Group Behavior on Individual Workers – Psychology Essay

Group Behavior on Individual Workers – Psychology Essay
– How can the existence of a group affect the behavior of the individual worker? Groups are found in all situations inside and outside the working environment, and play a large part in the everyday working of companies.

If management wish to ensure they can influence the behavior of their employees, then they must be aware of and understand how groups work and what kind of impact they can have if not handled well. According to Mullins (2002) “Groups are a characteristic of all social situations and almost everyone in an organisation will be a member of one or more groups.” A popular definition of a group has been given in psychological terms by Schein (1988). He defines a group as “any number of people who (1) interact with one another; (2) are psychologically aware of one another; and (3) perceive themselves to be a group.” Another definition, provided by Adair (1986), is that a group is “a collection of people who share most, if not all, of the following characteristics: a definable membership; group consciousness; a sense of shared purpose; interdependence; interaction; and ability to act in a unitary manner.” There are a number of different types of group, which can be classified under the following terms: primary group; secondary group; formal group; informal group; reference group; large group and; small group. Within primary groups each member will tend to know all of the other members and will interact on a face-to-face basis. An example of this type of group would be a person’s immediate family or their work group. Secondary groups are larger than basic primary groups, and while they also share common values and interact, this is not done to the same extent as with primary groups. Examples of secondary groups may include department stores or factories, where the primary groups are individual departments or sections. Both primary and secondary groups can be perceived as formal or informal. It is stated by Mullins (2002) that “Formal groups are created to achieve specific organizational objectives and are concerned with the co-ordination of work activities” and that “Informal groups are based more on personal relationships and agreement of group members than on define role relationships. They serve to satisfy psychological and social needs not related necessarily to the tasks to be undertaken”. Reference groups are groups, which a person may identify with or aspire to, but they may never meet that group. This type of group can influence people who may not in any clear sense be a member of that group. Reference groups can also be either ascribed, of which membership is automatic, or acquired, where membership is voluntary. A board of directors within a company is an example of a reference group to an employee who wishes to advance their career within that company. When referring to the size of group, it is generally thought that if it exceeds a certain number of members its dynamic forces will lose much of their intensity. Depending on the context of the group that number may vary, but the usual dividing line between small and large groups is between fifteen and twenty. Four main phases of development of groups have been identified by Tucker (1965). These are forming, storming, norming and performing. The forming stage is the initial formation, where a number of individuals are brought together who identify the purpose of the group, what the rules of the group should be and what behavior is acceptable from members. During this stage there is thought given and importance placed on hierarchical structure and appointing a leader. It is likely that members will feel some anxiety as each member tries to make an impression and test each other, making their mark within the group. The storming stage is the second stage, during which the members of the group will get to know each other to a greater extent, and will be more likely to air their views more openly and even forcefully. Rebellion may be present against the leader of the group, with members resisting control exerted by others within the group, and conflicts and hostility arising. According to Mullins (2002) “The storming stage is important because, if successful, there will be discussions on reforming arrangements for the working and co-operation of the group, and agreement on more meaningful structures and procedures.” The third stage is the norming stage. During the norming stage cohesion develops between the group members and conflict and hostility begins to be overcome. Mullins (2002) states “The norming stage is important in establishing the need for members to co-operate in order to plan, agree standards of performance and fulfill the purpose of the group. This cooperation and adherence to group norms can work against effective organizational performance. It may be remembered, for example, that, in the bank wiring room experiment of the Hawthorne studies, group norms imposed a restriction on the level of output of the workers.” The Hawthorne studies will be mentioned later in this essay. The fourth stage of the group development is the performing stage, which will only be reached if the preceding three stages have been completed successfully. During this stage the group should be able to work effectively as a team, with optimum cohesiveness and flexible and functional roles. The energy, which was previously used through resisting demands and conflicting opinions, is now used to work together effectively. At this stage the group will perform their best work, concentrating on the common goals. Different types of groups may spend different amounts of time on each stage, with some groups never reaching the final stages. The personality and levels of dominance of each member may play a large part in the failure or success of the group and its ability to progress through the four stages mentioned above. Also, as time goes by and changes occur, such as new members joining the group or old members leaving, the group may re-enter the cycle and begin the development process all over again. In order to find out if the group members are working together effectively personality wise then the work of Jacob Moreno and his socio-grams can be useful if utilized correctly. Obviously there must be a successful working relationship between group members in order for them to succeed, but as well as having people with corresponding knowledge and skills, it must be ensured that the team members are capable of dealing with each other on a personal and social level. If members are too dissimilar personality wise, then some members may clash, or others may feel left out, to the detriment