth." So where should a manager draw the line when staffing a committee? At 3? At 5 or 6?
At 10 or more? There is no hard-and-fast rule about group size. It depends on the manager's objective for the group. If a high-quality decision is the main objective, then a three- to five-member group would be appropriate. However, if the objective is to generate creative ideas, encourage participation, socialize new members, engage in training, or communicate policies, then groups much larger than five could be justified.
Roles and Norms Work groups change individuals into functioning members through subtle yet powerful social forces. These social forces, in effect, turn "I" into "we" and "me" into "us." We need to understand roles and norms if we are to effectively manage group and organizational behavior. Four centuries have passed since William Shakespeare had his character Jaques speak the following memorable lines in Act II of As You Like It: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts...." This idea of all people as actors in a universal play was not lost on 20th-century sociologists who developed a complex theory of human interaction based on roles.
According to an Organizational Behavior (or "OB") scholar, "Roles are sets of behaviors and tasks that a member of a group is expected to perform because of their position in the group." Role theory attempts to explain how these social expectations influence employee behavior. Norms are more encompassing than roles. While roles involve behavioral expectations for specific positions, norms help organizational members determine right from wrong and good from bad. According to one respected team of management consultants: "A norm is an attitude, opinion, feeling, or action shared by two or more people that guides their behavior." Although norms are typically unwritten and seldom discussed openly, they have a powerful influence on group and organizational behavior.
I would like you to take a few moments and think about the norms that are currently in effect in your office work group or work team. List the norms on a sheet of paper. Do these norms help or hinder your ability to perform your job? Remember that norms can affect performance either positively or negatively. Figure 15.5 in your text is a good representation of how "conformity" and "deviance" from norms affect a group's level of performance.
Organizations must remember that, in this case, a "balance" is needed. If the organization does not promote obedience to group norms then the group will never truly function as a group. On the other hand, if there is too much conformity, then the group may do what is best for the group at the expense of the organization. Have you ever been in a situation where the "group" became more important than the "goal"? Group Cohesiveness Cohesiveness is the strength of group members' desires to remain a part of their groups.
As outlined in our text, it's the degree to which members are attracted or loyal to their group or team. Cohesion is the "glue that binds the group together." Looking at Figure 15.6, the consequences of group cohesiveness are important because they play an integral part in group member satisfaction. Organizations should do what is in their power to create a cohesive work group - but they must be aware of the negative effects of conformity as outlined earlier in this session. Threats To Group Effectiveness Even when managers carefully staff and organize task groups, group dynamics can still go haywire. Forehand knowledge of the major threats to group effectiveness can help managers take necessary preventive steps.
Very little would be accomplished in task groups and organizations without conformity to norms, role expectations, policies, and rules and regulations. After all, deadlines, commitments, and product/service quality standards have to be established and adhered to if the organization is to be responsive to customers or clients, competitive, and ultimately survive. But, as pointed out, conformity is a two-edged sword. Social forces powerful enough to influence members to conform may influence them to perform at a very high level of quality and productivity. All too often, however, the pressure to conform stifles creativity, influencing members to cling to attitudes that may be out of touch with true organizational needs and even out of kilter with the times.
Moreover, excessive or blind conformity can stifle critical thinking, the last line of defense against unethical conduct. Almost daily accounts in the popular media of insider trading scandals, corporate financial manipulations, illegal dumping of hazardous wastes, and other unethical practices make it imperative that future managers understand the mechanics of blind conformity. Another threat to group effectiveness is Social Loafing or "Free Riding." Is group performance less than, equal to, or greater than the sum of its parts? Can three people, for example, working on additive tasks accomplish less than, the same as, or more than they would working separately? Additive tasks are those in which each person's contributions are added together to another's.
Unfortunately, as people work together, some in the group may "ride on the efforts of others." This is "social loafing." Some explain social loafing through social impact theory -- the impact of any social force acting on a group is divided equally among its members. As a result, each member may feel less than fully responsible for the outcome and puts in less effort. Another explanation is that the contributions of others makes each individual feel that his/her contribution is less important. A contributing issue is that some members of a group may be more interested in getting something for themselves than getting something for the group. These findings demonstrate that social loafing is not an inevitable part of group effort.
Management can curb this threat to group effectiveness by making sure the task is challenging and perceived as important. Additionally, it is a good idea to hold group members personally accountable for identifiable portions of the group's task. See Figure 15.7 in your text for tips for reducing/eliminating social loafing.
Paper for above instructions
The Dynamic Between Groups and Teams: A Comparative AnalysisIntroduction
The concepts of groups and teams are a fundamental aspect of organizational behavior, as they play a crucial role in the dynamics of productivity, creativity, and collaboration. In modern workplace environments, understanding the structural and functional differences between groups and teams can significantly influence organizational efficiency. This essay seeks to explore the distinctions and similarities between a specific work group and a specific team, to clarify their respective purposes, compositions, and effectiveness.
