Organizational problem: Lack of team cohesion
Introduction
In an organization, team members share a common objective with the aim of completing a certain standard task for corporate benefit. Human beings need a sense of belonging and identity. Team cohesion refers to the extent in which the members of a team are willing to be involved in the continuity of group task in an organization. According to Robbins et al., (2014, p. 226), teams have been identified to differ in the level of their cohesiveness. Cohesion is the unifying factor of deputies to remain in a team and brings cooperation and efficiency in tackling the task assigned to the group. Cohesion, according to Robbins et al., (2014, 226) further affects the general productivity of a team. The above authors further mention that if cohesiveness, in a group, tends to be rather high with low-performance norms, productivity in such a group will automatically be much lower. People need to trust their team heads and count on other group members regarding what they promise to do. Members believing in team rules and procedures bring team cohesiveness while building trust on each other. Lack of team cohesion within a corporate working environment affects performance due to unexpected tension and stress among team members. I experienced the effects of lack of team cohesion while working with Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL) on a group task to carry out research on the adoption rates of innovative on- farm solutions by egg producers in Australia.
In the Team that we were conducting the research, I discovered several underlying organizational factors that contributed to the problems I faced in the completion of that assignment we were given. They include:
Lack of consensus: Lack of common ground in addressing the problems we encountered in the field was a major behavioral factor that contributed to poor team cohesion. The absence of consensus was brought by the fact that some member of the team we could agree on the problems faced by the egg producers but lack a universal consensus on the underlying causes of the problems. As know, for teams to work effectively they should share common views on the problems they are facing and the root causes of those problems for them to accomplish the task assigned to them within the timelines. By brainstorming the issues, we could come up with possible root causes but the problems agreeing on the priorities to report was the biggest problem (Wise, 2014, p. 706). The outcome was the competition of ideas thus an uncommon ground for the group. The factor of lack of consensus thus contributed to poor team cohesion as some of the members who felt the idea was not given the weight the expected tended to deviate from the common goal and vision for the team.
Lack of Commitment: Commitment is the state of being devoted to certain cause or task. Commitment is essential in developing strong team cohesion (Chang et al., 2014, p. 665). In our work some members lacked devotion to the activities, we were doing those undermining the team performance and oneness. The team leaders we highly keen on team allegiance to the task, as they know that for all human structures to exist, the majority of the members of a team must believe and commit themselves to ensure continuity of the structure.
Miscommunications: In the field, while performing our task the issue of poor communication such as late communication concerning the directions to take, unclear information and contradicting information. Miscommunication has been proven to destabilize the team cohesion. Some members complained that the team leaders were frustrating and affected their working effectiveness. When miscommunication is evident in any setting, there exists confusion, as things never operate the way they are expected to take their course.
Misunderstanding of the group norms and expectation: Norms are the informal understanding that governs member behaviour in a team, and they affect almost every given group (Robbins et al., 2014, p. 221). They are the values, traditions, and customs of an organization that promotes an acceptable behaviour (Jo Hatch and Schultz, 2011, p. 365). They guide how employees perform in an organization. Expectations are strong belief that a certain task will be achieved or happen in future. The hope of reaching the predicted target drives team performance. In AECL, we were motivated by the need of understanding the adoption rates of on-farm innovation while governed by organizations norms. Nevertheless, some team members did not have a clear understanding of the team standards and the presumption we had thus created friction in the organizations. This deviance behaviour in the group resulted to poor team cohesion.
Social loafing: Social loafing is the tendency of team members in a group to devote less effort than they would commit when working alone. In AECL the issue of social loafing was evident while we are carrying out our collective assignments in the fields, in that some team members would develop the free- riders attitude (Rapisarda, 2012, p. 370). They established a nation that if they do not put their efforts to the task, their shortfalls will be covered by the collectiveness effect in reporting of the work. It also happens that some members developed the sucker’s attitude by putting less effort while depending on the fully performing members in the team. The impacts of social loafing are evident in lowering the team morale and cohesiveness.
Problems in decision-making: In the world of business, effective decision-making abilities are required in everyday activities since the organization is ever facing complex challenges that need to be solved daily. Decision-making is the process of choosing the best alternative between two or more courses of actions. A practical decision is made through intuition, reasoning, or combination of both methods. A rational decision in collective work needs to be implementable and one making it should be able to persuade team members of its merits (Parker, 2013, p. 62). In our team of AECL, some members had some problems that limited them in making a valid decision. Not exhaustive, they include inadequate information concerning the alternatives, emotional attachments, lack of confidence to support their decision among others. The aftermath was the oneness of the team.
Lack of Persuasion: Persuasion is defined as the power to convince others to support or take your viewpoint. Lack of belief was evident with some team members in AECL who could not convince us to understand their stand. Poor persuasion techniques among some members lowered their self-esteem, thus reducing their cohesiveness to the team.
