In this section first, different explanations of team are mentioned. Second, using the term "group" and "team" interchangeably and the various point of views are reviewed. Job satisfaction and main individuals of job satisfaction for team members are mentioned finally. Finally two core theories because of this research study; Herzberg's Two Factor theory and its own critical research and Hofstede's Individualism- Collectivism and its own critical research are reviewed.
2. 1. Classification of Team
In this research project the result of teamwork on job satisfaction is investigated. So it is vital to say what team means and what are the basic differences between organizations and teams.
Katzenbach and Smith (1993; p45) define team as "a small number of individuals with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable"
According to Cushway and Lodge (1999; p121) team is "a collection of individuals with common purpose who connect to each other, are psychologically alert to one another and understand themselves as a group. "
Teams have grown to be wide-spread in work organizations, more than 80% of organizations selecting 100 or more workers utilize clubs. Based on another survey carried out in Lot of money-100 companies, had a similar number (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) also propose that the idea of 'team' at work is one of the very most widely used metaphors in organizations. A group of employees or managers is generally depicted as a team in the similar way a company or division is usually described as 'one big family'. However often the new worker obtaining these assertions quickly realizes that what was thought as a 'team' is in fact anything but the mental picture of cohesion, co-ordination and common things which was conjured up by the metaphor of the team, was completely different from everyday reality of working life.
2. 2. Differences between Group and Team
Saltman et al (2006) specify some of the key differences between teams and groups. First of all communities could be developed in small or lot of men and women while In conditions of accountability group members are more individual while associates are both individual and collective. In conditions of conflict image resolution, maybe it's an integral part of group process while it can be an essential part of the team process.
Katzenbach and Smith (1993) also put emphasis on the difference between teams and working teams. They propose that an operating group basically depends on the individual contributions of its participants for group performance, whilst a team endeavors for a magnified result that is incremental to what its member might complete in their individual roles. The options rely mainly on whether specific achievements can deliver the group's performance targets, or whether group work-products, skills and common responsibility are essential.
Working groups are equally common and effective in large organizations. They flourish in hierarchical format where specific accountability matters the most. The best working communities unite to share information, perceptions, and insights, to make decisions that encourage each person to do his or her own job better, and to support each other's individual performance benchmarks. But the primary concern is often in specific performance goals and accountabilities (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993)
Teams are different from working categories. They need both individual and common accountability. Teams depend on more than group debate, argument and decision: rather than writing information and best practice perceptions; on more than a mutual supporting of performance specifications. Lack of individual team work- products formed through joint, real efforts of team members, the offer of incremental or magnified performance impact moves untapped. (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993)
The team option undertakes superior performance than the working group. But it addittionally carries more risk. Because of deep seated ideals of individualism and a natural unwillingness to reliance one's destiny to the performance others, the team option demands a jump of faith. Difficult individualists - and there are many, especially at the top- cannot donate to real team performance without taking responsibility because of their peers and letting their peers believe responsibility for the coffee lover. Nonetheless they automatically suppose that "if you want a job done right do it yourself". It really is against their character to depend on others for the significant tasks in life. (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993)
On the other side many writers apply the terms "team" and "group" interchangeably, mentioning no difference between both of these terms (Fisher et al, 1997) In taking into consideration the work carried out in teams, the models of group decision making, group norm development, and group job and maintenance activities respectively, Schein (1988) and Ancona and Caldwell (1992) recommended their results apply much like teams. According to some authors the work team means the task group. Both are the same functions, techniques and outputs; both behave and can be described in the same way.
However, some authors suppose that teams and groups will vary, and they aim to differentiate and express these variances. Generally, some writers propose that fundamentally a team is an organization, except it includes something extra. For example, Sundstrom et al. (1990, p. 120), express team as, "A small group of individuals who reveal responsibility for effects for his or her organizations". Such as this, other team explanations have very similar elements such as, "An energetic group of people committed to attaining common targets and producing high quality results or, "A group of individuals working jointly in which individual success is based on group' (Fisher et al, 1997). For this research project the researcher used the word group and team interchangeably. Because the researcher used the term group in the questionnaires nevertheless the functions talked about belong team definition too. So the researcher assumes that the team and group might be utilized just as.
