Organizational politics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Organizational politics - Essay Example Human temperament or characteristics are indeed the prime cause of all politics in any setup but there are certain core environmental factors for all human behavior and it would be mandatory to study and understand them in an effort to understand the reasons for organizational politics. This is also necessary given the central role that politics plays in any work environment. In this presentation it has suggested that power plays a critical role in the politics of an organization (McShane and Travaglione). At all levels the distribution of power is vital to the running of a company. While the types of power vested in a person or group is important in itself, the impact that this power has on the employees is our prime concern here. Power provides a person with the authority to allocate a resource (which is important if resources are scarce), to punish or reward people and to judge their performances. This in turn causes people to attempt build a better picture of themselves in the eyes of the people in whom power is vested. This can be done either by maligning coworkers or by creating circumstances where coworkers promote your image. The dynamics of interpersonal relationships between co workers and also the relationship of managers and team members comes into force in such cases. Ambition and drive which are subjective characters also come into play here. While such reasons present a dark image of ... In recent years in particular, there has been much effort to chanelize the power of politics and turn it into a useful tool for the running of organizations and this indeed is the way to go! Manuscript Explore the main reasons for political behavior in organizations "32% of managers believe it simply isn't possible to use office politics constructively because human nature is so appallingly selfish that people will always guard their turf and abuse their role power" Park, 2002 This quote accurately summarizes the main reasons for political behaviour in organizations. Human temperament or characteristics are indeed the prime cause of all politics in any setup! But then what is it that we call politics in organizations Politics in Organisations The use of power and influence for personal gains within an organizational set up is by far the bets definition of politics. It is distinctly different from nation-state politics in involving more interpersonal relationships (Provis 2002) and involves interplay of ethics morality and personal interest. It is also now increasingly being recognized as inevitable in organizations. The prime cause of politics is the distribution of power in an organization. A widely accepted model for the bases of power in an organization has been described by Foucault, (1980). He refers to several plausible sources of origin of and refers to them as Reward power, coercive Power, legitimate power, expert power. All these manifestations of power are found in any organization and while there is an ongoing debate on which power base is the best in terms of outcome, a functional consequence of any of them is know to be organizational politics. It is interesting to study the correlates of power and politics! Some primary and

Reeds Clothier Inc Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Reeds Clothier Inc - Essay Example Reed’s Clothier Inc. To see the actual situation of the firm, we can move forward and discuss Jim’s financial ratios. The first and most important ratio is the current ratio. This gives an idea of liquidity of the firm. It is not good not to be liquid or to be extremely liquidated. The best balanced sheet has a combination of fixed and current assets. Too many of receivables are not good although they may increase the value of assets but they indicate a weak receivable control system. The industry current ratio is 2.7, while for Jim’s company it is 2.01 (Calculated by dividing current assets with current liabilities) Quick ratio for the industry is 1.6. For Jim Reed’s company it is 1.4. 1 : 1 is the least acceptable ratio. Reed’s is lagging behind in both these ratios from industry standards. Another ratio that proves and shows that the Reed’s company is in bad financial shape is Receivable turnover. If this ratio is high, it indicates higher credit policy. If this rati o is low, it shows there are loopholes in receivables policy. The value for industry is 20.1 while this company has the ratio of 26.0. This once again indicates that due to lack of attention, the company finances are suffering. (White, Sondhi and Fried, 1997) Inventory turnover needs to be high as that indicates good sales against inventory. The figure for industry is 7 which is good. The exhibit 5 show that in case of Reed’s the sales are related to inventory, but with increasing stock the increase in sales is not correlation.

