Multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship biography

Introduction

Annotated bibliography is used to account for a study on a particular topic. It further gives a detailed summary of every source and an analysis of the material’s relevance. The importance of a bibliography is based on the selection of sources of reference. In addition, it entails a good definition of the scope of the study, which helps in making an accurate judgment on the type of data to include in annotation. This article involves an analysis of various authors’ contribution on leadership and motivation. Various facts have been looked into and the criticism over the same. The major reason of coming up with this work is to illustrate the importance of leadership and motivation in the overall performance of the organization.

These authors study a broader approach of group performance in an organization. This entails the significance of team within the organization. They state that a group’s success largely depend on the social cohesion within an organization’s environment. They further argue that the social unity of a group determines how well they shall perform in an organization other than being an end result of group performance. While other scholars view task unity as a great determinant of group performance, Chang and Bordia view the social unity as the greatest determinant of a group future existence and effectiveness (Chang& Bordia2001).

This article further defines the major factors concerning the close relationship between cohesion and effective performance within an organization. These authors emphasize on the importance of consistent description and assessment of group unity and their performance. The authors further aims at scrutinizing how effective performance evolves from a sense of unity of a group of workforce within an organization. These authors illustrate that the success of the organization depends on the job inter relationships in a work place. They try to bring out the significance of relating various tasks towards the achievement of an organization’s strategic goals. They further state the relationship between tasks interdependence and the satisfaction of a team. This results in job satisfaction at the work place thus successful organization.

There is a close relationship between a task complexity and a team composition; these are positive determinants of organization’s performance (Chang& Bordia2001). These findings however have a given degree of failure this is because an organization’s success may not solely depend on group relationship or rather a team satisfaction in a particular firm. According to Maslow hierarchical theory, there are different levels of individual motivation and the need to satisfy them before moving to the next level. This therefore contradict the need for group enhancement in an organization since needs vary from one individual to the other. An unsatisfied individual employee may not perform effectively despite belongingness to a particular group within an organization. This therefore poses a need to concentrate on individual’s motivation towards the success of an organization other than giving much attention to the group satisfaction.

Additionally, irrespective of the need for task interdependence, a given degree of centralization is also suitable for the success of an organization. Task interdependence for instance, may lead to repetition of various activities thus dragging an organization’s performance. Further, a failure in one system or line of performance may lead to a stand still within the organization. This may be brought about by task interdependence thus one process highly depending on another. There are varieties of organizational factors that need to be brought together for a successful organization. These may include individual motivation, training, employee appraisal among others (Chang& Bordia2001).

Content theories of motivation

Various authors define content theory as a model of studying the art of employee satisfaction within the workplace. These theorists include; Maslow who recognizes human needs as being hierarchical in nature thus must be satisfied in a respective manner. Alderfer states in his motivation theory that there are three major aspects of aspects of motivation. These are; existence, relatedness and the art of growth. According to Herzberg, there are two basic classifications of human needs these are the satisfiers and non satisfiers (Adair, 2007). He states that not all factors are human motivators, thus some are perceived by the individual employees as basics in an organization and thus do not motivate them. These are also called hygiene factors for instance pay. He states that the key motivators include factors like promotions and recognition.

Finally, Mc Clelland also looks into motivation as entailing individuals’ need for power within an organization, affiliation and success. These different authors thus have different perceptions on the art and various level of motivation. This article tends to test the relevance of different motivation theories in a given organization. This highlights the fact that similar factors do not motivate individuals at the same period and that there are various kinds of motivators. This ranges from the study of operational to top management level employees. The nature of theories indicates that there is a need to understand individual employees in order to accord the right motivation measures. The content theories therefore illustrate that motivators range from individuals depending on culture, gender and the type of industry among others.

Criticism of content theories

The content theory scholars believe that individual employees can be successfully motivated and this, they believe have a positive impact on organization’s performance. Certain scholars who believe that individuals may not be satisfied strictly by the factors falling under content theory however have disapproved these. For instance, Mc Gregor’s theory X suggests that employees should be threatened in order to motivate them for better performance. This he says is because human beings are naturally lazy, inactive and un-ambitious. Other studies suggest that people are not permanently satisfied in a given position of work thus criticizing the fact that they may be motivated by satisfying their needs (Adair, 2007).

Conclusion

From these articles, various authors believe in various attributes of employee motivation, which are geared towards an organization’s success. In the first case for instance, the management is believed to enhance task interdependence and group motivation towards the achievement of organizational goals. This, the theorists believe that would definitely result in an organization’s success. The content theories advocates for individual’s motivation (Adair, 2007). These scholars believe that understanding an employee’s personal needs is the key factor towards the achievement of organizational goals. They further suggest that needs vary from one individual to the other and that people get motivated at different point of times.

However, there are other essential factors contributing to an organization’s performance other than the motivation of individuals. This is based on non-human factors for instance materials and machines. Their efficiency tends to rely on the type of technology integrated with performance level of human factors. Thus, to achieve better performance within an organization, there is a need to promote human factor within the work place accompanied by reliable working facilities. Some scholars believe that the essence of motivation is also based on the ability to supply individuals’ variety needs. This however may not last for a longer period (Adair, 2007).

Reference

Chang, A. & Bordia, P. (2001) A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion-Group
Performance Relationship, Small Group Research.
http://sgr. sagepub. com/content/32/4/379. abstract
Adair, J. (2007) Leadership and motivation: the fifty-fifty rule and the eight key principles of
motivating others. New York: Kogan Page Publishers.