ABSTRACT
The oversight of real estate by a third party is known as property management. Property management services include keeping the property in good condition, organizing maintenance tasks, carrying out frequent inspections, handling expenditures, and guaranteeing compliance with laws and regulations. To build a capable management team, team members need to have a significant degree of relevant experience as well as soft qualities like attention to detail, a strong work ethic, excellent communication skills, and a positive attitude. A few obstacles that reduce the impact of teamwork and group dynamics include miscommunication or ineffective communication between team members and a lack of collaboration between some team members. The goal of the study is to investigate how group dynamics affect how well management teams work. Although it is essential for achieving the company's goals and objectives, collaboration is frequently disregarded, which leads to low productivity.
Keywords: Group dynamics, effectiveness of employee performance, management teams
Group dynamics is the study of forces within a group. The term dynamics is derived from the Latin word meaning "force." A group is a collection of people who communicate with one another, acknowledge one another's rights and obligations, and cooperate to accomplish a common goal. A social process known as group dynamics involves people coming together in small groups for a common goal or purpose and cooperating to make that goal a reality. Although there are many different definitions of the term "group," many place emphasis on one vital component: interactions between the members. Therefore, according to Cartwright and Sheriff, "a group is a unit of a society composed of a group of persons with (more or less) definite status and relationships of role." Members of a group are said to be related by the membership, just as friends are a part of a partnership or all senior law firms are a part of a partnership (Arrow et al, 2000). group ties that connect each person to the entire group. They identify who is a part of the group specifically because, unlike networks, groupings have boundaries. To join a network, a person must make a connection with someone who is already a member. According to corporate executives, networking occurs when people form relationships with one another. Groups, on the other hand, typically have stable but permeable bounds that separate individuals inside the group from those outside the group. These limitations can occasionally be unstable or explicitly stated.
Group dynamics are a collection of psychological and behavioral processes that take place within or between social groups (intergroup dynamics). Studying group dynamics may be useful for understanding decision-making behavior, monitoring the spread of disorders in society, creating efficient treatment plans, and monitoring the evolution and acceptance of novel concepts and technologies (Backstrom et al., 2006). Group dynamics have become a crucial aspect of businesses in the modern world. Therefore, group dynamics primarily pertain to the study of forces within a group. According to Keith Davis, "group dynamics is the social process by which people are interacting face to face in small groups." This statement refers to interpersonal communication between individuals. It focuses on teamwork, with small groups communicating frequently and exchanging ideas to complete the tasks.
According to social scientist Henri Tajfel (1972), the group members are united by a common identity. You are aware of who belongs to your group and what characteristics are typical for both insiders and outsiders. This sense of belonging to the same group or social class—this social identity—produces a sense of both oneself and others (Abrams et al., 2005). According to Turner (1985), social identity can be defined as the "summary of the social identifications of a person, which are socially significant and internalized as components of self-conception."
Groups might vary greatly from one another. According to Forsythe, there are four main group types in 2006, including but not limited to main, social, collective, and category groups. Primary groups typically consist of small, enduring groups of individuals that engage personally in significant ways. These groups are fully aware of one another and work effectively together when they come together in person. Since this is typically a person's first experience with a group, Cooley believed that beginning groups are essential if people are to be accepted into their society. An officially organized group of individuals who are distinct from the members of the primary group makes up a social group. These groups have a lower membership rate and are frequently larger than primary groups. Collectives are large assemblages of people sharing similar traits or worldviews. They are loose, quick, and spontaneous. Categories are used to classify people who are similar in some way. Groupings are formed by categories when their similarities have social implications. Forsyth contends that while individuals often complete many everyday tasks alone, there is an inclination to work in teams.
Kurt Lewin, who first developed the field of group psychology in 1943, outlined how individuals and small groups behave in a variety of contexts and respond to them (Dion, 2000). Group dynamics are based on group processes that take place within a group and do not exist in a random collection of individuals. The processes change as a result of interactions and impacts between individuals and the collective. A group is made up of two or more people who share common goals and an identity. They take place specifically. These people are socially attractive and connected, which leads to the development of particular processes that have an effect on the group and its members. It is crucial to take into account the group dynamics of all groupings in order to comprehend group actions. Why is it that some organizations (like Habitat for Humanity) succeed in achieving good goals while other organisations (like the Nazis) succeed in achieving bad goals? Group dynamics can help to explain how and why a group might become immoral under specific conditions by taking a closer look at the many processes that take place inside a group.
Numerous different variables can have an effect on a person on many different levels, according to research. Individuals may have an impact on the majority, a particular stance, the leader, persuasion, behavior, attitude, etc. According to Asch's (1956) studies on conformity, people conform to the majority even in the absence of social pressure, rewards, or penalties for being a minority. Milgram (1965) conducted more research that showed people can be affected by some current events that cause them to feel emotionally detached, obedient to orders, and/or a part of a larger community. People can be affected by leaders depending on the circumstance, according to research on leadership (Bales, 1958). When someone is unsure of what to do, they look for a leader. In situations when a group is developed to strengthen social bonds, a leader who is socially guided is more likely than others to be influenced. This is true when an individual is created to carry out a task. A leader who possesses both task and social leadership will always have a higher chance of influencing a person (Fiedler, 1971). According to persuasive research, people influence someone's credibility and dependability (Cook & Flay, 1978Finally, people's activities may have an impact on them (Zimbardo et al., 1971). According to research, attitudes may influence behavior, and behavior may influence attitudes (Waller, 2002).
