Abilene Paradox

The two examples that were considered in the dilemma was in a resolution of a decision they would start a job or end a job. The decision was based on unethical matters which I have not

There are many problems that hinder good group dynamics. We don’t usually have the luxury of picking who we are going to work with on a team; dealing with different personalities and personal agendas are common challenges in working within a team. Other commons challenges like, poor leadership, bad communications, and lack of focus can be helped or eliminated by establishing team roles.

Often flows from narrowly defined or rigid goals, and most often produces negative results. Individuals involved become less flexible and assume that the opposing party must suffer defeat. Involved parties can succumb to personal attacks, threats and a general tone of hostility.

Conflict arises from various sources in the team setting (Capozzoli, 1995). The most common causes of conflict are values, attitudes, needs, expectations, perceptions, resources, and personalities. As we are all raised with different values, morals come into play when the team issue deals directly or indirectly with ones values, morals, or ethics. Conflicting attitudes can bring about problems as two or more team members prove to have differing goals in mind. Individual needs can cause rifts within a team when they are not satisfied. The expectations of team members are not the same on how the goal will be met. We all have different perceptions of life situation and interpret them differently. The lack of resources needed to complete a task can cause conflict. Differing personalities play a major role in team conflict.

The employees can be afraid that the observations of their weak performance can eventually result in dismissal or extra

Another behavior I have observed is that most of the members do not think ahead and plan their activities. This behavior when analyzed further points to fact that the members are expected never to challenge their superiors. This results in relatively frequent priority changes. Even though they know the business and the functionalities around the business they tend not to look at alternative solutions before working with the business.

They avoid conflict and feelings, so that people focus on other things. However, people are gathering information and opinions about everything, so not much work gets done. The second stage is called storming. In this stage people start to confront each other. Some people will be happy about this, where as other people would prefer to still be in the forming stage. People will look for clearness in the structure and rules to make sure that the conflict doesn't get any worse. The next stage is called norming. In this stage the group now have an understanding of each other after the conflict. So they now support and listen to each other and they are prepared to change their opinions that they made in the forming stage. They group worked hard to get to this stage as they may have not wanted things to change. The final stage is called performing. In this stage they all know each other well, so they can communicate effectively, to ensure that they get everything

Brockmann, Erich. (1996, May). Removing the paradox of conflict from group decisions. Academy of Management Executive. v10n2, p. 61-62.

Avoidance of accountability – with no commitment team member have a hard to calling others out, when their action are not productive.

Group member cohesiveness was absent from the group meeting for several reasons, but the primary reasons were due to the fact that the group members did not have a common description of value or structure to the discussion. Each member viewed their own area of involvement within the organization as being more valuable than any other area, and it was this exclusion of other valuable traits that lead the group to begin to clash in such a

Organizations , and groups all depend on the people in the group to run efficiently. In every group there are leaders that others depend on to take charge, and get things done. These leaders show others how to act by following the rules that are enforced in that particular group. In any type of organization people have to be willing to adhere to the agreements, listen to their superior, and have the skill of persuasion.

A leader has a role that can impact others to be more operative in functioning to attain a common goal and maintain effective working relationships amongst group members (Johnson & Johnson 2012). This makes leaders in groups considerably important in shaping individuals (Johnson & Johnson 2012). However, conflict arises in groups and becomes difficult to manage when a leader and the followers lack the skills to manage conflict as a team (Johnson & Johnson 2012). Leadership and conflict resolution skills must exists between leaders and followers in order to manage conflict (Johnson & Johnson 2012). Also, it is possible for followers to teach leaders how to lead and resolve problems since followers can play an active role in building relationships amongst group members (Howell & Shamir cited in Johnson & Johnson 2012). Since followers and leaders both have significant roles in accomplishing the group goals, they both have a role to manage conflict effectively as a group (Johnson & Johnson 2012). This essay will discuss how leaders have an important role in managing conflict and likewise with followers having important roles in managing conflict. Conflicts, the various types of conflicts that happen in groups and the reasons behind the conflicts will be mentioned followed by approaches that can be taken to help manage struggles within groups. The methods can be used by leaders and followers in order to manage

The managers in this case are all free to take harsh and biased decisions for meeting their own personal interest (Cully 1999; Kessler 2003). Because of this, it will create negative environment and as a result employees will not be able to work efficiently. Even if the organisation is not supporting conflicts; proper management should work on creating competitive working environment with the presence of any such conflicts. If they fail, it shows that the organisation is unable to understand how to connect employee and organisation objective in an effective

Veridical paradox usually describes a situation that is logically true although it may sound ridiculous. On the other hand, a falsidical paradox presents a problem that usually uses incorrect assumptions to justify an, otherwise, wrong results. An antimony paradox is a self-referential paradox lays out a set of conditions and then asks a question, the resolution of which becomes self-contradictory, resulting to lack of a valid answer. On the other hand, a dialetheia paradox claims that opposite statements can be both simultaneously true.

The interpersonal interactions between the two groups during meetings were not conducive to progress. During meetings the business team members often felt lost, confused, and would