Ethical Dilemma Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Ethical Dilemma - Essay Example In order to carry out ethical teaching in class, the teachers might face ethical dilemmas often. Ethical dilemma is known to be the complex situation in which one might get when he has a mental conflict between moral essentials in which it is known that the choice of one may result in disobeying the other. They are also known as moral dilemmas and in these cases, societal and personal ethical guidelines may not provide any satisfactory outcome (Garber, 2008). Ethical dilemmas and moral situations can often arise in situations where one person can not take a moral decision and is bound to take a decision that does not fit in the ethical boundaries in one way or the other. Such situations may have many similarities and are at many times considered to be analogous (Carr, 1999). An experience I had that shows the similarities between the ethical dilemma and a moral situation is during my internship when I observed a situation in class where the teacher was in an ethical dilemma. The situ ation can be called as a moral situation and an ethical dilemma, as in both the cases, the teacher was bound to take a decision that did not fit into the moral principles and the professional ethics of education. In the situation, James was a classroom teacher of the ninth grade. His homework policy was that the homework would be given to take home on Friday and the students must bring it back and submit it on the following Thursday. He continuously emphasizes that it is the students’ choice to do it or not, but in case the homework is not completed and handed in on Friday, they will have to serve detention during one period of recess. Raoul was an excellent student in his class who always finished his work on time and correctly. He was a sensitive and dedicated student who strived hard to please the teacher. One Wednesday, Raoul gets sick and out of school, moreover the following day which was a Thursday, he forgot to bring his homework to class. This was the first time Raou l did not have his homework. James was sure that he had done his work and forgot to bring it. Raoul could get a day’s extension for being sick. And James also knew that the thought of serving detention was devastating for Raoul. However, James had to decide whether to follow the rule and have Raoul serve the detention, or make an exception based on the fact that Raoul has been sick and his routine is disrupted. This situation can very well be executed as a moral situation as well as an ethical dilemma. James is the teacher and he holds the responsibility in class to follow the professional ethics of education in which the teacher is supposed to apply the same rules for every student and avoid favoritism. On the other hand the professional ethics state that the teacher should understand each student and contribute in the best way possible towards his learning and his encouragement. James gets in ethical dilemma as he knows that taking a decision in regard of one ethical standa rd will violate the other. If James gives Raoul detention, he will discourage him and led his morale down, and if he gives him an excuse it will violate the professional ethics that he has set for his classroom (Robinson, 2005). In the similar way, the situation can also be called as a moral situation in which the teacher is bound by the moral principles of class and he is in moral dilemma. James is a teacher of ninth grade, who are teenage students and understand the situations of the class very well. If James gives an exception to Raoul, it will violate the moral conduct of the class in which the teacher owes a moral responsibility towards every child equally. Since Raoul has disobeyed the moral conduct of the class, James should give him the same punishment that all the students get,

Politics of Globalistation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Politics of Globalistation - Essay Example As stated by Mark (25), the dominance of one state over others in terms of economic and socio-political power is known as hegemony. Since the end of Cold World War, the United States has played a significant role in globalisation as a hegemon. U.S’ hegemony was able to impose its rules on the international system, provide goods to the system such as an international economic, financial and commercial order as well as global security and political order (Higgott 148). In short, the United States was able to open up national borders to foreign influences like political, cultural, and economic; thus, promoting globalisation. For this reason, in a world no longer defined by U.S’ hegemony, globalisation would not sustain. Higgott (156) claims that hegemony is crucial in creating international institutions that supply public goods, to the international system. Such institutions include World Trade Organisation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, The North Atlantic Treat y Organisation, and United Nations, among others. However, Mark (33) argues that the role played by these international institutions is not responsible for stability of the international economy. This is because once they start; they do not need any further controlling since they can survive on their own and other nations come to value and preserve them. However, the United States hegemony does not only set rules for other nations, but also creates international institutions that supply public goods (Bryane 21). According to Robinson (36), such public goods would not be provided unless there was a nation in the international system willing to pay the disproportionate cost to supply them. In the current international system, the United State is the only nation able to absorb the disproportionate cost and supply the public goods to the international community; thus, creating a stable international economy which has less conflicts and more open. However, even if the U.S’ disprop ortionately bears the costs alone, it stands to gain due to its dominant position in the international system. Cox (256) claims that, US hegemony has contributed largely to global security through its military force. Nevertheless, many nations claim that the U.S’ has caused a reduction in international security; hence, they view America as a threat and doubt its intentions. This has led to destabilisation of the international cooperation. However, according to Cox (261), US military hegemony does not weaken global security, but rather promotes international democracy and liberty leading to political stability. For instance, the American military has helped to protect Saudi Arabia from attacks in order to ensure free flow of oil to other nations. Moreover, the stability of U.S’ hegemony has helped to prevent countries such as Germany from developing their own nuclear weapons; thus, protecting Asia and other European nations from destructive security competition and arms races (Harry 43). Therefore, if United States withdraws from its dominant role in the world, globalisation would deteriorate drastically due to lack of international security. However, without protection of Middle East by the U.S’ military hegemony, the free flow of oil is likely to be interrupted by war, which would result in increased oil prices and affect the global economy. Thus, increased oil prices would force nations to use coal that can cause environmental catastrophes

Why a Graduate Degree Essay Example for Free

Why a Graduate Degree Essay When I started writing this paper I had hundreds of reasons why I am pursuing a graduate degree. My objective was to recognize which ones were more important and to find out what were the real reasons. As I sat in front of my piece of paper I came to realize the most important reasons as to why I want to purse my MBA. I graduated in 2001 from a school in Bolivia, South America. I moved to Virginia in January 2002 to start a new life. I began looking for a job related to my degree, Industrial Engineering, but the offers I received came nothing close to a job I desired. After months of searching I realized that it maybe because most companies don’t want to hire someone who graduated from a university they never heard of, especially one abroad. It is then when I realized that I needed something to be more competitive in the labor market, so the solution was to enroll myself in a graduate program. Another reason is because of a disadvantage in my major. My major does not provide specific knowledge in specific areas, but basic knowledge in different areas. I want a major that specializes in one specific area, such as Management Technology. I am young and have a lot of spare time. I am 26 years old and I think it is time for me to establish my career. I am not content with my current job and I want to develop a career that is going to take me farther. I am 100% certain that a MBA is going to take me where I want to go. Financial security is something that for me right now is not a major issue because I am single and have no children; but one day I do want to build a family and when that day comes I want to be financially stable. Pursuing a graduate degree will help and be an important factor to my financial security in life. I also want to pursue a MBA for personal satisfaction. I have always believed that knowledge is something that makes you a better person for the society. I also want my mom to be proud, she worked hard to put me through college and now it is my turn to show her and my family I can do this on my own and I can do it right.