If a group functions well as a whole, it is multifactorial. It affects the group's members, environment, and operations. The degree to which group members desire to realize the shared goals and group identity determines how cohesive the group is. Understanding a group's behavior and intergroup dynamics might be aided by the group's cohesiveness. The group's attraction to its members, governmental influence, the impact of information, and outside sources from around the globe are all examples of cohesion factors (McCauley, 1998). According to Carroll (1980), a cohesive group possesses a shared identity, a common sense of purpose, and a structured communication pattern. The similarity of the group members, the satisfaction and support of other group members, the size and stability of the group, as well as other factors, can all be indicators of cohesion. These cohesion factors are also influenced by how the group interacts with its surroundings and one another. A person who shares the organization's goals and/or desires social connections with and the support of similar people is frequently the group magnet. The more similar the group members are in terms of age, sex, race, and attitudes, the more cohesive the groupings are. The group shares a similar identity, and the more categories its members share, the more distinct the group's identity is. The stronger the group's identity, the more. Through the use of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, the group can develop group standards that are expected to be adhered to by all of its members. Cohesiveness may be impacted if group members don't adhere to the norms set by the group (McCauley, 1998).
According to Cohen (1998), the dynamics of a particular group depend on how its boundaries are established. There are frequently multiple subgroups inside a larger group. For instance, people who live in the United States can be categorized as a whole (i.e., "Americans") or more specifically (i.e., "Americans in the South"). For each of these groupings, several dynamics might be described. At this exceedingly wide level, the study of group dynamics is notably comparable to that of culture. Like in the United States. According to Cohen et al. (1996), South groups are dynamics that promote a respected culture based on tolerance, honor, and self-defense rules. Hogg (2000) asserts that interpersonal psychological ties are the basis for group formation. He draws attention to the notion that interpersonal connections are what lead to group formation in the theory of social cohesion. A group, on the other hand, is said to form when a collection of individuals understand they belong to the same social category (for example, smokers, the ill, "students," or hockey players). Sheriff (1936) wrote in his book The Psychological Standards that the approach to social identity, group formation, comprises overtly identifying with some people while implicitly identifying with others. Therefore, a certain level of psychological differentiation is required for group training. He stated that through interactions that define their group and are internalized to have an impact on their conduct, people develop the standards, roles, and attitudes that make up their group.
Group membership is determined by a number of factors, including an individual's personal characteristics, gender, social factors including the need for privacy and the desire for power (McAdams, 1983), type of attachment, and prior group experiences (Bohrnstedt, 1986). Groups can offer its members a number of benefits that they wouldn't be able to obtain if they had chosen to remain alone, such as social support, emotional support, practical assistance, and information assistance (Uchino, 2004). Hogg (1993) also offers a welcoming environment, perhaps new hobbies, skills, and self-esteem. He stressed, however, that joining a group can also cost a person time, money, and effort because they may do so in order to conform to cultural norms and reap the benefits of the group.
The basis for what is currently referred to as a social facility, a "increase in tasking performance while you work in the presence of other people," according to Forsyth (2009), is this dynamo genic element. Norman Triplett stated in a research on dynamo genic stimulation in 1898 that "the corporeal proximity of another rider encourages the rider to stimulate competitive instincts." In reaction to Triplett's discovery, Floyd Allport noted in 1920 that while the quality of their output/effort was poorer for groups than for individuals. This is according to Forsyth (2009).
The Triplett-developed arousal response study in the area of social facilitation was expanded by Robert Zajonc to incorporate additional studies in 1965. In his research, Zajonc used two experimental paradigms. In the first, titled "Audience Effects," Zajonc looked at the behavior of viewers who were merely passive participants. In the second, titled "Effects of Co-action," he examined the behavior of participants who were actively engaged in the same activity. Zajonc identified two categories of behavior: less likely non-dominant reactions to activities and dominant reactions to simpler-to-learn activities that outweigh alternative explanations. In his Theory of Social Facilitation, Zajonc came to the conclusion that, when people are present and work needs to be done, social interference or facilitation will affect the outcome of the task. When social facilitation is supplied, the task necessitates a dominating response from the person, which increases performance when there are other people around. In contrast, when social interference is given, the task necessitates a different reaction from the person, which produces an inconsistent task (Forsyth, 2009). Social facilitation occurs for a variety of reasons that are explained by driving, motivating, cognitive, and personality processes for improving group performance. According to Zajonc's theory, when actions are straightforward and simple to perform, social facilitation is promoted since a person's drive level increases due to their compressibility (the reactive state when they are around other people). In his assessment model from 1972, Nickolas Cottrell argued that social factors should be taken into account while conducting evaluations. In contrast to an enthusiastic or high drive, Cottrell said that this situation was addressed with anxiety and led to increased productivity in simple tasks and decreased productivity in complicated ones.
According to Erving Goffman (1959), people can change how they perceive themselves in daily life. He claims in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life that people exhibit a positive self-image because of a fear of being perceived by others as having negative, undesirable traits and characteristics. Goffman's self-presentation theory predicts that individuals would enhance their attempts to project/preserve/keep a favorable image in circumstances where they may be judged as a result of performance improvements. According to the notion of distraction conflicts, anytime a person works in the presence of another, an interference effect arises that divides the person's attention between the task and the other person. . Performance in more challenging occupations where desire is insufficient to adequately struggle against the effects of distraction has no benefit. Distractions can improve performance by limiting a person's focus on specific tasks, as demonstrated by the Stroop task. The social orientation hypothesis investigates how individuals respond to social situations. It predicts that those with an upbeat outlook benefit from social support and that those who are self-aware are less likely to succeed due to social interference effects.
see PDF attachment for more information