Behavior and performance of the individual


A group is defined by Ivancevich et Al ( 2008 ) as “ two or more persons interacting with each other to carry through a common end ” . Groups are of import facet of work form of an organisation ( Mullins 2002 ) and a portion of modern life ( Ivancevich et al 2008 ) . A group can be formal or informal ( Armstrong 2009 ) . Informal groups harmonizing to Newstrom ( 2007:277 ) “ Are established by the organisation and hold a public individuality and end to accomplish while formal groups emerge on the sense of common involvement, propinquity and friendly relationship ” . Informal groups are set up by the organisation in other to accomplish organisational ends while formal groups are set up by persons for the intent of fulfilling the demands of its members ( Armstrong 2009 ) . The group used for the intent of this survey is the formal groups. This survey will analyse the impact the group has on the person, factors impacting the behaviour of the person, human dealingss theory and the factors impacting the behaviour and public presentation of the person in the group.


The public presentation of a group depends on how good its members engage in communicating with each other or interacts with each other and besides on how the single learns in the group ( Mullins 2002 ) . Mullins ( 2002:465 ) argues that “ how people behave and perform as members of a group is every bit of import as their behaviour or public presentation as persons ” . Usually, deficiency of interaction between the person and members of the group will hold consequence on the public presentation of the group every bit good as the person in the group and consequence to deficiency of satisfaction for the person ( Mullins 2002 ) . It is believed that the group generates better thoughts than the person does, by pulling resources from single members of the group ( brainstorming ) , the group thereby brings in more thoughts and input into determination procedure than a individual individual can ( Robbins 2001 ) .

This text is NOT unique.

Don't plagiarize, get content from our essay writers!
Order now

In one of my experiences in a group I learnt that groups can be honoring to the person because an person can really larn from other members of the group. I joined a ornament group in my church and we were told to adorn the church for a plan, we all had our thoughts on how we want the ornament to look like but alternatively of prosecuting personal ends we brought our thoughts together and we came up with a better thought and I besides learnt things I did non cognize before, besides I found the experience challenging because I had to believe beyond what I know in other to be able to lend but at the terminal I left with more cognition than I went in with.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

It is besides believed ; nevertheless, that group thoughts can impede originative thought, in other words, persons will disregard their thought in other to conform to the thought of the group ( Mullins 2002 ) . For illustration, as a member of a group of four in one of my categories in Salford University, we were asked to work out a peculiar inquiry, we were different people with different beliefs, attitudes, perceptual experience, civilization and behaviour, nevertheless, three out of four were in understanding but one peculiar individual in the group had a different thought from what the remainder of us had and was seeking so difficult to convert us which was impossible because it was one against three, in other to avoid struggle the person had to disregard the thought and hold with that of the group.

Groups bind the person and members of the group in togetherness and in other to be in togetherness, persons have to see themselves as members of the group and non insulate themselves in other for them to accomplish the end of the group and besides to run into their demands ( Robbins 2001 ) . Huczynski and Buchanan ( 2007 ) discussed the work of Tayfel and Tunner ( 1986 ) who argued that “ every bit long as persons see themselves as more of import than the group the group can non work efficaciously ” . However, It is believed that persons have different demands or grounds for connection or been in a group and it can be the demand to carry through societal demands, achieve group ends or to deduce greater economic benefits or for societal security grounds, which is believed that groups can function as a medium of run intoing these demands of the person ( Ivancevich et al 2008 ) and in other to stay a member of the group and to run into these demands the person must put aside their personal end to accomplish the group ‘s end ( Newstrom 2007 ) .


There are different types of ways of explicating the behaviour of the person in a group ; they are Perception, Attribution, Orientation, Role and branded reason ( Armstrong 2009 ) .

Percept is one manner of explicating the behaviour of an person in a group. Perception harmonizing to Maund ( 2001: pg 444 ) is “ the procedure by which persons interpret centripetal feeling so that they can delegate intending to it ” . Perception is when an single gives significance or interprets the things go oning around them and people tend to comprehend state of affairs that satisfies demands, emotions, attitudes or their ego construct ( Ivancevich et al 2008 ) . Members of a group can see the same thing or be in the same state of affairs but their reading of the state of affairs will be different from each other based on how they see it ( Mullins 2007 ) .

Attribution harmonizing to Luthans ( 2002:197 ) refers to “ how people explains the cause of another ‘s or their behaviour ” . Attribution can be the manner people interpret the state of affairs they are in ( Armstrong 2009 ) . Attribution can take to conflict in a group because the manner one individual see things ( perceptual experience ) may non be the same manner another sees the same thing ( Armstrong 2009 ) . While Orientation can be said to be an persons attempt to do sense of life which can be different from that of the group ( Armstrong 2009 ) .