Importance of teamwork

Importance of teamwork 1. Introduction As organisations continue to strive towards competitive advantage and increasingly high performance standards, collaboration and team-oriented project management are increasingly providing the flexibility and innovative potential necessary to excel. Yet in spite of the dynamic characteristics of teams in practice, many organisations fail to recognise the core determinants of a team-oriented framework, instead grouping employees into non-linked, non-dependent, individually-driven models. This group-based approach is distinct from team-specific initiatives and fails to meet the rigorous determinants of dynamism and effectiveness necessary in the modern marketplace. The following sections will draw distinctions between teamwork and group work, highlighting the opportunities associated with team-driven performance. Further, several theoretical models of teamwork will be introduced, demonstrating underlying benefits of optimised team management and goal setting. Through this discussion, a framework of organisational implications will be introduced, focusing on team-generated performance and the importance of effective team outcomes in meeting organisational goals. 2. The Teamwork Paradigm In spite of their seeming interoperability, Fritz (2014:1) emphasises that the terms ‘team’ and ‘group’ hold practical distinctions when represented in the context of enterprise management. A group, in theory, represents three or more individuals who, although aligned according to similar objectives or a similar unit assignment, work and perform independently of each other to achieve organisational goals (Fritz, 2014:1). Alternatively, the definition of a team involves an alliance of three or more individuals who collaborate and work interdependently to achieve a mutual goal or objective over the course of a given project, focus, or agenda (Fritz, 2014:1). Accordingly, it is the structural segmentation of responsibilities (independent or collective) that differentiates between these two terms, creating opportunities for managers to apply appropriate solutions to resolve variable and complex organisational problems. Whilst employees may initially begin their organisational tenure as a member of a working group, it is ultimately the priority and high level objective of the leadership to stimulate functional team-working, actualising tangible, high-performing outcomes from a participative environment that are capable of supporting a broader organisational vision and agenda. Whilst group-based projects and group work solutions have been prescribed throughout a variety of educational, enterprise, and social scenarios, the distinction between individual and collaborative roles within the group work concept results in a variety of outcomes. Kwon et al. (2014:185), for example, suggest that the degree and level of collaboration is a highly variable framework, one which is defined according to the complexity of the project, the characteristics of the team itself, and the overarching objectives of the leadership. Yet, more importantly, the researchers demonstrate systematically that the roots of effective teamwork are based upon a process of competent and sustained collaboration, evading a variety of pitfalls, limitations, and challenges that arise from the individualised roots that largely characterise the group-work paradigm (Kwon et al., 2014:196). It is the ability for leaders to not only inspire employee engagement in a common goal or agenda, but collaboration within a heterogeneous, multi-functional, interdependent team that ultimately creates the necessary opportunities for maximising efficiency and stimulating higher performance outcomes over time (Hogel and Proserpio, 2004:1160). As team members continue to evolve beyond the pitfalls of group-based membership and individualised working priorities, the characteristics and capabilities of the team itself begin to emerge, providing pathways to new capabilities and programme development as members actively pursue mutual and shared goals and outcomes. 2.1 Belbin’s Team Role Theory As employees and managers strive to identify their optimal place and responsibilities within a given team-working scenario, roles and behaviours play a critical role in shaping performance outcomes and actualising group objectives. Belbin (2011:24) defines a team role as a ‘pattern of behaviour characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with another where his performance serves to facilitate the progress of the team as a whole’. For managers, this theory has distinct implications, as through identification of particular characteristics, strengths, and skill sets amongst individual team members, team performance outcomes can be predicted with relative accuracy (Business, 2011:966). Within Belbin’s (2011:24) model of team roles, Batenburg et al. (2013:903) recognise that there are three dominant role categories including action-oriented, people oriented, and thinking/problem solving-oriented under which eight distinct role behaviours can be grouped: implementer, completer/finisher, shaper, coordinator, team worker, resource investigator, monitor evaluator, and plant. Figure 1: Team Role Theory Model (Source: Batenburg et al., 2013:903) Whilst the foundations of Belbin’s (2011:24) role theory were predicated upon a tenuous balance between role assignments and team performance, Batenburg et al. (2013:904) contest that the behavioural foundations of this theory undermine considerations of skill, intellect, and experience, failing to accurately predict team-specific outcomes. Alternatively, Prichard and Stanton (1999:664) propose that the role theory framework can be used in a more pro-active, learning-oriented manner in order to assist team members in becoming aware of skills needed for successful team work, identifying capabilities which may be absent from the team at any given time, and implement avoidance strategies to resist behaviour that may not be conducive to successful team-working. 