of the group’s productivity and morale. Jacob Moreno developed socio-metry, which is the study of relationships within a group of people as a method of indicating group members’ feelings of acceptance or rejection. He began his research by asking people who their friends were and he explored the ways in which the relationships they had with others could be both limitations and opportunities for action as well as for their psychological behavior. Moreno invented socio-grams, which are the way in which the patterns of interpersonal relationships, which are derived from sociometry, are illustrated in diagrammatical form. Sociograms will show the choices and preferences, likes or dislikes, and the interactions between group members, as well as displaying the structure of the group and recording how often the members are in contact with each other and for how long. Each member of the group will be asked to rate the other members in terms of a given characteristic. The questions asked could be relating to either work or social activities, for example one question could ask who they would most or least prefer as a colleague, and another may ask who they may choose to go on holiday with, and who would they choose not to go with. Some socio-grams require only positive answers, while others take into account positive and negative answers. When results are illustrated in diagrammatical form there is a clear visual description of the sociometric structure of the group, so it can be easily seen where cliques exist, or which members are popular or isolated, or those who act as links. There are several typical relationship structures, or sociometric representations, which can be seen in most socio-grams. Some of these are the star, which is the most popular member, the pair or mutual pair, a chain structure that is typical with most socio-grams and links the members through others, and a triangle, which shows that there is a clique within the group. As mentioned above, it is important that the group members get along with each other if the group is to succeed. If there are too many opposing personalities, or there are too many people with the same type of personality. For example of there are two or three members vying for the leadership role then they will be too busy competing for control over the group to perform at an acceptable level. If some members of the group form a clique, leaving individual members in isolation then there may be a decline in performance, as communication and group harmony will not be at the optimum level for maximum effective performance. Also, if the group is not communicating or getting along, they are unlikely to reach the final stages of group development as identified by Tucker (1965) which is mentioned earlier in this essay. The structuring of communication channels holds influence over the degree to which members of a group interact with each other. Levels of satisfaction felt by individual group members as well as group performance levels are affected by these interactions also. Dr Janet Bavelas researches communication networks within groups, to show who communicates with whom in a group and how the group structure can affect the speed of communication. The research by Bavelas (1948) and others such as Leavitt (1951) resulted in a series of communication networks being designed, which were based on groups consisting of five members who were engaged in a number of tasks. These members were only allowed to communicate with each other via written notes, and they were not always permitted to communicate with all other members. The five main types of communication network are the wheel, which may also be called the star, the circle, the all-channel, which is also referred to as the common, y, and chains. The wheel is the most centralized of the networks, and is therefore the most efficient for simple tasks. Using this network there will be fewer mistakes s there are fewer information flows, resulting in problems being solved more quickly. This method becomes less suitable however, as the problems become more complicated and the link person who is at the center of the network, and therefore perceived as leader of the group and co-coordinator of group tasks, has to cope with more demands. The link person will generally experience a higher level of satisfaction than the members on the periphery of the structure. The circle network is more decentralized and overall it is a less efficient method. Using this method tends to result in slow and erratic performance, with the group being less organized with low leadership predictability, as there is not one set link person. However, this method can be quicker than the centralized methods at solving more complex problems and more effective and efficient at coping with changes and new tasks. All members will tend to feel the same level of job satisfaction using this method, as there is no link person to be perceived as leader, and every member will be involved equally in decision-making. The all-channel network is another decentralized network, which involves full participation and discussion, and appears to work most effectively when all members of the group are required to interact to a high degree with each other in order to solve the problems they are faced with. As with all decentralized networks there is low leadership predictability and equally high satisfaction for all members, although this type of network may not withstand much pressure, under which it may either disintegrate or be reformed into a wheel network. ‘Y’ or chain networks, like the wheel structure, may be more suited to simple problem-solving tasks, as they require less interaction between group members. These networks are slightly more centralized, as information has a predetermined channel along which to flow, and leadership predictability is between that of the most centralized and decentralized networks. The group members’ satisfaction levels will be low to moderate using this network. According to Mullins (2002) “Findings from these studies indicate that the greater the interconnectedness of the network, the higher the general level of satisfaction of members in the group. Groups that were allowed to establish their own communication networks, and those who did so with the minimum of links, took less time to solve their tasks.” Norms, as defined by Jones and Gerard (1967) are “Expected modes of behavior and beliefs that are established either formally or informally by the group…Norms guide behavior and facilitate interaction by specifying the kinds of reactions expected or acceptable in a particular situation”. Taking this definition into account it is therefore reasonable to assume that group behavior