For any organization to have high levels of efficiency, it is very important to organize any job in an organization around the groups since it has very many advantages rather than giving a job to an individual. Some of the reasons that justify this are that the group members of any job get to learn from each other. This makes them better their skills and way of thinking. The workforce of a company also becomes greater (Geoffrey, 2001). The force of people working in a group is stronger than when one person is working alone. When people are working together as a team, they get to work harder and faster than an individual. This is so because it gives the people a sense of belonging to each other and hence the need to achieve. This system also allows for cross-training that is flexible. If a new skill is to be taught to the group members, it is cheaper and fast to teach or instruct a group than when you are explaining only to one person, which is time-consuming, and they may not understand the skill so well. If employees working at the same level are grouped together, they can have the courage to ask questions, unlike when one is alone. There is an increase in synergy when employees work in a group (Robins, 2004). The combination of ideas and each member’s personal abilities give synergy a greater opportunity to develop. In these groups, the members may get to learn new ways of doing things. This may save the organization a lot of resources.
In these groups, members have the opportunity to talk about other issues outside work. This may help to solve some problems which make their colleagues perform poorly at work. The team members have better communication channels. Man has always been a social animal. Instead of individuals looking for time to talk and socialize, the formation of these groups allows them to do so. They can get to socialize, give each other support when tackling difficult tasks. These groups arose the need for social facilitation, and this makes cooperation between the group members to be greater since it increases social cohesion or togetherness (Makin et al.,1996).
In decision making, a team has a greater comprehension of any decision that they make. This makes them accept these decisions more than if they were made individually. Whatever the outcome of these decisions, they tend to be accepted universally since they had been debated upon by the group members who make up the organization. This makes them accept any responsibility that comes with these decisions since it was their own thinking and choice. This increases the efficiency and performance of an organization to increase tremendously.
Group work allows the workflow to be interdependent. This is of great benefit to most members within an organization since they can be able to do different jobs or increase job autonomy. This is because they have been able to learn different skills and how to handle different jobs at different levels. As time goes by, the commitment of individual group members to the group may increase. This results in attendance hence performance. Group design makes feedback between the group members to be possible, and the work becomes of a more significant value in their lives. This system favours those who have families and other responsibilities since they can cover for each other due to greater autonomy.
Everyone in an organization has special skills and capabilities. These people also have individual differences like qualifications and personality, which should be fully accounted for when taking workers into a certain group or pool. Age should also be considered since every job requires a certain volume of work to be done, and that means extra energy (Robins, 2004).
The tasks should be individually identified and the power that a worker has to complete a task. The significance of the task should also be considered. One should look at the level at which a task will influence the lives of other people. This comes in, especially in career growth and specialization. If, for instance, a worker has skills in IT and he is assigned the job of a customer care attendant, the latter has little or no significance to his life. The autonomy of the job should also be looked at to see if a worker has some freedom to make certain important decisions concerning that job. This makes them feel more in control and work hard to complete a task rather than waiting at a certain point for orders from above. Feedback should also be considered to see if there is correct data about the performance of a worker and his effectiveness.
Other factors that need to be looked into are if a worker has knowledge and skills for the job that he will be assigned. It is easier for a person to work in a field that he is more knowledgeable about than where he knows little or nothing. This boosts one’s confidence and courage and increases efficiency and performance(Thomsons, 2002).
In his book, Organizational and Psychological Contract, Robins talks about the growing need for some strength. Each person is unique in his want for development in a job. This is in accordance with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. People who tend to be in the upper level may get to look for creating satisfaction in a job rather than people in the lower hierarchy. In the upper level, the people who are there may find that a job demeans their authority or makes them happy. This may make one decline a task or accept that job (Robins, 2004).
There is also a contextual factor that may lead to satisfaction when a worker is doing a certain job. These factors include the salary scale that one needs to be in or the benefits that come with that job that one has to be given. If one is not satisfied with the benefits of a job, he may decline the terms of service. The organisational climate needs to be taken into consideration. This greatly contributes to the social status of a worker in a company. If he feels socially alienated by his peers, he may leave the job. This brings us to the support that every worker needs at his workplace. He should feel some social contact with his friends, which will lead to an increase in synergy, communication and performance. Every worker needs to be part of a team and needs to feel part of each other. This will make it easy for the workers to approach each other in case of problems at the workplace. This will, in turn, have a great effect on the sense of belonging and the identity of every worker.
After closely examining the design of jobs around groups, I have come to disfavour the system since it allows for collective responsibility. Everyone should be allowed to carry his/ her own undertakings. Group work inhibits a lot of potential from the group members, like creativity and decision making. There are leaders in every group who are interested in having their own way through everything. This may lead to ignoring the smaller voices, which may save an organization a big deal. This system also doe not give way to the performance appraisal system. The joyriders will get free promotions as much they did nothing. This may breed a lot of conflict, confusion and hate in an organization since most people got what they do not deserve.
The groups may bring a lot of competition and conflict within themselves. In the case of mixing the workers, there may be a lack of incompatibility, communication problems, feeling of superiority if your group performed better in jobs where the essential thing is continuity. This, in turn, may lower a company’s efficiency and performance, and everyone stands to lose. I support the fact that everyone should do their own job as an individual and avoid collective designs like groups.
References
Geoffrey Lightfoot, Paulo Amaral. (2004). Representing Organization: Knowledge, Management and the Information Age. OUP, 204.
Makin, Peter, Cary L. Cooper, Charles Cox. (1996). Organizations and the Psychological Contract: Managing People at Work. British Psychological Society, Blackwell Publishing.416.
Robbins, P. Stephen. (2004). Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, 649.
Thompson, L. Leigh. (2002). The Social Psychology of Organizational Behavior: Key Readings. Psychology Press, 441.