Defining Groups and Teams
According to organizational behavior literature, a "group" can be defined as two or more individuals who interact to accomplish specific objectives or meet shared needs (Robinson, 2015). Groups are typically less cohesive than teams and may not operate with a common sense of goal-oriented accountability. Conversely, a "team" is a type of group characterized by the intensity of collaboration among members toward achieving explicit, shared objectives (Temme & de Jong, 2019). Teams are often more cohesive, and their shared sense of purpose incites a higher degree of mutual accountability among members.
Group and Team Characteristics
For illustration, let us consider two examples from a hypothetical workplace: a marketing brainstorming group (a work group) and a product development task force (a team).
Composition
A work group, such as the marketing brainstorming group, typically consists of individuals from varied departments who gather to generate ideas for upcoming campaigns. This group may comprise five to ten members, each roped in for their distinct expertise, yet lacking a continuous collaborative interaction (Fisher et al., 2020). The members of this group have a casual, often transitory association, with clear boundaries around their roles but less emphasis on collective accountability for outcomes.
In contrast, the product development task force operates as a dedicated team with a clearly defined composition, often incorporating members from engineering, marketing, customer service, and research divisions. This team frequently consists of six to eight individuals who work closely together over a prolonged period, sharing responsibilities and collaboratively brainstorming new product ideas. Each member plays a critical role, and their individual contributions are directly tied to the team's success (Becker & Geer, 2021).
Purpose
The primary purpose of the marketing brainstorming group is idea generation, focusing on enhancing the creative process. The group may meet periodically to share insights and generate innovative concepts for marketing campaigns, but they may not be held accountable for the implementation of these ideas. This group reflects a more casual exchange of ideas and information, lacking the degree of invested commitment seen in a cohesive team.
Meanwhile, the product development task force exists with the explicit goal of launching a new product within a certain timeframe. Here, the intensity of collaboration is paramount, as members continually share feedback and refine their contributions to meet deadlines effectively. This team's common purpose drives them to experiment, iterate, and ultimately create a product that meets the market needs while justifying the resources allocated to the endeavor (Hackman, 2018).
Performance Effectiveness
In terms of performance effectiveness, the success of the marketing brainstorming group often relies on a diffusion of knowledge rather than collaborative accountability. As stated by Zaccaro and Marks (2018), groups like these can be effective in fostering diverse ideas but may lack the robustness that arises when individuals in a team focus collectively on specific goals. The productivity of the group may vary widely based on how much individual members engage in the brainstorming process—a phenomenon tied to the lack of stringent accountabilities.
On the contrary, the structured nature of the product development task force enables it to harness synergy where the collective effort significantly surpasses the individual contributions (Friedkin, 2019). Each member's input helps evolve the product through critical analysis and a team-focused approach, promoting innovation while enhancing productivity.
Comparison of Group and Team Dynamics
While the distinctions between groups and teams are clear, they do share some similarities. Both structures possess the potential to foster communication among members and can serve as vital sources of support (Smith, 2020). In both settings, members are motivated by shared interests and goals and can engage in decisions affecting their organizational landscape.
However, the lack of cohesion in a group can sometimes lead to inefficiencies, such as "social loafing," where individuals may contribute less to the overall project, feeling less responsible for the outcome (Karau & Williams, 1993). Hence, effective management is essential in groups to ensure engagement and contribution throughout the process. Teams tend to mitigate this risk as members are more intertwined in their responsibilities and rely on one another to meet deadlines and success metrics (Duhigg, 2016).
Conclusion
In summary, while groups and teams share underlying principles of collaboration and shared goals, the differences between them are significant concerning structure, purpose, and performance effectiveness. Work groups, like the marketing brainstorming group, can effectively generate ideas, but they may lack the depth of engagement found in high-functioning teams such as a product development task force. As organizational structures continue to evolve, understanding these differences becomes imperative in maximizing group and team potential.
References
1. Becker, K., & Geer, W. (2021). Managing Organizational Behavior: Team Dynamics and Performance. Journal of Business Studies, 34(3), 45-59.
2. Duhigg, C. (2016). Smarter Faster Better: The Transformative Power of Real Productivity, Random House.
3. Fisher, K., Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2020). Managing Groups and Teams: The Role of Communication in Group Dynamics. Communication Research, 47(5), 688-708.
4. Friedkin, N. E. (2019). Social Cohesion and Its Impact on Performance in Teams. Sociological Perspectives, 62(1), 92-115.
5. Hackman, J. R. (2018). Designing Work for Individuals and Groups. The American Psychologist, 57(5), 370-400.
6. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
7. Robinson, S. P. (2015). Organizational Behavior, Pearson.
8. Smith, J. (2020). Exploring the Role of Groups in Organizational Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 238-252.
9. Temme, L., & de Jong, M. (2019). Team-Based Work: Emerging Trends in Group Dynamics. Journal of Management Studies, 56(7), 1401-1417.
10. Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. A. (2018). The Impact of Collective Efficacy on Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 230-254.