can be constrained by some standards and expectations set. In 1935 Muzafer Sherif first published his study, which set his subjects a simple perceptual task, to be completed first by individuals, and then by small groups. The judgments made and behavior shown by the individuals was different to those made when the groups were involved and allowed to exchange information on judgments. It was shown that where group norms emerged these were used by the group members when later tested individually, indicating that that group norms become relatively permanent, although few of the subjects were consciously aware that their judgments had been influenced by the others in the group. The concept of norms is important when studying conformity and deviance, which is discussed below in terms of studies by Asch (1956) Asch had nine volunteers to take part in what they understood to be a perception experiment. The task they were given was to judge which of three lines of different length were the same length as the standard line. The answer in all cases was obvious. When each subject was alone, neither of them made mistakes, however on certain trials one subject was asked to give his answer after a unanimously false majority, who chose an obviously false answer. In the results of the experiments thirty two per cent of all of the judgments were wrong, thirty three of the subjects conformed on more than half of the trials, and only twenty five per cent of the subjects were unaffected by the group pressure. Very few of the subjects later admitted to disliking the idea of contradicting the group. Through his studies Asch also noted that the higher the number of members in the group, the higher the level of conformity. One of the main reasons that people in groups conform can be to enable decisions to be made. This is also the case where deviance is concerned. People may question the first suggestions of the group so that better decisions can be reached, as it is doubtful that the first suggestion will be the best one. However, deviance can lead to conflict within groups. This conflict can either be constructive, where group members carefully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of proposals, or destructive conflict which occurs when members do not have the best interest of the group in mind, such as during a power struggle or personality dispute. If groups have effective structures and communication strategies, then they will be a success, and being part of a successful group will benefit individuals in terms of morale, as their social motives, such as their needs for security, friendship and belonging. The organization will benefit through its profit levels and through low staff turnover and customer complaints if the groups in place within the company. Also, if the groups within the company are operating efficiently, then Gestalt’s Principle of Synergy will operate. The Oxford Dictionary definition of synergy is “The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects”. This is the basis of the principle of synergy, where if the group is effective in its workings, then its productivity and worth as a group is greater than each individual group member could achieve when working on their own. However this theory can also work in reverse; if the group were not working effectively, then the productivity levels would be greater if each person was working on an individual level. This is particularly illustrated by the findings of the Hawthorne experiments, which are explained below. It sometimes occurs that group membership can have a negative effect on productivity, which is clearly illustrated in the Hawthorne experiments, which were carried out at the Western Electric Company in America. One of these experiments consisted of a group of fourteen men being observed while working in the bank wiring room. These men formed their own cliques with members consenting to natural leaders emerging. Despite the fact that management had introduced a financial incentive scheme which allowed the men to receive more money if they produced more work, the group decided that a fair level of output was six thousand units per day, although they were able to produce much more. The group placed pressure on individual workers, which was stronger than the appeal of the financial incentive scheme. The work group developed their own set of norms relating to what they considered to be proper group behavior. These were that group members should not be ‘rate busters’, ‘chisellers’, ‘squealers’, or ‘officious’. A ‘rate-buster’ was someone who had a rate of output that the group considered too high according to the level they had set for combined output. A ‘chiseller’ was someone whose production levels were too low compared with the other group members. To avoid being thought of as a ‘squealer’ the members were not allowed to say anything to the manager or supervisor which might harm the other group members, and being ‘officious’ would be someone who had authority over the other members taking advantage of this seniority or distancing themselves socially from the group because of their seniority. The group had developed its own range of sanctions in case any members did not conform to the norms that had been set. These sanctions included damaging completed work, hiding tools, sarcasm, playing pranks on inspectors, and ostracizing the members who refused to conform. They also made threats of physical violence, with the group also developing a system to punish offenders by striking a hard blow on the upper part of the arm, which they called ‘binging’. This method was also used as a means to control conflict within the group. The group also decided that instead of allowing their supervisor to report their individual daily production figures, they did the reporting themselves, which the supervisor consented to in order to keep in the groups favor. It is apparent from the content of this essay that groups can have either a positive or a negative effect on individuals, whether relating to their production or on a personal level. Individuals who feel they have to conform to group norms may feel a sense of belonging within the group, and if the group norms are demanding that the group work effectively and fairly then they will feel motivated also. However, f some individuals are feeling bullied into following unacceptable norms, then their work will suffer as will their self-esteem and feeling of worth. This will inevitably lead to poor production and staff turnover levels increasing. Organizations should pay careful attention to the personality types of the individuals they wish to place together in a team to avoid conflict and to ensure the group performs effectively.

Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. John Scott (1996) Management and Organizational
Behavior Mullins (2002) Foundations of Social Psychology
Jones and Gerard (1967)

Leadership in Group Settings The definition of a small group is a group having at least three and no more than fifteen members. At least three members are necessary to keep the group from being two of the same, and a maximum of fifteen members is important to avoid inhibition of the group members’ ability to freely communicate with fellow group members. (Effective Group Discussion 2001) It is necessary for the group to have a common purpose or goal in order to bring the group together and help the group to avoid conflict and tension. Small group communication is an important part of everyday life. We are all involved in some type of small group in some way. In all aspects of the dynamics of a small group, this is a perfect example of how important communication is. According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary online, “Group dynamics is the interacting forces within a small human group.” ( , 2000) It includes the sociological study of these forces. The term was first introduced in the U.S. by the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin. One of his findings was that group behavior affects many aspects of life. Group dynamics is concerned with the structure and functioning of groups and with the types of roles played by members. Roles are flexible and may change with changing goals or activities. The study of group dynamics is important in order to understand and facilitate this movement so that it will be productive and beneficial to society. “The group seems to have developed effective mechanisms to control the disruptive rising of conflicts and the ability to enhance more harmonic relationships, heightening the original good characteristics and sharing a common ideal of social harmony.” (The dynamics and the interpersonal and interpersonal relations within an isolated group in extreme environments 2000) In the following paragraphs, information and examples is presented on how groups form, how they are motivated, and how they can be put into two distinct classifications. Groups are caused by various factors, but are broken up into two distinct categories, voluntary groups and involuntary groups. Each group has many separate categories that can be explored. However, the difference between voluntary and involuntary groups will be exploited first. Voluntary groups are those in which an individual chooses to become a part of such as: hobbies, political action, social consciousness, racial rights or special interest groups. People become members of these groups to feel accepted in society. Sometimes these groups cause hatred and conflict amongst other groups, yet members remain because they feel their cause is just. On the other hand, involuntary groups are compulsory in that the members have no choice in their formation. (Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Work Teams 1999) For instance, a person may have a job in which they have been assigned to a group to work out a difficult issue. In this group a supervisor chooses a select few to research a component and provide solutions to better improve the efficiency. The members did not choose to be a part of the group. They were simply appointed based on a number of factors the supervisor found important to solving the issue at hand. Whatever the reason a group may form, they all have similar workings. Every group has leaders and followers. Directions, goals, and requirements are defined and at some point in time the behavior of the group is formed. The group sets goals to achieve an acceptable outcome within the scope of the group. It then organizes itself to obtain the outcome as easily as possible. Over a period of time the members may even become dependent upon one another to the point that they may feel lost without the group and feel inadequate. These groups can be categorized into two distinct categories; formal and informal. Formal groups include quality circles, decision making meetings, orientations, training, department meetings, advisory councils and sales meetings, to name a few. (Leaderships and innovations among teams 1997) Informal groups include social activities outside the office, luncheons, coffee breaks, informal meetings, retreats and gripe sessions. These discussion encounters often provide a platform for individuals to voice their opinions on a subject or to pass on information they have received. Both formal and informal groups have a synergistic effect, strengthen an organization. Every one of these groups are motivated to complete their cause. The motivation is generally driven by one or a few individuals that are outgoing and have the ability to lead a group with total confidence given by the other members. But, what exactly is “leadership”. According to our context, leadership can be defined as the “interpersonal influence” or human communication that modifies, directs, guides, and controls others in such a way as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in accomplishment of an objective. (Effective Group Discussion 2001) Leaders are not born, sure there are some gifts-traits-attributes, natural endowments that affect relative abilities, but they are not born, they are made. Any reasonably intelligent person with enough forcefulness to develop his/her ability to inspire others to follow him can earn leadership status. Remember that we have both formal and informal leaders. Being a Captain /Sergeant doesn’t make you a leader. J Patrick Dobel refers to classic leadership theory because it describes an approach to understanding leadership that by and large is out of style. Nonetheless it is clear that one can learn a great deal by studying the important personal ingredients in the leadership equation. (Political prudence and the ethics of leadership 1998) Studying the traits of great leaders became unpopular because it was and is associated with the “great man” theory of leadership. This