'Job satisfaction' is probably the most crucial term because of this research study. The researcher intends to assess 60 secondary institution teacher's job satisfaction. So that it is important to provide some background about what really job satisfaction is matching to different point of views.
According to Mullins(2008) describing and understanding both job satisfaction and its results on job performance is challenging.
According to Specor (1997) job satisfaction is about how exactly individuals consider and experience their careers also its diverse features
. It is extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their careers. Locke cited from Locke (1976; 1300p) also identifies job satisfaction as ". . . enjoyable or positive psychological state resulting from the appraisal of your respective job or job experiences. Albarran et al, (2006) point out that job satisfaction "a standard affective orientation on the part of individuals toward work functions which they are currently occupying" Mullins (2008) propose that ' job satisfaction is necessary in order to accomplish a high degree of desire and performance'
Job satisfaction might be thought as a universal belief about the job or as a related combo of behaviour about various aspects or areas of the job. The global procedure is employed when the overall or bottom line frame of mind is of interest, for example, if one needs to determine the effects of folks liking or disliking their jobs. The facet methodology is used to find out which elements of the job produce satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This can be very helpful for organizations that desire to identify areas of dissatisfaction they can improve. Sometimes both solutions can be used to get an entire picture of employee job satisfaction with regards to other variables of interest. Spector (1997)
Herzberg's Two Factor Theory
In conditions of measuring employee's job satisfaction, one of the most important motivation ideas Herzberg's Two Factor Theory is employed in this research. Even though the idea has some constraints and flaws, the researcher thinks the items pointed out in the theory are measurable and observable. In addition this study will combine those items Herzberg pointed out and teamwork, so it provides new point of view to Herzberg's Two Factor Theory. More descriptive information is mentioned about Herzberg's Two Factor Theory below.
Herzberg has completed quantity of studies about job satisfaction of employees. Motivation- Health Theory proposes that we now have some factors within the work and also job environment which cause to satisfaction or insufficient satisfaction. Herzberg feels that the intrinsic factors in other words job content, cause to employer satisfaction, and there are extrinsic factors in other words job environment, which reduce satisfaction. The determination factors may also be called as satisfiers, because they boost the levels of performance of the employees. The appearance "hygiene factors" which is at first coming from the medical terms that prevent people from perfect performance, are called dissatisfiers. Herzberg classifies achievement; identification; work itself; responsibility; and chance for progression as satisfiers he also classifies company insurance plan; supervision; salary; interpersonal interactions; and working conditions as dissatisfiers. (Graham M. W, Messner P. E. , 1998)
Whilst nearly all Herzberg's work was conducted in the commercial area, a number of studies have been achieved in education. The Motivation-Hygiene Theory was the centre of three recent studies of job satisfaction of institution principals. The aim of each research was to substantiation that the intrinsic components really added to job satisfaction. All three studies established Herzberg's statements that achievement, acceptance, advancement, need for autonomy and self actualization are the key factors to motivate principals and help them to perform at their maximum levels, therefore cause high levels of job satisfaction. Personal life, guidance, interactions with superiors, interactions with subordinates, and romantic relationships with peers are located as important job dissatisfiers. (Graham M. W, Messner P. E. , 1998). This analysis also includes a study in education, aims to assess teacher's job satisfaction in conditions of team working.
The romantic relationship of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
The most significant and fundamental distinction between Herzberg's two factors is the intrinsic level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction atlanta divorce attorneys aspect. If motivation comprises just those ideas which promote action as time passes, then motivators will be the factors that promote long-running attitudes and satisfaction. Tietjen M. A. , Myers R. M. (1998)
Motivators cause positive job attitudes because they fulfill the worker's dependence on self-actualization, the individual's ultimate goal. The existence of the motivators has the potential to create great job satisfaction; however, in the lack of motivators, Herzberg says, dissatisfaction will not occur. Likewise, hygiene factors, which simply "move" (cause temporary action), have the potential to cause great dissatisfaction. Similarly, their absence will not provoke a high level of satisfaction. Tietjen M. A. , Myers R. M. (1998)
Critical Examination of Herzberg's Two Factor Theory
Graham M. W, Messner P. E. (1998) suggest that some Herzberg's two factor theory has some been researched by House and Wigdor (1967). They first of all suggest that it is methodologically destined in identifying critical happenings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Subsequently, the study lacked a measure of overall satisfaction, and finally, situational variables were not treated in determining the relationship between satisfaction and efficiency.
