Impact of Group Dynamics on Team

R.V. Naveenan Naveenan; B. Ravi Kumar

doi:10.46281/aijssr.v2i2.175

R.V. Naveenan Naveenan Department of Management Studies, Vivekananda Institute of Management, India
B. Ravi Kumar Dept. of MBA, Amrita Sai Institute of Science and Technology, India

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46281/aijssr.v2i2.175

Keywords: Group Dynamics, Team, India.

Abstract

After a brief review of integrative small group learning models that have appeared in the educational psychology literature, this article then looks into the group dynamics literature and describes one of that field’s most well-documented findings: that interactions among group members change somewhat predictably over time. How theorists from various traditions within educational psychology might explain and explore the phenomenon of “group development” is proposed, followed by a description of the theoretical and practical features of an increasingly popular post-secondary instructional strategy designed to stimulate group development and leverage it to instructional ends. So group dynamics can be called as a life base of a team. So in this study the researcher has conducted a study on various aspects of group dynamics. The researcher has collected data using collection techniques and has used various tools to analyze the outcomes to get considerable results.

References

Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R., Cohen, S., & Williamson, S. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observations of groups. New York: Free Press.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). New York: Harper & Row.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Delucia-Waack, J. (1997). Measuring the effectiveness of group work: A review and analysis of process and outcome measures. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 22(4), 277–293.
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth.
Fuhriman, A., & Barlow, S. (1994). Interaction analysis: Instrumentation and issues. In A. Fuhriman & G. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis (pp. 191–222). New York: Wiley.
Fuhriman, A., & Packard, T. (1986). Group process instruments: Therapeutic themes and issues.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 36(3), 399–425.
Galinsky, M., & Schopler, J. (1977). Warning: Groups may be dangerous. Social Work, 22(2), 89– 94.
Hare, A. P., Blumberg, H. H., Davies, M. F., & Kent, M. V. (1995). Small group research: A handbook. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hare, A. P., Blumberg, H. H., Davies, M. F., & Kent, M. V. (1996). Small groups: An introduction. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nixon, H. (1979). The small group. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Olmsted, M. (1959). The small group. New York: Random House.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.
Schopler, J., Abell, M., & Galinsky, M. (1998). Technology-based groups: A review and conceptual framework for practice. Social Work, 43(3), 254–267.
Smokowski, P. R., Galinsky, M., & Harlow, K. (2001). Using technologies in group work: Computer- based groups. Group Work, 13(1), 98–115.
Smokowski, P., Rose, S., Todar, K., & Reardon, K. (1999). Post-group casualty-status, group events and leader behaviour: An early look into the dynamics of damaging group experiences. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(5), 555–574.
Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2001). An introduction to group work practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.