approach was espoused in the 19th. and early 20th centuries, and asserted the leadership qualities are largely inherited. This was called “trait theory.” Researchers such as Mann and Stodgill found no consistent correlate between particular traits and leadership. Later research, particularly more recent and more sophisticated work has found a consistent and strong relationship between certain traits and leadership. (Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Work Teams 1999) Possessing these core traits simply makes it more likely that a person will take the appropriate action leading to leadership success. What is the nature of leadership? Leadership is an art form in that is an expression of the individual within the social and environmental context. Leadership also reflects the individual’s personality. It can also be learned; you may have a talent for it, you may not, either way, anyone can still become an effective leader. Through science, we can study the elements of leadership and provide valuable understanding into its nature. This enables us to determine where to focus our leadership skills and abilities, as well as measure to some extent, our effectiveness. Many people believe that there is one type of leadership that is most effective, and if they can only develop that style, they would be effective as a leader. (Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Work Teams 1999) Some leaders have one style, and honestly believe that it is best to stick with what comes naturally. As with any art form, one has a number of tools at one’s disposal. Take for example the ability to listen and the listening effectiveness of the group members. A good leader is supposed to always be an active listener. Active listening shows that the leader cares, is interested and wants to be involved, enabling the leader to benefit from the experience. Listening skills are “far superior” in leaders, compared to all the other members of the group. (Examining the Relationship Between Listening Effectiveness and Leadership Emergence 1998) The primary objective of a leader would be to adapt the principles of ‘listening’ into their own life. If the leader is not a good listener, then he/she should learn how to really listen. In addition to listening and carefully understanding what a team member is saying, a leader should also make sure that every team member gets the leader’s undivided attention. Unfortunately, as a listener, leaders have their own problems to face with. Listeners frequently have too many sound and visual signals reaching them at the same time. It is difficult for the listener to pay attention to multiple speakers all at once. Also, there could be a number of other problems the leader could be facing in their own life. The leader as a listener will never listen with understanding until other matters are forgotten for the moment and attention is given to the speaker. Another problem involved with listening is the leader not being able to understand the words being spoken. Hearing what is being spoken is just a part of listening, but understanding some of the words could be tricky sometimes. To avoid problems involving listening, the listener should use good eye contact so that he/she can concentrate on the particular speaker. That helps the listener pay attention on the subject too. Leader should also learn the meaning of the words the speaker is using and if he is unable to understand, he needs to ask questions. This also lets the speaker know that the listener is unable to understand and the listener is paying attention. These are signs of effective communication It is critical that good group leaders display the ability to effectively communicate with their associates and subordinates as well as train and encourages others to demonstrate those same communication skills. By doing so, they will promote an efficient working environment for solving tasks. The first challenge in effectively communicating with other people understands other different people. Because everyone is different from one another, the communication barriers start to appear. People are already facing differences from many levels of society. And with every new group that enters into the society, there are still the cultural differences such as traditions, beliefs, and expectations that are thrown into the mix as well. All of this, as well as many other issues only further complicates the task of achieving effective group communications. Perhaps the most obvious difference in the current group environment is the difference of the sex. (Are We Still Stereotyping Leadership 1997) Women possess a tendency to be more subtle or convincing rather than shouting out demands. Studies have shown that women are more likely to construct their requests in the form of suggestions or leading questions rather than be more direct. The conflict is evident if one considers the fact that males possess the complete opposite tendency. Men are more “masculine” and are often more direct and to the point. These two contrasting different can cause lots of misunderstandings of all sorts. Women also do not hesitate to mix business with personal talk where men are more anxious to get to the details of the business at hand. For women this seems to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the personal talk brings down some barriers and lets each one get to know the other so everyone is comfortable. This works in their favor in situations where they are meeting a group or individual for the first time. But on the other hand, after they become acquainted, they may have trouble separating their personal feelings and allowing them to enter into their business talk as well as their daily business activities. These types of preconceived notions are also present for every race and culture on the planet and they differ from culture to culture for each other. It is very difficult but even more important for today leaders to put these preconceived notions to rest. One must remember that just because a person looks like Chinese, that it is possible that