Mullins (2008; p185) also highlights one of theory's methodological flaws as " the critical occurrence method, and the explanation of events offering climb to good or bad feelings, influences the results. People are more likely to feature motivators, as favourable reflection on their own performance and hygiene factors are more likely to be attribute to exterior influences and the attempts of other folks. Explanations from respondents needed to be interpreted by the interviewers. Thus giving climb to difficulty of distinguishing evidently between the different dimensions also to the risk of possible interviewer bias"
all employees are similarly;
all situations are alike; and
you can find one best way. Tietjen M. A. , Myers R. M. (1998)
1 Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction result from different triggers.
unidirectional procedure of needs;
lack of parallel between man's needs and the determination and cleanliness factors
occurrence classification system;
the utilization of consistency data;
denial of specific differences.
Locke's critique of Herzberg's classification system (Locke, 1976), common to the preceding criticism, claims that both factor theory is, in itself, inconsistent in categorizing factors of satisfaction. The two factor theory only splits the spectra of satisfaction into two areas. For example, if an employee is given a fresh task (which is regarded as a motivator) this is considered responsibility. However, in case a manager won't delegate the duty, the situation can take the label of supervision-technical. Locke areas that the breakup of one aspect (like responsibility) into two different kinds of factors results from the misunderstanding between your event and the agent.
Regardless of the criticisms, Herzberg has made a substantial contribution to the dialogue of job satisfaction. Tietjen M. A. , Myers R. M. (1998)
According to Cranier and Dearlove (2001, p361) 'Herzberg's work has already established a considerable effect on the rewards and remuneration deals offered by organizations. Increasingly there is a pattern towards 'cafeteria' benefits in which people can choose from a variety of options. In effect, they can choose the elements they recognise as providing their own desire to work. Similarly, the current focus on self development, career management and do it yourself managed learning can be seen as having developed from Herzberg's insights'
Knights and Willmott 2007 claim that ' it is visible in the attitude towards teamwork as a process that will require interdependency. It regards how much a person finds it desirable to share, collaborate and depend on others for results, in doing so valuing the advantage of the group (collectivism) over self-interest (individualism). Individuals inlayed in a collectivist culture are understood be less inclined to withstand teamwork than those stepped in an individualist culture. Part of the research tends to measure the aftereffect of collectivism among Turkish employees. The researcher assumes that the greater employees have a tendency to be considered a team member and work because of their team the more they may be collectivistic. The findings of Hofstede for Turkey claim that Turkish culture tends to be collectivistic, so the researcher attempts to validate this earlier study and desires to find similar results. Some history information about Hofstede's research is provided below.
Hofstede developed a dimensional method of cross-cultural comparisons through his groundbreaking studies into how management is affected by distinctions among cultural groupings. He carried out considerable studies into countrywide cultural differences, the first being across employees working in subsidiaries of a multinational company (IBM) in sixty-four countries. Hofstede, who experienced established and supervised the employees research section of IBM European countries, took a database of scores resulting from attitude surveys among IBM employees worldwide and re-analysed the figures. The surveys have been developed as management tool to look at issues relating to the work situation. The initial respondents in these surveys were matched teams in seven occupational categories, five of them being non-managerial and two managerial. (Browaeys and Price, 2008)
The research set-up, as well as the statistical methods employed by Hofstede, was applied by other experts to other categories, such as students in 12 countries, commercial air line pilots in twenty three countries and civil service managers in fourteen countries. These studies alongside one another recognized and validated the first four sizes of national culture differences described in this concept. Afterwards Hofstede developed a fifth dimension to account for value orientations that came out from research conducted from a Chinese perception. Hofstede used the results of his research to make a comparison among civilizations on four and eventually five measurements: Electricity distance, Uncertainty avoidance, masculine versus female orientation, Individualism versus Collectivism and Short-term versus long-term orientation. (Browaeys and Price, 2008)
In this research study one of Hofstede's dimension which is Individualism versus Collectivism will be utilized in order to comprehend employee's frame of mind towards team are better.