2.2 Theory X and Y Amongst the early origins of team-oriented theory, McGregor (1957:166) introduced theory X and Y as a means of explaining how individuals are motivated according to two, diametrically opposed theories (James, 64-5). The following is a brief summation of each theory as outlined by McGregor (1957:166-7): Theory X Management is responsible for organising elements of a productive enterprise Without active intervention by management, individuals would be passive and resistant to organisational needs. The average worker is indolent and works as little as possible Workers lack ambition, dislike responsibility, and prefer to be led Individuals are self-centred and indifferent to organisational needs Workers are resistant to change Workers are gullible and not inherently bright Theory Y Management is responsible for organising the elements of a productive enterprise People are not passive or resistant to organisational needs. Workers have evolved as a result of experience in the organisation Motivation, development, and responsibility are all present in individuals and can be activated Essence of management is to arrange organisational conditions and methods to allow individuals to achieve their own goals and direct individual efforts towards organisational objectives. Purpose of management is to create opportunities, release potential, remove obstacles, encourage growth, and provide guidance. The tension between these two theories is significant, as McGregor (1957:169) outlines distinctive managerial initiatives and purposes which are either control and outcome-oriented (Theory X), or are supportive, guiding, and inspirational (Theory Y). When applied to teamwork and problem-oriented scenarios, this theory as described by DalFono and Merlone (2010:424) indicates an intrinsic pursuit of equity in efforts and organisational performance, whereby inequities may potentially lead to less effort and resistance to participation. Without managerial influence, the desire for employees to excel beyond their teammates’ performance levels (e.g. due to variable skill levels, lack of similar experience, etc.) is reduced to an internal tension, the foundations of Theory X. Yet, whereby managers offer inspirational support, contribute to employee development and self-efficacy, and create a balanced framework on which to base decisions and activate effort, DalFono and Merlone (2010:424) agree with McGregor (1957:169) that motivation and performance can be strategically enhanced. 2.3 The Hawthorne Effect First described in factory operations at General Electric, the Hawthorne Effect is a ‘phenomenon whereby individual or group performance is influenced by human behaviour factors’ (Lewis et al., 2007:40). A form of summative potential, this effect represents a group/team-activated improvement in team performance which prioritises a foundation of human resource-oriented management rather than more scientific, output-based agendas (Lewis et al., 2007:40). By recognising that teamwork is a function of social interactions including both formal and informal groups and interdependencies, the Hawthorne Effect idealises humanistic pathways by which managers are able to position, affect, and sustain meaningful performance changes in organisational teams (Lewis et al., 2007:40). This effect further explains the value which the very concept of ‘teamwork’ can have on improving and sustaining organisational performance from a motivational and participation-based standpoint. As employees strive to achieve desired performance outcomes under managerial scrutiny, Patel et al. (2012:214-5) argue that justice, as a facilitative mechanism, has a direct impact on organisational identification and perception, shaping the thoughts, feelings, and actions of individuals. When positioned in social scenarios, such justice-based effects are magnified, as identity itself is rooted to the role and position within the group, affecting an individual’s feeling of self-worth (Patel et al., 2012:215). Under likely conditions of team heterogeneity, Tore-Ruiz and Aragon-Correa (2013:555) propose that team members with higher individual performance assume an important, informative role in regards to team activity and potential. Yet, within the justice-based vein of Patel et al. (2012:214) and the overarching scrutiny of the Hawthorne effect (Lewis et al., 2007:40), there is a direct correlation between scrutiny and status and performance, an effect which is inherently magnified within the teamwork setting. Whilst group work may allow individuals to operate according to independent and individualised motivations and behaviours, continuity and predictability in team performance is critical to pursuing a broader spectrum objective, orienting members towards optimal behavioural outcomes. 3. Implications and Impacts For organisational leaders, team roles, characteristics, and values represent a critical opportunity for not only achieving organisational objectives, but for targeting specific strategic goals and priorities that can result in significant developmental growth. Van De Water and Rozier (2008:499) emphasise that the underlying value of the Belbin (2011:24) model is predicated upon managerial interventions, applying pragmatic and skills-driven techniques to team composition, role assignment, and role assumption. Yet for organisations, the realisation of such idealised outcomes is oftentimes overshadowed by various dimensions of behavioural and individual interference including personality, mental abilities, values and motivations, experience, and learning practices (Van De Water and Rozier, 2008:499-500). In order to improve upon dysfunctional and ineffective team conditions, researchers such as Dietz et al. (2014:908) have undertaken to assess the roots of teamwork in practice, describing constructive and behavioural traits that yield desirable working outcomes. Through their outcome-based assessment of nursing practice and hospital administration, the researchers reveal that structural dimensions including training, communication and HRM are used to affect work process outcomes, optimising team performance and achieving desirable organisational outcomes (Dietz et al., 2014:914). One of the challenges in empirical research as evidenced by Dietz et al. (2014:914) is that situational variability and distinctive behavioural values and agendas can significantly undermine the relative effectiveness of team-based actions and organisational performance outcomes. Gressgard and Hansen (2015:167) contend that ‘learning from failures requires sharing of information and knowledge about error experiences’; however, the researchers also recognise that such ‘holistic’ organisational learning does not always manifest by chance and must be supported by leader interventions and directional supports. This form of functional knowledge exchange represents a core component of leader involvement and activism in the organisation that not only allows for intra-unit knowledge exchange, but cross-unit knowledge transfer and absorption (Gressgard and Hansen, 2015:170). Both of the Dietz et al. (2014:914) and the Gressgard and Hansen (2015:170) studies idealise team-driven environments which, although situational in practice, are characterised by several high value traits and characteristics that can be further extrapolated and explicated: Strong Leadership: Strong, effective leadership involves not only relinquishing control of team functions and decision making to the various members, but supporting key functions such as knowledge exchange through purposeful interventions and goal setting. Direction and Vision: Effective teams benefit from a strong, purposeful vision that is capable of both directing behaviours and moderating individual values and priorities. Whilst leaders maintain responsibility for perpetuating this vision over time, it is the broader, big picture agenda of the organisation which ultimately defines and sustains the vision in practice. Interdependencies and Partnerships: In order to activate shared knowledge and maximise the benefits of heterogeneous teams, interdependencies must be built into the working dynamics, creating opportunities for members to activate new understandings and competencies within the context of the broader organisational objectives. Roles, Responsibilities, and Agendas: Focusing on the distinct, yet interwoven roles of individual team members, it becomes critical for effective teams to not only assign process-oriented tasks to members of the team, but to ensure that there is sufficient clarity and directional support to guide and sustain such processes. The pursuit of effective team-working is driven by both organisational needs and employee engagement, foundations which support, direct, and sustain goal setting and agenda-specific orientation over time. Deering et al. (2011:90-1) describe several key steps for actualising such goal-oriented outcomes, focusing on leaders as a directional force that supports team composition and role assignment, allowing teams to develop functional situational awareness (shared mental model), mutual support (cross-monitoring, cross functionality), and effective communication. Through the introduction of simulated training scenarios within a real world organisational context, Deerring et al. (2011:94-5) demonstrate how effective team-working can not only be trained, but can be solidified according to key organisational objectives, establishing foundational rules and guidelines that can then be extended over the course of the working processes. Such initiatives build upon what Laal (2013:1427) view as a necessary framework of collaborative learning which is ‘based upon consensus building through cooperation by group members’. Whilst less collaborative setting involving groups may ultimately allow individuals to pursue learning and knowledge on their own, the roots of collaborative learning are driven by commonalities and goal setting that can magnify the overall effectiveness of the team-working process over time (Laal et al., 2013:1428). Whilst training and learning in the workplace are largely holistic functions of daily operations, leaders can stimulate more directional objectives by identifying and defining specific goals and expectations that can support team performance and enhance effectiveness over time. At the core of teamwork orchestration are two leading priorities: to achieve consistent, high performing outcomes and/or to innovate or develop beyond the current state of organisational performance. Hogel and Proserpio (2004:1154) propose that team member proximity (both physical and cognitive) and role assumption play a significant role in the achievement of desirable collaborative processes. Whilst the researchers focus on the relationships between team-members across co-located, virtual teams, the evidence relating to proximity supports and coordination resources is indicative of the building blocks required for effective and high performing teamwork. Specifically, Hogel and Proserpio (2004:1160) describe the role of intermediary actors (e.g. managers) as a form of cross-location communication support system, creating communication bridges for co-located employees seeking to maintain their distinctive roles within a distributed, yet goal-oriented team. The evidence, although specific to a particular form of modern enterprise, demonstrates that regardless of status or role assignments, teamwork and the actualisation of effective outcomes in real world practice, is predicated upon effective communication and sustained interpersonal relationships that, by virtue of their group focus, are distinct from more traditional group-work and group-based assignments. The distinction between group and teamwork is important for managers to recognise, as collaborative foundations and interdependencies are unlikely evolve out of group-based activities, particularly due to the outcome-oriented priorities which inhibit more participative and collective agenda setting (Bedwell et al. 2012:128). In order to improve collaborative outcomes and organisational performance, Bedwell et al. (2012:134) recognise that collaboration requires participation in joint activities, a shared or common goal, reciprocity and support, the ability to evolve, and participation by two or more social entities. Whilst the roots of collaboration are largely intuitive, the effects of such team-driven performance on organisational practices can be directly linked to improved performance and positive enterprise outcomes. Hayne and Free (2014:309) model such team-driven performance improvements within the context of risk management and organisational monitoring. By diversifying the responsibility for risk identification and assessment in daily operations across a cross-functional team, the researchers demonstrate that not only does performance improve over time, but risks and vulnerabilities are systematically reduced, providing opportunities for new working processes and more efficient resource distribution (Hayne and Frere, 2014:325). In