Social Behavior in a Company
This paper discusses about social behavior in a company, given the case at hand. The explanation of whether the type of group behavior in the case is using groupthink, social comparison theory, conformity, group polarization, or a combination of explanations is presented. This also attempts to arrive at a decision regarding which theory best frames or explains this occurrence in the organization and to develop a strategic plan for the CEO.
Sociology, or specifically social psychology, is the systematic analysis of how the individual’s views, emotions, and behaviors are induced by the intangible as well as real matters, and oblique presence of other people (Giddens, Duneier, and Appelbaum, 2006). By this meaning, systematic denotes the observed process of study. The terminologies such as ideas, feelings, and way of behaving take account of each and every psychosomatic variable that are quantifiable in a person.
In connection with this, as seen in the case, a certain group in the company is existent. A grouping is distinguished as two or more persons that interrelate, have some bearing on each other, and share a mutual distinctiveness. Groups have several emergent traits that set them apart from sets or clusters. They have distinct customs, identified as implied regulations and expectations for faction associates to adhere to, roles, characterized as tasks for particular affiliates within the assemblage, and relations or the arrangement of fondness within the group.
These groups are significant not merely for the reason that they bid collective support, wherewithal, and a sense of belonging, but because they enhance a person’s self- perception. They time and again regulate and make better the decision-making process, and are habitually relied upon for these advantages, such as in the case in point. Numerous cluster preconceived notions, nevertheless, can get in the way with operational and efficient decision making. For instance, group polarization, takes place once individuals polarize their outlooks in a more severe direction after set conversation or argument.
Its consequences have been established to overstate the tendency of the affiliates into something after the talk. A review of this outcome has presented that the members are apt to justify more hazardous courses of action than persons who did not take part in any such conversation. Additionally, way of behaving such as ethnic and gender discrimination are likely to be abridged, for previously low-prejudice persons, and magnified, for by now high-prejudice people, bearing in mind the cluster debate.
Societal comparison is as well an instance defined as a premise elucidating how people appraise their individual beliefs and needs by weigh themselves against others. To this, the propensity to relate oneself with other identifiable individual diminishes as the disparity between his views or aptitude and one’s particular opinions and capability become more contradictory. There is also a growing motivation towards attaining superior skills, although there are non-social limitations which yield it almost impracticable to modify them, and that this is mainly missing in judgments.