Introduction
It is impossible to underestimate the importance of both voluntary and involuntary groups in societal life and, more specifically, in establishing its structure. However, the former type seems more advantageous for promoting collective interests, whereas the latter is more effective in addressing issues on an individual level (Mohita, n.d.). From this perspective, involuntary groups are better for guaranteeing personal well-being, whereas voluntary associations seem more productive in reaching global targets. It means the formation of one or another type of group should be guided by their intentions and the scope of their plans. Hence, my attitudes towards these two kinds of entities differ. Their creation is conditional upon the presence of varying aims and the effects on specific people or communities while relying on particular values and stability or flexibility of structure and activity in general.
Goals
The first aspect explaining my views on voluntary and involuntary groups is the way they set goals and perform tasks to achieve them. From my standpoint, these processes, supporting the formation of these societal organizations, are explicitly dependent on the initial motives of their members. However, in the case of voluntary entities, the objectives set during the period of their formation are more accurate since, in contrast to involuntary cooperation, their emergence is less spontaneous (Mohita, n.d.). This provision means that the objectives elaborated by these communities are characterized by greater precision, whereas those of involuntary groups might be conflicting with one another. Hence, the creation of the latter is subject to biased perceptions of individuals, whereas the former is more objective in nature.
Values
The second circumstance, allowing to distinguish voluntary and involuntary groups at the stage of their formation, is the moral underpinning of this process. In other words, the values laid based on these organizations vary, and this difference explains my attitudes toward them. In this situation, the comparison of the mentioned aspects in these two types of entities shows that the voluntary ones guarantee greater awareness of their members in this regard (Mohita, n.d.). In contrast to them, involuntary groups might appreciate their shared values; however, they are unlikely to serve as the precondition for their emergence. This fact reflects the priorities of these kinds of communities, which should be taken into account when developing them.
Flexibility vs. Stability
The third condition, which contributes to my idea of distinguishing voluntary and involuntary groups in the process of their creation, is the preference for either flexibility or stability. Thus, the latter type tends to be more stable because its structure cannot be easily modified, and the members do not have any power over the established hierarchy. In turn, the former might be more optimal from the perspective of readjusting efforts in the case of an emergency, for example, because the authority is distributed about practicality (Mohita, n.d.). In this way, the final factor, which supports my varying attitudes towards the foundation of these organizations, is their respective adaptability to the evolving conditions of the environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the main characteristics of voluntary and involuntary groups during their formation contribute to my particular opinion on their processes. It is based on the methods for setting goals for their creation, developing several values underpinning the most critical initiatives, and adopting either a flexible or a stable approach to their activity. Thus, the discussed features explain why the attitudes towards the functioning of these entities vary accordingly.
Reference
Mohita, N. (n.d.). Voluntary organizations: Important objectives and functions. Your Article Library. Web.