they have never even been to China. If this is true, they may be offended if someone was to treat them noticeably different or assume that they did not know how to do something. Even though a person has not told these thoughts, their actions can communicate these thoughts just as effectively. This is just one of the many types of subtle communication in which all people notice. It is imperative that people treat others based on merit rather than assumptions made on their looks or backgrounds. A multicultural environment is an asset only if each individual is treated equally and fair as the others. As team members witness their leader treating everyone with equality and fairness, they will be more inclined to emulate these actions with one another. (Leadership and Innovation Among Teams 1997) This will in turn help the group to value diversity and develop creative problem solving skills. As conditions and situations change, leaders need to change their styles of leadership. The challenge of the leader is not to follow one leadership style all the time, but to use the leadership style needed by his followers. Leaders should maintain the power or influence of their offices by being kind and knowledgeable. The primary objective of being the leader would be to recognize the qualities necessary for a leader to be successful. Leader should be able to recognize various leadership styles and understand when each would be appropriate. Sometimes a leader will have to follow their group member and in such situations the good leader will appreciate the leadership, while serving the role of a follower. Leaders often have trouble deciding what leadership style to be used at what given instance. Another problem with leaders is that some leaders tend to follow the same leadership principles all the time and this is not a good idea to tackle special situations. The leader must not consider himself locked into a style of leadership with any individual or group. To avoid problems leaders should always act accordingly and change leadership skills depending on the situation and need. At the same time leader should be confident enough to be able to deal with the new skills. Every group needs a leader and the group’s performance depends on the leader either directly or indirectly. The behavior as a manager has a direct impact on staff performance, productivity, satisfaction, and turnover. Proper Leadership skills are highly essential for a manager to make his/her group successful. The leadership principles mentioned in this paper are just a simple guideline for leaders to follow; however, a good leader does not require any guidelines. A good leader inherits leadership qualities by inheritance of leadership abilities and characteristics from their own life. But in small group setting, a good leader doesn’t know that he has the ability to use these characteristics. Not until the others members give that person a chance to “emerge” as a leader. (Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Work Teams 1999) Leader emergence occurs in autonomous, or leaderless, work groups when one members of that group exerts “significant influence over the other members of the group although no formal authority has been vested in that person.”(Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Work Teams 1999) Such people emerge from the autonomous group when members sense an urgency, time constraint, to produce out put. Since the group started off leaderless and is now forced to produce output, the emergent leader will take charge with out developing trust, or respect for others and others feelings. When the work group send a peer expectations for leadership, through a negotiated process the emerging leader will reinforce those expectations by exhibiting effective leadership behavior, but only if he/she is willing and capable of doing the job. In conclusion, there are certain laws of leadership that determine one’s success in leading. If you violate or ignore them, then you will severely limit your effectiveness as a leader. These laws are the foundation of leadership, yet you will not find them in any university curriculum. These principles are best learned from experience. Once you learn the principles, you must consistently practice and apply them to your situation. True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned. It comes only from influence, and that can’t be mandated; it must be earned. Leadership is about influencing people to follow, while management focuses on maintaining systems and processes. The best way to test whether a person can lead rather than just manage is to ask him to create positive change. Managers can maintain direction, but they can’t change it. Hard work is required to gain influence in any organization and to earn the right to become the leader. If you can’t influence others, they won’t follow you. And if they won’t follow, you’re not a leader. Leadership is developed daily, not in a day. To be an effective leader you need followers, and that always requires the development of relationships – the deeper the relationships, the stronger the potential for leadership.

William, J.B. & William, J.B. (1998). Leadership and innovations among teams.

J Patrick Dobel, “Political Prudence and the Ethics of Leadership,” Small Group Research 58, no.1 (Jan/Feb 1998): 74-81
Judith A Kolb, “Are We Still Stereotyping Leadership,” Small Group Research 28, no.3 (Aug 1997): 370-393

Simon Taggar, Rick Hackett, Sudhir Saha, “Leadership in Autonomous Work Teams,” Personnel Psychology 52, no.3-4 (Autumn 1999): 899-926

Scott D Johnson, Curt Bechler, “Examining the Relationship Between Listening Effectiveness and Leadership Emergence,” Small Group Research 29, no.4 (Aug1998): 452-471

Antonio Peri, Marta Barbarito, Matilde Barattoni, Ada Abraham, “The Dynamics and the Interpersonal Relations” Small Group Research 31, no.3 (June 2000): 251-274 , visited 12/04/01

John K Brilhart, Gloria J. Galanes, Katherine Adams, Effective Group Discussion: Theory and Practice (New York, NY: The McGraw Hill Press 2001), 8-9, 191