spite of the positive interpretation of teamwork modelled by Bedwell et al. (2012:134) and further highlighted by Hayne and Frere (2014:325), the actualisation of an effective, functional team is not a simple process, and may ultimately result in significant hurdles and organisational inconsistencies. Kwon et al. (2014:185) describe complications within the ‘interprofessional collaborative process’ that emerge from deficiencies within individual ‘collaborators’, creating hurdles and mitigating the benefits of team-working. One of the most significant hurdles identified through empirical testing and surveying was inadequate or missing socio-emotional interaction between the team members, inhibiting trust and ultimately resulting in challenges for group regulation and team participation (Kwon et al., 2014:196). Such findings indicate that for teams to move beyond the individualised hurdles affecting collaboration and mitigating participation, there must be sufficient motivation, a functional gap that establishes leader interventions and organisational vision as conduits that allow teams to evolve and achieve higher states of performance. 4. Summary Whilst the concept of ‘group’ in any team is a relative given, the concept of ‘team’ is fundamentally non-interchangeable with that of ‘group’. In spite of the fact that the distinction is relatively simplistic (individual work versus collaboration), in organisational practice, actualising an effective team is much more difficult than simply assigning individuals into groups. The multi-dimensional variables impacting upon team performance, role assignment, and member behaviour are of significant importance as managers seek to evaluate and target high performing team outcomes. From personal affiliation and value-based alignment within the organisation to collaborative learning and team-driven capacity building, the factors that influence team effectiveness are a critical consideration. In spite of long-lived, industry-leading theories such as the team role theory, Theory X Y, or the Hawthorne Effect, it is difficult to establish a consensus in regards to the roots of effective team membership, and by default, effective team-working. Individuals can be effective members of groups and fulfil their role according to their own underlying agendas; however, in order for organisations to truly activate performance and maximise their potential, a more functional, dynamic team environment is necessary. It is through the layered engagement of multi-dimensional skill sets and competencies that managers are not only able to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of their teams, but are able to identify collaborative strengths and collective advantages that might otherwise remain obscured by individual priorities and actions. References Batenburg, R., Van Walbeek, W.V., Der Maur, W.I. (2013) ‘Belbin Role Diversity and Team Performance: Is There a Relationship?’ Journal of Management Development, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 901-913. Bedwell, W.L., Wildman, J.L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W.S., Salas, E. (2012) ‘Collaboration at Work: An Integrative Multilevel Conceptualization.’ Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 128-145. Belbin, R.M. (2011) Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann, 2nd Edition. Business. (2011) Business: The Ultimate Resource. London: AC Black Publishers, 3rd Edition. Dal Forno, A., Merlone, U. (2010) ‘Effort Dynamics in Supervised Work Groups.’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 75, pp. 413-425. Deering, S., Johnston, L.C., Colacchio, K. (2011) ‘Multidisciplinary Teamwork and Communication Training.’ Seminars in Perinatology, pp. 89-96. Diez, A.S., Pronovost, P.J., Mendez-Tellez, P.A., Wyskiel, R., Marsteller, J.A., Thompson, D.A., Rosen, M.A. (2014) ‘A Systematic Review of Teamwork in the Intensive Care Unit: What Do We Know About Teamwork, Team Tasks, and Improvement Strategies?’ Journal of Critical Care, Vol. 29, pp. 908-914. Fritz, R. (2014) ‘Differences Between Group Work and Team Work.’ Chron, Small Business, Available At: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-group-work-team-work-11004.html . Accessed 6th October, 2014. Greerssgard, L.J., Hansen, K. (2015) ‘Knowledge Exchange and Learning from Failures in Distributed Environments: The Role of Contractor Relationship Management and Work Characteristics.’ Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 133, pp. 167-175. Hayne, C., Free, C. (2014) ‘Hybridized Professional Groups and Institutional Work: COSO and the Rise of Enterprise Risk Management.’ Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 39, pp. 309-330. Hoegl, M., Proserpio, L. (2004) ‘Team Member Proximity and Teamwork in Innovative Projects.’ Research Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 1153-1165. James, D. (1999) Introduction to Team and Personal Development. London: Chartered Institute of Bankers. Kwon, K., Liu, Y.H., Johnson, L.S.P. (2014) ‘Group Regulation and Social-Emotional Interactions Observed in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: Comparison Between Good vs Poor Collaborators.’ Computers and Education, Vol. 78, pp. 185-200. Laal, M., Naseri, A.S., Laal, M., Kermanshahi, Z.K. (2013) ‘What Do We Achieve from Learning in Collaboration?’ Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 93, pp. 1427-1432. Lewis, P.S., Goodman, S., Fandt, P., Michlitsch, J. (2007) Management: Challenges for Tomorrow’s Leaders. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western, 5th Edition. McGregor, D.M. (1957) ‘The Human Side of Enterprise.’ Management Review, pp. 41-49. Patel, C., Budhwar, P., Varma, A. (2012) ‘Overall Justice, Work Group Identification and Work Outcomes: Test of Moderated Mediation Process.’ Journal of World Business, Vol. 47, pp. 213-222. Prichard, J.S., Stanton, N.A. (1999) ‘Testing Belbin’s Team Role Theory of Effective Groups.’ The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 652-665. Torre-Ruiz, J.M.D., Aragon-Correa, J.A. (2013) ‘Interdependence Between Best Team Members and their Teammates.’ International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 552-567. Van de Water, H., Ahaus, K., Rozier, R. (2008) ‘Team Roles, Team Balance, and Performance.’ Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 499-512.

