The Ins and Outs of Getting Better

Productivity generally refers to a measure of the ability or performance of an individual, organization, or machine, in converting inputs into worthy outputs (Schwartz, 2010). The victory of any given organization today, tends to have a linear association with workers productivity. That is why much study has been carried out to try and figure out how best to increase the productivity of workers. While worker retention and acquisition usually take most attention, employee productivity also has to be noticed for the good of the organization (Pozen, 2011). Group productivity has been identified as the most significant element of any business in operation because on every level, team members must collaborate together to attain organizational initiatives and goals. 

A number of factors can influence the rate of increased group productivity, for instance, motivation, job rotation, and technological upgrades. One assignment that should be the top-most priority on every employer’s to-do list is worker motivation (Allen, 2011). Recent studies have revealed that happy workers are 12% more productive compared to their unhappy counterparts. Furthermore, being in similar job rank can be quite monotonous for any worker as it tends to affect productivity (Hartley & Dawson, 2010). . Therefore, by implementing job rotation, the team leaders can offer a wider range and choice for the workers to learn distinct verticals of the project 

This paper will focus on how best to improve group productivity in a manufacturing plant. It will also discuss a few issues that this particular organization may experience, with the inclusion of role conflicts within groups, communication issues amongst group members, lack of cohesiveness in groups with diverse members, and excessive intergroup conflict. Suggestions for a company-wide training program will also be provided in regards to the best practices for group productivity. 

Factors that Impacts Group’s Productivity 

Today, there are numerous manufacturing facilities that are mechanically sound but require constant manual intervention and could increase group productivity by introducing more contemporary management and monitoring approaches, in addition to incorporating a smaller investment compared to upgrading the whole facility (Hon & Chan, 2013). Manufacturers who overlook chances to collaborate are missing a productivity secret; it is impossible to be triumphant without the help from partners and other group members, as much of the company’s success is owed to collaboration (Beam, 2012). Lately, group productivity has been a key concern amongst businesses across almost every industry, particularly the manufacturing one. Inefficiency greatly hurts any manufacturer, and may even endanger the organization’s survival (Schwartz, 2010). That is why it is important to encourage group productivity so as to survive in the current aggressive market. It is also important to keep in mind that low levels of productivity cannot entirely be blamed on workers. 

Different factors can have an impact on a group’s productivity and some of them are discussed below. 

Role conflicts within groups 

In this day and age, a number of manufacturing plants are transforming operational techniques in the management of human resources. They treat workers individually but presently, workers are treated as part of a team or group working in a company, with the purpose of optimizing the group and being established as a social aspect (Pozen, 2011). Given that work teams or groups in manufacturing plants constitute various people with distinct education and backgrounds, it can lead to conflicts at any given time (Hartley & Dawson, 2010). Role conflicts within groups take place when a worker is coerced into taking on incompatible and divided roles. It can take place when an individual is requested to carry out many roles within a single organization (Allen, 2011). For instance, a worker having both employee and management roles in a single department within the manufacturing plant assumes the conflicting roles of a co-worker and supervisor. 

Given the significance of roles, role conflicts within groups in a manufacturing plant can be quite challenging and complicated. A good example is when an accident occurs in the manufacturing plant, and a supervisor is asked to safeguard all staff from possible dangers. He becomes conflicted between his role as a supervisor and his role as a father who needs to be safe enough to go back home to his family by the end of the day (Hon & Chan, 2013). Another illustration would be the plant’s secretary being asked to keep a list of what is being manufactured. Notably, role conflict can occur due to a single assigned role or following the assignment of many simultaneous roles with conflicting anticipations (Beam, 2012). From what has been observed so far, when human beings interact, conflict and incompatibility are usually unavoidable. Role conflicts can take place at any given time and that is why it is important for workers to know how best to manage such conflicts, so as not to have an unconstructive impact. 

Each role conflict is special and no one technique can prevent all forms of such conflicts. However, in these situations, the manager should ensure that he clearly communicates as to what is expected of the group members in order to assist them comprehend their different roles and expectations (Schwartz, 2010). It is also important for supervisors to be trained on how to identify actions that bring about role conflict, and learn how to appropriately adjust those behaviors. A single type of role conflict takes place when group members receive incompatible demands from two or more supervisors (Pozen, 2011). Therefore, in order to get rid of this form of conflict, workers or group members should report to only one supervisor. 