In the societies when the hobbies of the average person outweigh the hobbies of the group, those cultures are called individualistic. Individualism is more repeated where the connections between folks are weak and folks are expected to provide for mostly for themselves and their immediate family. (Naumov and Puffer 2000).
According to Ali et al (2005) within an individualistic society, people are concerned with pursuing their goals and aren't preoccupied with group welfare. They seek to maintain their freedom from others by participating to the self applied and by sensing and expressing their unique qualities. Individuals in these societies have a tendency to be assertive, indie, and seek privacy and self-gratitude through self-reliance, control, and the prolonged quest for activities that optimise personal gain and pleasure. Alternatively in the societies when the individual is dominated by the group, those civilizations are called collectivistic. Collectivism is characterised by involvement in tightly woven communities where members are protected in substitution for unconditional devotion to the group. (Naumov and Puffer 2000). The nature of connections in a collective society induces individuals to be conformist to major group norms and values and to presume responsibilities that maintain in-group relationships and so improve his/her position in the group (Ali et al 2005)
According to Rodrigues (1998) Individuals in collectivistic societies usually manage their organisations; their managers possibly apply less formalised organisational handles than managers of organisations in civilizations with the individualistic cultural dimension. Furthermore, the use of team work is appropriate in collectivistic than in individualistic societies.
In comparison, Hofstede classified some societies in his research as "moderate-to-high on individualism". Individuals in these societies quite simply look after their own pursuits. These people often think about their own targets to become more important than the organization's. (Rodrigues, 1998).
According to Voronov (2002) the largest limitation of Hofstede's analysis is the differential representativeness of the examples for each and every country. The sample contains employees of an multinational high-technology organization.
The participants were highly informed and highly skilled managers, technicians, and other white-collar specialists. Indeed, it is doubtful how representative such an example would be for just about any country. However, the divergence from the overall population differs from one country to another, depending on its riches. Thus, it is unclear whether confirmed country's credit score on the I-C aspect displays the country's orientation or the orientation of 1 large high-technology company's employees in that particular country.
Individualism and Collectivism in the Work Situation
As Hofstede points out (2001) people who work in an individualistic culture have a tendency to behave reasonably in relation to their personal interest, and work should be organized in such way that self applied interest and the employer's interest coincide. Individuals are supposed to act as "economic men", or as people who have a blend of economical and internal needs, but anyways as people with their own needs. In collectivist culture, an company never hires just a person, but someone who belongs to an in-group. The employee will act according to the interest of this in group, which might not always coincide with his or her specific interest. Self-effacement in the interest of the in-group is one of the normal expectations in that society. Often, revenue need to be shared with relatives.
The selecting process in a collectivist society always will take the in-group into consideration. Usually inclination in employing is given to relatives, to begin with of the employer, but also of other people already utilized by the company. Hiring people form a family group one already is aware reduces hazards. Also, relatives will be concerned about reputation of the family and help to correct misbehaviour of any members of the family. Within the individualist world, family relationships at the job are often considered undesired, as they may lead to nepotism also to a issue interest. Some companies have a rule that if a worker; one of these must leave.
In a collectivist population, the office itself may become an in-group in the mental sense of the word. In some countries this is more the situation than in others, but the feeling that it ought to be this way is almost always present. The relationship between workplace and employee is seen in moral conditions. It resembles a family group relationship, with mutual obligations of protection in exchange for devotion. Poor performance of an employee in this romance is no reason behind dismissal: One does not dismiss one's child. Performance and skills, however, do determine what tasks a worker is designated.
Individualism and Collectivism in Turkey
Table 1: The Scores of Turkey relating to Hofstede's Survey
Turkey's societal culture is identified by large ability distance, strong in-group collectivism (low individualism), strong uncertainty avoidance and modest femininity Ararat M. (2008)
However the socio-cultural environment is also changing. Since Hofstede's research Turkey is becoming relatively less collectivistic, less hierarchical, and less doubt steering clear of. (Aycan, 2001)
In Hofstede's research Turkish culture shown collectivist features and individualism quotient possessed an extremely low figure in comparison to other countries. Matching to Gormus and Aydin (2007) collectivism is gradually replaced by individualism in Turkey. So as it discussed earlier in this research the researcher attempts to learn the belief about individualism collectivism orientation and different job satisfaction levels among a sample of Turkish instructors.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay