The Impact of Group Conflicts on Productivity

A multitude of elements influence an organization’s success, one of which is employee performance in the workplace. Regardless of the importance of individual performance in an organization, it is critical to analyze how employee groupings in the firm perform, as well as the factors that influence their success. As a result, this study will concentrate on group conflict and its impact on group productivity inside the company. The target organization in this scenario is a huge vehicle manufacturing plant. It is in charge of producing four different car models to meet market demand. The large complex employs 9,000 people, whose efforts contribute to the manufacturing of nearly 150,000 units per year. There are a couple of departments at the facility that concentrate on distinct aspects of work in the manufacturing plant. Examples of such departments are plant operations, logistics, systems engineering, and stamping engineering. Employees in each of the departments form formal groups which are based on the structure of the organization and are characterized by designated assignments in the workplace. There are also task groups which comprise of individuals from different departments who cooperate to complete a job task such as designing a new car model and creating a prototype. Besides the two types of groups discussed, the organization also has informal groups that span across all departments. These groups are meant to help employees build social connections with one another and acclimatize to life as an employee of the organization. These groups revolve around important societal aspects and bring together employees with similarities such as belonging to a minority race, gender, sexual orientation, or age. The essence of all groups in the manufacturing plant is not only to create social connections but also to enhance the professional development of individuals and increase workplace productivity.

The Impact of Group Conflicts on Productivity

Groups are meant to increase cooperation in the workplace which ultimately boosts productivity. However, conflicts are common within and across groups. This adversely affects the productivity of the group which is bad for the organization as a whole. Conflicts impede cooperation at the group level through actions such as exploitation, and the formation of coalitions and factions (Losh, 2011). The worst-case scenario, in this case, is the disintegration of the group which is a blow to the organization. Group conflicts differ from one organization to the other. Understanding the nature of group conflicts is imperative if an organization’s leadership is to identify signs and potentially diffuse a situation within the organization (De Dreu, 2008). In the context of the car manufacturing plant, some problems were identified with regard to the group dynamics. The potential destructive impact of these issues is significant and as such warrants detailed analysis and evaluation to formulate feasible solutions.

Role Conflicts within Groups

The first problem that was identified in the organization was role conflicts within the existing groups. In this case, it is important to understand group norms. Each group member is bound by shared values which essentially initiate specific expectations regarding behavior. The role of an individual within a group is based on the type of group. As such, an employee’s role can be determined by task, relations, or even self-oriented. The role conferred to an individual, however, can be the root of problems in the group. The ambiguity of the role cited in this context is usually responsible for role conflict. One’s role and their place in the group’s hierarchy could cause the lack of clarity. In some cases, however, the job’s complexity is the cause of role ambiguity. In the case of the lack of clarity, there is a mismatch between an individual’s perception of their role in the group and their role in reality. Role conflict is also evident when a member of a group is assigned several simultaneous roles whose expectations conflict.

Role conflict hurts productivity since an employee in a particular group does not understand what they are supposed to do in the workplace. This is especially in the case of role ambiguity. According to Ram (2011), “the lack of clarity regarding work role requirements has been associated with stress in the workplace and low job satisfaction.” This results in employees within groups who lack the motivation to contribute to the productivity of the group collective. On the other hand, an employee with simultaneous roles in a group will be required to fulfill all roles at the same time. The ensuing confusion means that the employee will not produce satisfactory results with regard to any of the roles thus leading to a loss of the group’s productivity.

The car manufacturing plant has seen an increase in demand for its four models over the recent past. As such, the management’s focus has been increasing the plant’s production to meet the demand. Employees in the various groups were recently directed increase production and the management set daily quotas to ensure that production peaked. However, there were also instructions to improve quality control. The two tasks are contradictory, and employees in the various groups ended up spending more time in the assembly process as they tried to balance the two roles. Instead of the intended increase in productivity, virtually all formal groups have recorded reduced productivity levels.

Communication Problems

For a group to successfully carry out its mandate within an organization, proper communication between members is key. Besides the relaying of roles and tasks, it is critical in problem-solving. The composition of a group influences the effectiveness of communication among group members. In the case of the manufacturing plant, communication is a key problem across several groups. An evaluation of the groups revealed information about this trend.

First is the issue of diversity and the accompanying cultural differences. Some groups are very diverse with regard to ethnicity, gender, and power differentials. The different backgrounds result in individuals in groups having different expectations (Losh, 2011). It was observed that it was difficult to deliver a blanket message to such groups due to the potential for misinterpretation. Similar individuals also clustered within the groups which is problematic due to crowd-thinking. The presence of senior officials in the same groups as low-level workers also contributed to communication issues in the group. This was observed to lead to individuals censoring themselves when communicating senior group members thus compromising the group’s activities. The employee group that is concerned with operations at the manufacturing plant, for example, has members from virtually every hierarchical level. Low-level employees avoided interacting with individuals who are placed higher in the hierarchy due to the fear that they would be lectured. Communication breakdowns mean that the group cannot exchange information essential to its functioning. As such, productivity suffers since information does not reach intended individuals within the group at the right time.

Lack of Cohesiveness in Groups with Diverse Members

In employee groups, how individuals relate to and perceive each other determines the collective’s success. Some groups are characteristically diverse which brings with it several benefits due to the large pool of different ideas. However, it highly diverse groups are problematic when it comes to cohesiveness. This in addition to communication issues discussed earlier threaten the existence of such groups within an organization.

Members of such groups feel uncomfortable at the beginning since they do not know what to expect from significantly different individuals. They may, therefore, result in profiling individuals who are different. Tension is bound to breed in such situations due to the feelings of distrust between members who are dissimilar. They will be reluctant to cooperate with each other to achieve set goals (Konrad, 2003). The result is a dysfunctional group with low levels of productivity. In the manufacturing plant, the lack of cohesion was evident in virtually all groups. Individuals in the groups ended up clustering according to their similarities thus hurting the intended group dynamics. With no proper strategy to tackle this problem, the organization’s groups risk diverging from the purpose that was initially intended by the management.

Excessive Intergroup Conflict

The final issue regarding group behavior in the car manufacturing plant is excessive conflict between the various groups in the organization. Intergroup conflict, in this case, can be explained by scarce resources. All groups are competing for limited resources and have to achieve higher levels of productivity. Conflict ensues because groups using shared resources fail to agree on how the resources should be apportioned on the basis of their competing objectives. This was observed to cause heated competition that went to the extent of escalating to physical confrontation in some cases especially during the designing of new car models. Intergroup conflict in the plant could also be attributed to poor communication. The ultimate goal of employee groups is to work towards organizational goals. The lack of effective communication between goals leads to confusion and feelings of discontent which only increase the intensity of the intergroup conflict.

Solving Group Conflicts

The car manufacturing plant has problematic group dynamics due to a variety of issues. However, the problems can be resolved if the management of the organization takes proactive steps to improve employee groups. Role conflicts have been observed across the organization. The regular occurrence of role conflicts in groups illustrates the need for the organization to deal with them for good. The key to resolving this problem is open communication in the organization. The management should clearly define the role and responsibility of individuals within various groups to avoid confusion and ambiguity. A good approach, in this case, would be defining roles for the group as a whole. It is necessary to ensure one channel of communication so that the likelihood of conflicting instructions is reduced.

Communication is also a prevalent problem in the organization’s groups. The reasons discussed in this paper point to a level of disconnect among group members especially due to diversity. I would recommend the organization taking an effort to intervene and provide positive information about the conflicting group. This would help individuals within a group understand one another thus increasing the chances of cooperation. High-level employees should also be encouraged to treat others as equals in the group setting. This would create a common ground and effectively improve communication among members of the group in question. The lack of cohesiveness in groups also has to do with the lack of positive information about different groups of people. As such, cultural sensitization would also help increase tolerance and understanding thus enhancing cooperation between members of a group.

The presence of excessive intergroup conflict in the company is also damaging and should be dealt with comprehensively. The best approach, in this case, is ensuring that all employees in the organization understand the essence of employee groups. Rather than focusing on meaningless competition, they should always seek to work towards organizational goals. As such, the management should emphasize that organizational goals are superior at all times. The government should also clarify how resources will be apportioned in order to avoid confrontation between groups in the plant (Horton, Bayerl, & Jacobs, 2014).

Training program for Group Productivity

The manufacturing plant has a daunting task to increase the productivity of employee groups and ensure that they are working towards the goals of the organization. As such, a training program for all employees would greatly remedy the organization’s predicament. The proposed training program would be mandatory and would be followed by a series of group-specific workshops for groups that were identified as most affected by the problems. All strategies proposed would be geared towards increasing the productivity of the organization’s goals.

The first action of the program would be to formulate a comprehensive organizational strategy and plan that would build commitment among employees. Formulation alone is not enough; all aspects of the plan would be communicated to all employees at the beginning of the program (Nadler & Nadler, 2012). This strategic direction would guide employees in all their activities at the group level. Second would be defining a purpose for each of the organization’s groups and clarifying individual roles. The involvement of employees in this stage is important since they would associate with the program. A clear mission will result in heightened focus, engagement, and commitment. The third aspect of the training program would be setting group and individual goals. This is relevant for formal groups that are involved in operational activities. Measurable goals that are clearly communicated will give all employees an idea of what is expected of them as members of a specific group. The training program would then focus on resource allocation. Employees would be informed of the priority of organizational goals. Groups dealing with high-priority goals will, therefore, be prioritized. This would help avoid conflict due to the scarcity of resources. All employees should then be introduced to performance metrics that track the productivity of various groups and individuals in the organization. The feedback from such assessments will be used to drive continuous improvement.

Conclusion

Group dynamics play an influential role in organizational behavior. Problems associated with group conflicts greatly limit the effectiveness of employee groups. This has adverse effects on several aspects of an organization, most important of which is productivity. Ultimately this affects a firm’s financial performance. Therefore, identifying problems early on is important since it informs the strategic direction to make employee groups increase their productivity. Training programs are important, in this context, since they help reinforce issues associated with group dynamics and group productivity. The program proposed in the paper would help the car manufacturing plant increase the productivity of its employee groups exponentially.

References

De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5-18.

Horton, K. E., Bayerl, P. S., & Jacobs, G. (2014). Identity conflicts at work: An integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1).

Konrad, A.M. (2003). Defining the Domain of Workplace Diversity Scholarship. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 4-17.

Losh, S. (2011). Group Behavior in Organizations [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

Nadler, Z., & Nadler, L. (2012). Designing training programs. Routledge.

Ram, N. (2011). Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity as Factors in Work Stress among Managers: A Case Study of Manufacturing Sector in Pakistan. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 113-118.