Communication problems among group members 

The daily lives of managers in a manufacturing plant are filled with communication such as meetings, sending emails, and making presentations (Allen, 2011). But as busy as they feel with such association, they may not actually be communicating effectively. They may also be ignorant of what kind of communication style works best for the group members. Overall, similar to avenues of communication, there is no wrong or right with group communication styles. However, a few communication issues may come up within a group in a manufacturing plant. For instance, there may be absence of shared goals within the team, resulting to conflict in communication. 

Similar to the case with role conflicts, a manufacturing plant supervisor may not adequately offer proper guidance as to how a certain task or project should be approached and worked upon (Hartley & Dawson, 2010). Direction may also not be provided to the group in terms of working through the process of setting goals to design their work projects (Hon & Chan, 2013).. Most team leaders do not realize that uncertain goals lead to individual members coming up with their own concepts on group objectives, basing their input and activities on those concepts. 

Given that a manufacturing plant constitutes diverse group members, mistakes, misunderstandings, and misconceptions may lead to communication issues. Although a group may divvy up duties or assignments on a particular project, it may fail to clarify each individual’s role, thus resulting in confusion about who assumes particular roles (Beam, 2012). On the other hand, inability to distinguish facts in conversations from feelings of group members can lead to conflict. 

Dialogues that focus on facts relate to inflexible or unchangeable perspectives, whereas emotive dialogues incorporate expressions of a person’s concerns or feelings. In a manufacturing company, if a group member addresses perspectives with emotive reactions, s/he may impede the group’s ability to move forward with tangible concepts (Schwartz, 2010). Contrarily, if a group member argues with a person’s concerns or feelings, s/he may appear to be unsupportive or insensitive, thus restricting group openness, trust, and intimacy. 

In order to avoid communication issues within a group, the plant managers should learn to listen effectively to those involved with or causing communication issues in the first place. By so doing, the managers will be able to reveal the roots, nature, and depth of the issue for that specific group of individuals (Pozen, 2011). They should also educate the group members on cultural differences, emphasizing that what may appear to be suitable for one culture, may actually be offensive to another culture (Allen, 2011). Sensitivity amongst group members is important in order to ensure open channels of communication and avoid any misconceptions or misunderstandings. 

Lack of cohesiveness in groups with diverse members 

Recently, it has become quite clear that togetherness or cohesiveness is significant to workers, especially those at the lower levels of a manufacturing plant. If one is denied the chance to be cohesive because other members the group are shutting him/her out, the resulting lack of cohesiveness can be quite stress-producing (Hartley & Dawson, 2010). Absence of cohesiveness is presently considered to be a stigma for many multinational and large organizations that have an issue with both discrimination and/or diversity within their main operations. 

Group members in an automobile company, for instance, are usually a highly cohesive team which concentrates more on the process, not the individual, and respect everyone on the team (Hon & Chan, 2013). These individuals also establish accountability amongst themselves, and are fully committed to team strategies and decisions. A less cohesive group is usually less committed to organizational activities and goals, are depressed when the group succeeds and do not feel part of something important, all of which decreases self esteem, performance, and productivity (Beam, 2012). 

The worst scenario for a manufacturing plant manager is having a superiorly cohesive group with low performance and productivity norms. In this case, the group members are usually superiorly motivated to work for their own interests and satisfaction rather than for the company’s goals (Schwartz, 2010). Productivity indicates wide variations among members in groups with low cohesiveness, reflecting that the group has lower social management over its members (Pozen, 2011).. Furthermore, the productivity of members in a cohesive team is more uniform because there is superior management over the level of production of individual members, thus minimizing variation amongst those members. 

In order to mitigate the lack of cohesiveness in groups with diverse members, team building exercises are considered the most appropriate way of seeing how individual members will collaborate together to attain organizational goals (Hartley & Dawson, 2010). Prior to assigning a task to the team, leaders and managers need to see how the group handles simple things such as a spraying tool. Leaders need to also identify the different strengths of each team member and assign them to unique projects based on their competences (Allen, 2011). Notably, a team cannot be cohesive if there is ineffective communication. Therefore, communication methods need to be consistent and clear. Overall, the connection between productivity and cohesiveness of a group in a manufacturing plant is determined by the alignment of the group’s attitude towards the organizational objectives. 