Generational Differences in the Workforce

Generational Differences in the Workforce Workforce in todays organisations fall into four broad categories and it has been well established that individuals growing up in different times has affected their values, behaviours and viewpoints. These generational differences present a significant challenge for current organisations. This topic of Generational differences at work place has been immensely researched over the past decade. There has been a spawning number of consulting reports, magazine articles, academic literature produced and replicated in-order to conclude these differences in perceived and actual values between four generations of workforce (Lyons, Urick, Kuron, Schweitzer, 2015). Costanza Finkelstein (2015) reported that the evidence presented in majority of research about this topic is controversial and lacks the depth and rigor (Costanza Finkelstein, 2015). An appraisal of vast majority of systematic and critical reviews provide documented evidence that the perceived differences across the generations might exist, but do these generational cohorts actually have different wishes in a work context or is it perceived commonly held biases that needs to be investigated empirically (Lyons et al., 2015). This question has been addressed in a research conducted by (Lester, Standifer, Schultz, Windsor, 2012) in the article titled as Actual Verses Perceived Generational Differences at Work; An empirical Examination. (Lester et al., 2012) have discussed generational differences in detail, with emphasis on why the nature of these values may lead to the generational misconceptions and its impact on the workplaces. This study thus provides an articulate discussion about the perceived and actual differences in the organisations with multigenerational workforce and its impact on workplace. This summary briefing will share the salient features of the article by (Lester et al., 2012) and will provide the insight of this research paper concluding with application of the key concepts to my current workplace. Literature Review Generational cohort theory established by Inglehart (1997) merely states that the behaviour and values of the generations born in the same era are shaped by the internal and external events of that era. The generations who are affected by the comparable issues, impacted by the same events and share similar experiences are likely to have similar underlying work values. According to (Lester et al., 2012) currently there are four different generational cohorts in the American workforce; Traditionalists, Boomers, Generation X and Generation X based on the era they were born. This board categorization has been reasoned throughout the literature, traditionalist include individuals born prior to 1946, boomers between 1946 and 1964, Generation X between 1965 and 1981 and Generation Y between 1981 and 2000. Literature suggests that these generational cohorts possess a unique set of distinctive and unique characteristics that distinguish their workplace tendencies (Hill Stephens, 2003). This study only includes three generational cohorts due to the reason Traditionalists (65 years of age) is commonly viewed as the benchmark age for the retirement (Lester et al., 2012). Boomers This generational cohort is viewed as consensus seekers, who are competitive micromanagers and possess a moderate level of disrespect for authority. Preference of Face-to-face interaction and conventional mail are other characteristics of this generational cohort, additionally they are presumed to open in using online tools are resources in their work (Reynolds et al., 2008, cited in Lester et al., 2012, p. 342). Generation X This generational cohort is viewed as sceptical individuals who prefer relatively informal work climate with weaker work ethics. They crave autonomy, challenge authority and believe in work-life balance, where personal activity takes priority. Additionally, they prefer technology based interactions in comparison to face -to-face meetings and value direct feedback form the leaders (Twenge., 2010; Reynolds et al., 2008, cited in Lester et al., 2012, p342). Generation X This generational cohort is viewed as technology driven, multitasking individuals who prefer working with peers in a team oriented work environment. They strongly value fast paced technological interactions and regard work-life balance important and where engagement with friends and family take priority over work commitments (Sessa et al., 2007; Steele Gordon, 2006; Crumpacker Crumpacker, 2007; Myers Sadaghiani, 2010, cited in Lester et al., 2012, p342). The literature review suggested although there are many assumptions and perceptions for each of the generational cohort but very little empirical evidence exists to substantiate these differences (Twenge, 2010). Lester et al. (2012) selected 15 specific aspects of ones work context; and the reasoning was based on the generational cohort theory. They also expected greatest actual disparity in generational preferences with respect to technology; e-mail communication; social media; technology; formal authority and fun-at-work. On the basis of generational cohort theory, the generations are likely to differ across generational lines in technological means of communication. This is rational on the basis that Boomers generation grew up without the significant exposure to the technology compared to Generation X. The other end of the spectrum is Generation Y who have been exposed to digital world throughout their entire lives; would be expected to place highest value on technology (Lester et al., 2012). The generational theory also suggests that when Boomers entered workforce communicating was predominantly by phone, face-to-face and through traditional mail; by the time Generation X cohort joined employment early use of internet and email had arrived. However, the communication for Generation X has been drastically changed by social media like (Facebook, Twitter Texting etc.). Another area of difference between the generation cohorts will be the preference regarding work culture due to ones view of formal authority and its association with leadership (Crampton Hodge, 2007., cited in Lester et al.,2012). On the other hand, perceived differences in what generational cohorts desire in their work context are expected in far greater number. Firstly, from the attribution theory perspective that proposes in order to understand the cause of our or someone else human behaviour, individuals have tendency to link these traits to internal or external causes rather than assuming the behaviours are random in nature (Bell, 2008). Due to this reason it will not be surprising to see generational cohorts have different perception of work values across with respect to each generation lines (Buss, 1978). According to Lester et al (2012) generational stereotyping is another reason for expected perceptual differences across three generational cohorts in the study. Immense research in the area of negative and positive stereotyping exit in literature. No statistical significant differences exist yet age stereotyping exist in all organisations with multigenerational workforce. Literature suggests older employees are more likely to contemplate they have stronger work ethics then younger employees of an organisation and younger employees are likely to think they are better at multi-tasking and creativity compared to older employees (Blauth, McDaniel, Perrin, Perrin, 2011). Additionally, authors suggest that in expecting generational value differences regarding technology, views of authority, communication and work culture, these actual value differences will influence perceived generational differences (Lester et al., 2012, p344). Hypothesis 1 Actual generational differences exist regarding the extent to which technology, face-to-face communication, e-mail communication, social media, formal authority and fun-at-work are valued (Lester et al., 2012, p 344). Hypothesis 2 There are more perceived value differences between generations than actual value differences (Lester et al., 2012, p 344). Methods This study was conducted in United States from a Midwestern organisation. The sample size was 466, with a response received form 263 employees. Female participants formed 84% of the workforce with 16% being male. Participants ranged from 17 to 65 years of age with 4 % having a graduate degree, 30% with bachelors degree, 19% 2-year associate degree, 30% had attend some college and 17% reported of having completed high school. The data was gathered though online survey using a 6-point Likert-type scale (Lester et al., 2012). Measures Participants were placed in the four generational categories on the basis of their age where 62 categorised as Generation Y, 102 Boomers and 99 Generation Y respectively. Three or four participants fell into Traditionalist but were included into Boomers category due to their small number (Lester et al., 2012). Participants were asked about the how they personally valued already selected 15 different items (table 1) that could represent their work content I Value and then they were asked to rate the same items based on the extent to which they believed each if the three generations valued the items (Lester et al., 2012). Table 1 (15 specific aspects of ones work context and I value measure grouping Table 1. I Value Measure Groupings Engagement Nature of Job Technology Structure Teamwork Autonomy Technology Formal authority Face-to-face communication Security E-mail communication Structure Participation Professional Social media Continuous learning Flexible Fun at work Recognition (Lester et al., 2012, p346). Results Multivariate statistical analysis was conducted to test the relationship between generational designation and 15 I Value items. Control variables of gender, educational level, ethnicity and generational design were entered as fixed factors and 15 I Value items were entered as dependent variables. Table 2. Hypothesis 1: Actual Differences Between Generations on I Value Items Mean Value Generation Y Generation X Boomers Differencea Interpretation E-mail communication 4.90 4.19 0.71** Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Social media 3.90 2.74 1.16*** Generation Y reports valuing it more than Generation X reports valuing it 3.90 2.40 1.50*** Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Fun at work 5.48 4.79 0.69** Generation Y reports valuing it more than Generation X reports valuing it 5.48 4.82 0.66** Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Continuous learning 5.33 4.82 0.51* Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Professionalism 5.06 5.43 0.38* Boomers report valuing it more than Generation X reports valuing it a. The values represent absolute difference mean scores. *p à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ .05. **p à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ .01. ***p à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ .001 (Lester et al., 2012, p347). References Bell, E. E. (2008). Exploring employee perception of the work environment along generational lines. Performance Improvement, 47(9), 35-45. Blauth, C., McDaniel, J., Perrin, C., Perrin, P. (2011). Age-based stereotypes: Silent killer of collaboration and productivity. No. M01360). Tampa: AchieveGlobal. Buss, A. R. (1978). Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1311. Costanza, D. P., Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(03), 308-323. Hill, R. P., Stephens, D. L. (2003). The compassionate organization in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 32(4), 331-341. Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived generational differences at work an empirical examination. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354. Lyons, S., Urick, M., Kuron, L., Schweitzer, L. (2015). Generational Differences in the Workplace: There Is Complexity Beyond the Stereotypes. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(03), 346-356. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210.