Lack of motivation: Motivation is the desire to complete a task. It comes from the interaction of both internal and external factors such as the incentive value of the achievement, the intensity of need to accomplish and the expectations of the member and other team members (Nikolaou and Tsaousis, 2009, p. 332). Motivation is both internal and external. In AECL, some members of our team lack motivation varying for our desires to accomplish the assignment. Also, others complained of inadequate reward value of our work, creating poor team cohesion.
Effective team performance is what makes many organizations successful. In AECL, a task of validating the adoption rates of on –farm innovative solution, collective action was essential as it combined skills and talents of different members. For teams to perform in the more efficient way, they must possess high levels of team emotional intelligence. Often abbreviated as EI, Emotional intelligence is the awareness and understanding of self-emotions cues that is directed at either someone or something as noted by Robbins et al., (2014, p. 483) and Di Fabio and Saklofske, (2014, p. 176). It integrates decision-making, self- management and regulation aspects. Several studies show that EI has a positive effect on collective work by creating cohesiveness in teams. Creating an emotionally intelligent team involves creating emotional competence for a team as a whole. It is done by establishing norms that support trust, efficiency, and team identity. In Australian Egg Corporation Limited, an emotionally intelligent team would have developed cooperation and creativity in doing the assignment.
In AECL, team’s EI could have built by; first, creating time for group’s members to appreciate each other’s skills, this would have created confidence amongst teammates. Confidence would have built trust, which in turn amplifies motivation, and motivation boost commitment thus achieving team cohesiveness and increased performance (Wiedemann et al., 2016, p. 887). Activities like having a fun day outside the working place would have been a great way of EI building among our team. Such team building activities strengthen organizational commitment, as groups perceive that the organization cares for them. Secondly, it is by managing emotional concerns that help the team progress. Thirdly, it is by creating time to celebrate each team member’s success. Recognizing team achievements will build the team’s identity and fosters effectiveness and joint enthusiasm for excellence.
Conflict is inevitable in organization environment where an individual's difference in the various groups that one is part of when the identity of one's expectations differs with those of other expectations (Robbins et al., 2014, p. 219). In AECL conflict, arise in our daily assignments ranging from internal conflicts to external conflicts between team members. Proper Conflict management techniques would solve many issues that lowered unit cohesion. Retreating from conflict situation and allocating more time later to address our difference when we are better prepared; would have promoted smooth running of our activities and in an efficient manner (Brewer, Mitchell, and Weber, 2012, p. 81). Also, embracing reconciliation by looking for a solution that brings an acceptable level of satisfaction to all team parties, would have resolved certain individual conflicts that undermined our efficiency as a team. Finally, if we had incorporated several insights and viewpoints from different perspectives while creating an open dialogue, we would have come with points of consensus hence enhancing team cohesiveness.
In organizations, the leadership remains vital in helping the firm to take its shape. Democratic leadership style could have assisted in increasing the team cohesion and efficiency. Also known as participative leadership style, it is where each team member takes a more participative position in the process of making a decision. It allows; every team member to contribute freely by sharing his/her views and ideas concerning the assignment it enhances collaborative problem-solving techniques. This leadership style would uphold team cohesion thus fostering efficiency and effectiveness.
Conclusion
Teams compel organization success, despite the fact that building high performing group is a multifaceted task facing any manager in the modern competitive job environment. Cohesiveness is an important agent in implementing efficient and effective teams. EI enables high performance in organizations by fostering cohesiveness. Team leaders must learn of different conflict resolution methods that will ensure team cohesiveness is upheld. Knowing what I know now if I return to Australian Egg Corporation Limited will apply all the organizational behavioral factors learned in the units to ensure high performance and efficiency in the research and development teams while providing high levels of team cohesiveness.
References
Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., and Weber, N., 2012. Gender role, organizational status, and conflict management styles. International journal of conflict management, 13(1), pp.78-94.
Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R. and Cai, Y., 2014. Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), p.665.
Di Fabio, A. and Saklofske, D.H., 2014. Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, pp.174-178.
Jo Hatch, M. and Schultz, M., 2011. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), pp.356-365.
Nikolaou, I. and Tsaousis, I., 2009. Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), pp.327-342.
Parker, C., 2013. Industrial free-range eggs and the regulatory construction of consumer choice. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 649(1), pp.52-73.
Rapisarda, B.A., 2012. The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), pp.363-379.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. 2014. Organizational behavior. 7th edition, Pearson, Australia
Wiedemann, S., McGahan, E., Murphy, C. and Yan, M., 2016. Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment. Animal Production Science, 56(5), pp.882-894.
Wise, S., 2014. Can a team have too much cohesion? The dark side to network density. European Management Journal, 32(5), pp.703-711.