Excessive intergroup conflict 

Intergroup conflict usually takes place when two or more workgroups of any kind disagree or clash with each other, but not always about personality distinctions (Hon & Chan, 2013). A good example can be seen between religious groups or countries that disagree with or establish a hatred for each other (Schwartz, 2010). In a manufacturing plant, excessive intergroup conflict can arise between different levels of workers or management, or amongst team members who inherently gravitate to each other, creating an ‘in-group’ and bringing a separation that is offensive to the ‘out-group’ (Beam, 2012). Most workplace confrontations between group members may come about following intercultural distinctions, poor dialogues, misconceptions, a view of unjustness or other circumstances, unconstructive form of association, or poor social exchange. 

A good illustration of excessive intergroup conflict in a manufacturing plant is when the gender factor is incorporated amongst the workers. Here, men or women may gather together out of a feeling of dominance, or each gender group may join forces if harassment is an overlooked or hidden issue within the company (Pozen, 2011). Excessive intergroup conflict may also be observed when workers inherently form groups due to culture, personality, preferences, or circumstances. Allen (2011) points out that with such division, conflict is bound to follow. In an automobile company, stress from top management or team leaders can cause excessive intergroup conflict that produces unconstructive or constructive outcomes, depending on the stressor. 

If a manufacturing plant has poor organizational culture, conflicts become common amongst group members as well as executives and management. According to Hartley and Dawson (2010), this also means that the organization does not support its workers or boost their morale, thus leading to bad behavior which could spread down through each level, resulting in excessive intergroup disagreements or even unconstructive attitudes between members of a common group. 

It is quite possible for an unconstructive intergroup disagreement to be resolved in order to prevent it from getting blown out of proportion. As a way of encouraging productive, healthy disagreements between group members, manufacturing organizations such as the automobile industry need to establish teams that have varied attributes and compatible personalities (Hon & Chan, 2013). It is also important to ensure that every group member comprehends not just their own worth to the organization, but their co-employees’ as well. Whenever workers or group members do not agree with a given suggestion or rule they should be urged or encouraged to speak up. 

A company-wide training program on best practices for group productivity 

Prior to creating a company-wide training program in terms of the most appropriate practices for group productivity, it is important for trainers to conduct thorough research on the organization’s situation. Although increasing productivity is considered to be one of the most critical goals in any given business, it is unfortunate to observe that it is one that is rarely accepted by management as a genuine mandate (Beam, 2012). Manufacturing plant managers or leaders, therefore, need to follow up every milestone or target so as to see if the progress is enough, and whether any interim measures can be taken before it is too late to save a situation (Schwartz, 2010). For a manufacturing company, on-the-job training is an appropriate program that is guaranteed to assist workers gain hands-on knowledge in the workplace. 

It is not surprising to observe that a majority of workers in manufacturing plants leave because of lack of training and not having a sense of direction or what is expected of them. While an employer may not want to train every worker to do every project, training is useful in extending worker capabilities beyond a restricted and narrow approach of only doing the bare minimum (Pozen, 2011). Overall, workers who are given on-the-job training become more committed to the organization. They are also happier and more excited about their job, compared to those who do not receive such training. 

Conclusion 

Manufacturing plants usually experiences a critical balancing act between attaining the highest levels of effectiveness possible, and guaranteeing that they are not below or above supplying the marketplace. They need to be effective and flexible, requiring outstanding visibility into all factors influencing output and productivity. Problems such as communication issues among group members, excessive intergroup conflict, and role conflicts within groups are some of the factors that tend to affect group productivity. However, these can be mitigated or eliminated by following a few steps which have been discussed above. 

References 

Allen, B.J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity . 2 nd Edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. 

Beam, M.M. (2012). Emotional intelligence and team cohesiveness . Marshall University. 

Hartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Hon, A.H.Y., & Chan, W.W. (2013). ‘The effect of group conflict and work stress on employee performance.’ Cornell Hospitality Quarterly , Volume 54, Issue 2. Pp. 174 – 184. 

Pozen, R.W. (2011). ‘Extreme productivity.’ Harvard Business Review . Pp. 127 – 131. 

Schwartz, T. (2010). ‘The productivity paradox.’ Harvard Business Review . Pp. 64 – 69.