Role is the portion played by the person in caring out their responsibilities ( Armstrong 2009 ) . There is a peculiar function expected from the members of the group one time they have lived to the outlook of the function so it is believed they have performed their function successfully and it is believed that this function shapes the persons behaviour ( Armstrong 2009 ) . While branded reason can be said to be the ways persons understands how complicated the state of affairs they are in is and their reaction to the state of affairs limits the manner they behave rationally ( Armstrong 2009 ) .

Huczynski and Buchanan ( 2005:279 ) discourse the work of Marion Hampton ( 1999 ) who argues that “ groups are seen as taking over the persons head, dejecting intelligence, extinguishing moral duty and coercing conformance, they can do their members a great trade of agony and desperation and can perpetuate Acts of the Apostless of inhuman treatment ” . There are assorted factors impacting the person in the group, But before explicating that we are traveling to analyse a theory that explains what consequence a group has on the person.

HAWTHORNE ‘S THEORY ( Human dealingss attack )

The theory that explains the consequence of groups on the person ‘s behaviour and public presentation is the Hawthorne experiment of the human dealingss theory written by Elton Moyo ( Mullins 2002 ) . The experiment is called the bank wiring observation room experiment ; the experiment was carried out on 14 work forces who were organized into three subgroups which contained three wires, a supervisor and an inspector that moved around the group ( Moorhead and Griffin 1995 ) . After the survey there were two major findings ;

  1. The degree of interaction that was observed among the work forces showed the being of informal groups within the three groups and,
  2. It was besides revealed that these groups develop norms or regulations that guides behaviour and besides set constructions to implement the regulations ( Moorhead and Griffin 1995 )

The hawthorns researcher found that the group established a degree of end product for its members ( Mullins 2002 ) . They found out that the group did non bring forth up to what they are capable of bring forthing ; they produced below their capableness which had consequence on their earning because their end product was low ( Moor caput and Griffin 1995 ) . The group produced a specific degree of end product for its members which are the merely recognized degree of production, in other to be accepted the person has to decelerate down production when acquiring near to the recognized degree of production in other non to over green goods ( Moorhead and Griffin 1995 ) .

Moorhead and Griffin ( 1995 ) discourse the work of Roethlisberger and Dickson ( 1939 ) who points out that “ The societal organisation of the bank wirers performed a twofold map which is to protect the group from internal injudiciousnesss and to protect the group from outside intervention ” . Moorhead and Griffin ( 1995 ) besides points out that about all the activities carried out by the group can be said to be a agency of commanding the behaviour of its members. The research shows that equal force per unit area has more consequence on the person than things that may promote the person and forces of control or orders from direction, persons would instead make things required by the group than making things that would promote or honor their actions ( Mullins 2002 ) . This theory shows how on the job in a group can be both disputing an rewarding for the persons which leads us to the factors impacting the public presentation and behaviour of the person in the group.


Group norms

Norms harmonizing to Greenberg and Baron ( 2008 ) can be defined as “ the by and large agreed upon informal regulations that guides the behaviour of the members in a group ” . Norms influence group behaviour and refer to what should be done and besides represents value judgement and appropriate behaviour in societal state of affairss ( Psyblog 2010 ) . Norms are of great importance to groups in commanding behaviour and in mensurating public presentation ( Hanh 2007 ) . Groups have norms that are set to steer member ‘s behaviour ( Greenberg and Baron 2008 ) and besides to cut down ambiguity in footings of behaviour that are of importance to the group ( Rollinson 2005 ) . Norms are set up in groups which the person must conform with and groups have ways of doing the single conform to such norms ( Rollinson 2005 ) . Norms keeps the group working as a system alternatively of as a aggregation of persons and members of the group come together to accomplish a common end alternatively of pursing single groups ( Hanh 2007 ) . Groups do non put regulations or norm for every state of affairs but merely set regulations for state of affairss that are of importance to the members of the group which could be in relation to their occupation or how they communicate with each other or with others outside the group ( Hanh 2007 ) .

Group norms makes life predictable, persons know what is expected of them, cognize their functions and how much clip to pass in the executing of their occupation, know the values and beliefs and the image of the group, and subscribe to the norms of the group ( Rollinson 2005 ) . Norms are normally assessed to cognize if group members are interacting with each other which can be honoring and which gives the persons a sense of belonging ( Heathfield 2010 ) . Group members come together to develop the group norms which gives the person a feeling of belonging, sense of individuality and feelings of security because they were portion of the devising of the regulations ( Brooks 2005 ) . Norms are believed to be of importance because some members may harm the undertaking or the success of the group with their behaviour or action accidentally but if there is agreed upon model of interaction, misinterpretations and negative struggles in the group can be prevented ( Heathfield 2010 ) .

However, group norms can hold negative consequence on the person ( Armstrong 2009 ) . Harmonizing to Psyblog ( 2010 ) who argues that “ groups seldom come up with great thoughts because the person in them are strongly shaped by group norms and the regulations of what people are and how they must act ” it is believed that alterations are difficult to descry unless they are carefully measured, persons deny their ain beliefs, thoughts and senses merely to conform with the groups even if they are incorrect ( Psyblog 2010 ) .it is believed that, Norms serves as a signifier of restraint to the persons, it hinders them from believing freely because they would non desire to believe outside the group norms or the group ‘s manner of making things, persons can non prosecute their personal end, can non see things from their point of position because it might collide with the ends of the group ( Psyblog 2010 ) .

Social Support

Social support harmonizing to Dalgard ( 2009 ) is “ having aid from other people when in demand of aid ” . An single can have support among groups of people who have a similar job to what they have and in their relationship with others be it their household or friends ( Curtis 2009 ) . Curtis ( 2009 ) argues that ” if you have a support web you will non experience as entirely ; you will larn new ways to cover with your job and may seek harder to get the better of it ” . Group members can function as as a beginning of support, advice and encouragement to an single facing any trouble and besides the person can be a beginning of support to the group ( Curtis 2009 ) .

Persons in a group can profit from the members of the group while members who are non portion of the group can non bask such benefits, holding friends to speak with, to derive penetration from, to listen to during times of demand or borrow money from, all this are signifiers of support ( Scott 2007 ) . Social support makes the single safe and gives them a feeling of being loved and cared for ( Rollinson 2005 ) . In one of my experience when I was composing my concluding thesis for my unmarried man grade, I wrote on the social support for the aged people in my community and I had the privilege working with the aged people in that community and I found out that most of them lack societal support from their household and friends, in other to experience loved, experience secure or have a feeling that they belong they had to fall in a group with the believe that the group would be able to run into their demands.

Peer Pressure

Peer force per unit area is another factor that has consequence on the behaviour of the person in the group. Peer force per unit area is when other people impose force per unit area on a individual ( Nemours 2010 ) . Peers have influence over others, by listening to other people a individual learns from them and they besides learn from the person ( Nemours 2010 ) . Some persons normally join groups in other to suit in, so in other to suit in the person goes along with the thought of the group and sets aside their thought and travel along with the group ‘s thought to avoid being bullied by the other members of the group ( Nemours 2010 ) . However, peer force per unit area can hold a positive impact on the person because it can force the person into making the things they have no bravery of making or speaking the person out of making things that ‘s non in their best involvement ( Wilmer 2010 ) .

Individual Accountability

Individual answerability can be defined as “ an duty or willingness to accept duty or to account for 1s action ” ( McDaniel 2007 ) . Individual answerability is a foundational constituent as it evaluates an single nucleus competency, strength and failings ( McDaniel 2007 ) . It ‘s the single pickings duty for their action in transporting out their responsibility or them being accountable for their responsibilities ( McDaniel 2007 ) . The single must be accountable for accomplishing its end and for its part to the group, single answerability occurs when public presentation is assessed and the consequence are given back to the group and the person in other to determine who needs more support, encouragement and aid ( Cooperate acquisition centre 2009 ) . Accountability is non to penalize error or to bring forth immediate consequence but to guarantee the single gives all their best in the accomplishment of ends and acting responsible to one another ( Luthans 2002 ) . By authorising them over occupation public presentation and so keeping them accountable for the results ( Newstrom 2007 ) .


Rollinson ( 2005:401 ) defines conflict as “ the behaviour of an person or a group when intentionally sets to barricade or suppress another group or person from accomplishing its ends ” . Competition is one of the chief causes of struggle in a group, when the members of a group are in competition against each other it can take to conflicting involvement ( Rollonson 2005 ) . Some groups encourage competition because they believe that when members of the group compete against each other it will ensue to successful public presentation or speedy public presentation but largely it might take to conflict ( Rollinson 2005 ) . However, Vodosek ( 2007 ) argues that “ Research workers have noted that high degree of undertaking struggle can take to decreased member satisfaction and committedness to the group ”

Individual have different involvement, accomplishments, personality and properties which may move as coherence or a clang in the group ( Brooks 2009 ) . Some persons tend to work towards accomplishing personal ends by making so they tend to disregard the ends of the group and concentrate more on accomplishing their personal ends which might take to conflict in the group ( Newstrom 2007 ) .


It can be assumed that, groups have both positive and negative consequence on the person, and for the person, being a member of a group can be honoring every bit good every bit disputing as working entirely. Working entirely as an person might take to a speedy determination devising but working in a group can take to a more effectual determination devising, because it is a group of people with different thoughts, perceptual experience, properties and behaviour coming together to organize the group ( Rollinson 2001 ) , besides the person can besides larn from the other members of the group. However, it is believed that there is no ideal person for a peculiar occupation, that no person can hold all the necessary qualities needed for a occupation but a group of persons can, and when they come together with their different qualities it can take to a successful determination devising ( Antony Jay, cited by Mullins 2002 ) .


  1. Armstrong, M. ( 2009 ) Armstrong ‘s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 9th edn, Kogan Page, London.
  2. Brooks, I. ( 2009 ) Organizational Behavior: Individual, Groups and Organisation, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
  3. Concerted Learning Center ( 2009 ) “ Concerted Learning ” # answerability [ Accessed 10/03/2010 ] .
  4. Curtis, J. ( 2010 ) “ Support groups and societal support ” [ Accessed 11/03/2010 ] .
  5. Dalgard, O.S. ( 2009 ) “ Social Support: Definition and Scope ” [ 15/03/2010 ] .
  6. Elizabeth Scott, M.S ( 2007 ) “ Social Support: The How ‘s and Whys of Cultivating a circle of friends ” Guide [ 11/03/2010 ] .s
  7. Greenberg, J. , Baron, R.A. ( 2008 ) Behavior in Organizations, 9th edn, Pearson Education, New Jersey.
  8. Hahn, M. ( 2007 ) “ Group norms in organisations ” [ 15/03/2010 ] .
  9. Heathfield, S.M. ( 2010 ) “ How to develop group norms ” Guide [ 15/03/2010 ] .
  10. Huczynski, A. A. , Buchanan, D.A. ( 2007 ) Organizational Behavior, 6th edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
  11. Ivancevich, J M, Konopaske, R, Matteson, M T ( 2008 ) Organizational Behavior and Management, 8th edn, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Newyork.
  12. Luthans, L. ( 2002 ) Organizational Behavior, 9th edn, McGraw-Hill, Newyork.
  13. Maund, L. ( 2001 ) Introduction to Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, Palgrove, London.
  14. McDaniel, D. ( 2007 ) “ How Important is Individual Accountability ” [ Accessed 10/03/2010 ]
  15. Moorhead, G. Griffin, R.W. ( 1995 ) Organizational Behavior: Pull offing Peoples and Organizationa, 4th edn, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
  16. Mullins, L. J. ( 2002 ) Management and Organizational Behavior, 6th edn, Pearson, Harlow
  17. Nemours ( 2010 ) “ Covering with peer force per unit area ” [ 13/03/2010 ]
  18. Newstrom, J. W. ( 2007 ) Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work, 12th edn, McGraw-Hill, Newyork.
  19. Psyblog ( 2010 ) “ Why group norms kill creativeness, ” [ Accessed 11/03/2010 ] .
  20. Robbins, S.P ( 2001 ) Organizational Behavior, 9th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
  21. Rollinson, D. ( 2005 ) Organisational Behaviour Analysis: An incorporate Approach, 3rd edn, Pearson Education, Harlow.
  22. Vodosek, M. ( 2007 ) Intergroup struggle as a go-between between cultural diverseness and work group, International Journal of Conflict Management, Volume 18, Issue 4
  23. Wilmer, D. ( 2010 ) “ The difference between negative and positive equal force per unit area ” Guide [ Accessed 23/03/2010 ] .

Related essay samples:

  1. Customer Behavior On Sporting Accessories In Singapore Marketing Essay
  2. Discrimination Worksheet Essay
  3. Resocialization Essay
  4. Introduction About Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Information Technology Essay
  5. Introduction About Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Information Technology Essay
  6. Is Classical Approach to Management Obsolete? Essay
  7. Components of effective teamwork
  8. The organisational importance of groups and teams
  9. Analysis of ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’ Essay
  10. Introduction Historical Background Of Performance Management Business Essay
  11. Human Behavior and Social Norms
  12. Racial order for one to examine criminal
  13. Human Services Agency Interview Essay
  14. Promote equality and Inclusion in health and social Essay
  15. How Television Media Violence Influences Deviant Behavior?