• Uncategorized

Interrelationships among social interactions, groups and social structure

Interrelationshipsamong social interactions, groups and social structure

Examinethe interrelationships among social interactions, groups and socialstructure

Groupshave become the essential unit with which organizations carry outtheir activities. The widespread group structures have had a lot ofstreaming theories with researchers trying to apprehend the agentsthat chip in team functionality. In spite of the tremendousdiscoveries made by researchers about what causes efficient teamwork,the information is still not enough. This specifically applies to thesocial network structures or rather the category of informalconnections amongst individuals who work together who can havesignificant effects on groups because it gives them the ability offacilitating or constraining the movement of resources such asinformation, help and counseling among themselves. “Teams havebecome the basic unit through which work is carried out inorganizations” (Mehra, Kildurf and Brass, 2001)

Asclaimed by Mehra, Kildruf and Brass (2001), the structure of thesocial network is the pattern of connections among parties that aregenerally referred to as nodes. This social organization has relevantimplications for a node and the rest of the network. The range bywhich the nodes connect to each other determine ascertain the amountof resources that can flow through the network e.g. connectedindividuals usually distribute information and trust each other andhave the same stance. However, a group of individuals distancethemselves and have few connections make it difficult for them toshare resources since they do not have stable connections that willease conveying of information.

Densityof an organization’s network is the ratio of existent connectionsamongst group members comparative to the maximum optional number ofsuch ties established by the interconnectedness of nodes. Incontrast, group cohesion is the “Cognitive, motivational andeffective states of teams as opposed to the nature of their memberinteraction.” (Balkundi and Harrison, 2006). Network structureunlike group cohesion controls methods of exchange between peoplemeaning it intervenes thus making social network unparalleled instudying social facts.

Alternatively,we can study social network from the nodes that make it up, the standof a node controls the possible advantages for the group occupying it(Reagans and Zuuckerman, 2001). A node’s structural advantage in abetter position in the informal social structure receivesinformational profits and control and this is the node’scentrality, for instance, a person who is in direct contact with anumber of people in a team is said to be central and grants him/her more means to resources. On the flip-side, having central access canalso be disadvantageous because if the individual is leading thisteam formally, his or her resources can get consumed as theydifficult to maintain and also leads to creation of bigger roleneeds.

Hindranceof Network structure and Team Performance

Effectsthat may affect a person negatively may spread to the whole team.Although the individual may not have a lot of influence on the team,various negatively affected individuals may affect the performance ofthe group. Balkundi and Harrison(2001) state, if this goes on, themore detriment it will be for the other team members. This is basedon the logic that even though the whole is more than the sum of theparts, the average of individual group member behaviors isconsistently related to group behavior.

Individualsget affected by the norms and beliefs of the culture and society theylive in. The effect can either get to a personal level.

Accordingto Reagans and Zuckerman (2001), the major components of socialstructure include culture, social class, social status, roles, groupsand social institutions. Social structure controls individuals’behavior. People are controlled by the norms and beliefs of theirsociety. This influence can either be on an individual level orextensive to the whole society. A person’s position is based onknowledge, attitude and how they generally behave. Humans grow thesecharacters from their position in the social structure and makes themact suitably. All these parts work together to keep in check order byrestricting and counselling human behavior.

Socialstructure is not constant it acts in accordance with changingculture, improved technology, growing economy and interactionsbetween groups. Structural shifts can completely change the order inwhich a society is arranged. Reagans and Zuckerman (2001) state,functionalists and conflict theorists try to discover widerstructures of social organization while Symbolic interactionist tendto inspect personal interactions from a microscopic view. They aremore interested in the expressions individuals use to describe theirlives and relate with other people. Symbolic interactionist learn allthis from studying stereotyping, personal space, eye contact, smilingand body language.

Asclaimed by Symbolic interactionists, individuals tend to protecttheir personal life through like dominating their personal space.People have different views on personal space, e.g. in some culturespeople touch more than in other culture and also controlling eyecontact (Reagans and Zuckerman, 2001). On a social scene, peopleattempt to manipulate other people’s perception of them throughgroup work and face-saving behavior.

References

Reagans,R., R &amp Zuckerman, E.W. (2001). Networks, diversity, andproductivity: The social capital of corporate R&ampD teams.Organizationscience,12(4), 502-517.

Balkundi,P,. &amp Harrison, D. A.(2006). Ties, leaders, and time in team:Strong inference about network structure’s effect on team viabilityand performance. Academyof Management journal,49(1), 49-68.

Mehra,A.,Kildurf, M., &amp Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of highand low self-monitors: Implicatons for workplace performance.Administrative quarterly,46(1), 121-146.

RoughDraft

Groupshave become the essential unit with which organizations carry outtheir activities. The widespread group structures have had a lot ofstreaming theories with researchers trying to apprehend the agentsthat chip in team functionality. In spite of the tremendousdiscoveries made by researchers about what causes efficient teamwork,the information is still not enough. This specifically applies to thesocial network structures or rather the category of informalconnections amongst individuals who work together who can havesignificant effects on groups because it gives them the ability offacilitating or constraining the movement of resources such asinformation, help and counseling among themselves.

Thestructure of the social network is the pattern of connections amongparties that are generally referred to as nodes. This socialorganization has relevant implications for a node and the rest of thenetwork. The range by which the nodes connect to each other determineascertain the amount of resources that can flow through the networke.g. connected individuals usually distribute information and trusteach other and have the same stance.

Socialstructure is not constant it acts in accordance with changingculture, improved technology, growing economy and interactionsbetween groups. Structural shifts can completely change the order inwhich a society is arranged. Functionalists and conflict theoriststry to discover wider structures of social organization whileSymbolic interactionist tend to inspect personal interactions from amicroscopic view. As claimed by Symbolic interactionists, individualstend to protect their personal life through like dominating theirpersonal space. People have different views on personal space, e.g.in some cultures people touch more than in other culture and alsocontrolling eye contact (Reagans and Zuckerman, 2001). On a socialscene, people attempt to manipulate other people’s perception ofthem through group work and face-saving behavior.