So what are the specificities of the World Warcraft's Guilds as Organization?
Let's focus on the Guild's actors, as defined above, we have 2 kinds of members: Guild Leaders (GL) and Guild Members (GM) or the Community leader and the Core members as described by (Wenger, McDermott & al. 2002) [1].
The GL is a multiple role actor being a facilitator, coordinator and custodian of the guild's values in short the manager of the guild. The GL had specific privileges as manager/administrator.
The GM, is not a homogeneous group, each member is guided by his/her motivations, the level of participation and involvement will differ from one member to another.
The guild as a social construct, adopt a specific set of rules (e.g. outline the behavior between the members) but also define its own tasks and tools (e.g. chat channel or forums). In the process of developing these frameworks and cooperation's medium, actors need to take a decision. The daily life of the guild is permanent interaction between actors, between actors and the game universe, etc. This perpetual evolution it's matter also of continuous decision-making processes.
The fact that there are many organizational features from the beginning of the guild: leader, internal regulations, specialization of members, hierarchical system, specific activities, specific operating procedures. All these factors are good arguments to characterize the Warcraft guild as rational system.
Schematically speaking, over the time two type of GM can be distinguished according the time player spends. Spontaneously embryonic sub-groups among player emerge. High attendance provides expertise and power, this sub-group develop his own interest (according my personal experience, years ago, kind of compet...
... middle of paper ...
...e future of the Guild. In this kind of situations its not absolutely obvious that GL will apply again a logic of consequence. The rules are the rules! The procedures become a shield hidden the difficulties. The coordination process probably will boost the organizational process.
The tension between GM and specially between GM sub-groups will generate coalition strategies. New coalitions between GM sub-groups, in turn, shape the guild (changing the hierarchy, the rules and even the goals).
One more time, the situation is not set in stone!
Even with lack of details and absence of in-depth knowledge of the Warcraft world and its guilds. The few examples highlight limits of each theory to encompass the whole reality of this organization.
Similar analysis must be approached through composite approach, having in mind heterogeneity of actors and temporality of actions.
cannot reach consensus on a problem then the group may split for that time but
daily life there are few ways in which these groups can properly communicate to allow
Group cohesion is not caused by one single factor but by the contribution of many other factors (Tuckman, 1964) In order for a group to be fully cohesive a certain process occurs, a conceptual model created by Carron et al (1985) clearly outlines this procedure, this model says that there can be two routes towards group cohesion, one of which is group integration, this is how the group itself bonds together and is dependant on if the individuals within the group form a bond. Another is that of the individuals attraction towards the group which is dependant on there own motivation to stay in and contribute, alongside there own personal involvement in the overall group functionality.Thus the success of the theory is highly dependant on the need for co-operation from each individual within the
The group has reached the Norming stage when they begin the second stage. “The team is faced with creating cohesion and unity, differentiating roles, identifying expectation for members, and enhancing commitment. Providing supportive feedback and fostering commitment to a vision are ne...
My analysis is on the film The Goonies. While I view the movie and determine the various norms, behaviors, roles and interaction between group members, as well as individuals the examination within the realm of film can present many of the same components. Thus, our group selected this movie to analyze based on its formation of a cohesive problem-solving group full of unforgettable characters. The Goonies portray many different theories and aspects of small group communication.
According to Coleman & James (1961) ‘cohesion tends to be weaker and moral tends to be lower in a larger group than in a smaller one.’ The reason they state this happens is because, in the majority of cases there is a lack of intimacy within the group and in extremely large groups the members are almost strangers to one another.
Our book defines a group as a collection of people who are perceived to bond together in a coherent unit to some degree (Baron 241). Making a decision isn’t always easy depending on how many people are in the group and if there is any conflict within the group. The basic aspects of a group include roles, status, norms and cohesiveness but when viewing my soccer team I see only certain obvious aspects being present. When thinking about the process in which we, as a group have to make the decision of where to stop for food after an away game, it is obvious that many theories and/or topics can be applied. These theories or topics include evaluation apprehension, social decision schemas, authentic dissent and conflict. The four subjects listed above help explain how a group can come to a decision together.
Leaders will often separate in-group and out-group members based on similarities of the group member and the leader. Other characteristics that can play into it are age, gender, or even a member’s personality. A member can be granted in-group status if the leader thinks the member is competent and is going above and beyond to perform the job functions. As mentioned the two groups that members can fall into are in-group and out-group. In-group members are those that share similarities with the leader. Those similarities can be personality, work ethic, common interests, or even alma maters. In-group members often go above and beyond their job description and the leader does more for these members. In-group members will have their opinions and work ideas looked at in higher regard than out-group members. In-group members typically have higher job satisfaction within the group and are less likely to experience turnover. In-group members are often promoted within the organization f...
It is important to distinguish the difference between teams and groups. The main difference is that teams work altogether toward a common goal whereas groups can work altogether but for their own objective. It is important to highlight that a group does not necessary need a leader to follow but a team does and this leader will set directions to achieve the goal. In teams people are more committed as they share their ideas, they know the purpose of what they are doing and what the others are doing, they understand better individual objectives and team objectives whereas in groups, generally people are just told what they have to do without further explanations. Because in a team people get to know each other, it builds trust and enhances communication but in groups, people do not really know each other, do not trust or communicate effectively with each other. In teams it is frequent to see constructive conflict as people talk more openly and more honestly but in group it is quite rare. Eventually, people in teams are more involv...
According to former American Businessman, Henry Ford, he describes working as a team as, “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” When working with a group there will always be struggles and roadblocks that could lead your group to any form of success. However, it takes a successful group leader who is able to keep the group working together to reach the common goal as working as one. This paper will demonstrate the integration and understanding of group dynamics and structure. I have selected the Delta Alpha Pi Honor Society to discuss the following five main principles in each group: the purpose of the group, the individuals and their roles of the group, the structure and the norms that
... that areas of expertise can be exploited, different people are good at different things. Groups can discuss material, and that discussion can improve the quality of the decision. Groups are less likely to suffer from judgmental biases that individuals have when they make decisions. People are more likely to follow through on decisions made by groups that they are connected to. Also, more monumental decisions can be made in groups, because one member will not be singled out for blame, making the entire group responsible.
Each chapter introduces the rationale for the theoretical approach and its unique characteristics, discusses the model’s key concepts and their implications for group process, discusses the approach’s basic procedures and techniques, defines the role and function of the group leader, and when applicable describes the stages of development of that particular group process. Finally near the end of each of the 10 theoretical chapters is an evaluation section. This section is devoted to Corey’s personal assessment of the approach.
One model for understanding group development is the five-stage group development model which states that groups go through five stages of forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Gibson, el at., 2009). In addition, the model suggests that groups can be in several stages at one time and do not have to move through the stages linearly (Gibson, el at., 2009). While this model has been widely used by individuals, in the study of group dynamics, there is no imperial evidence that this model accurately describes group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 2010). In addition, there is some concern that the model is to static and unrealistic in its explanation of group formation (Gibson, el at., 2009). Another model for group development is the punctuated equilibrium model that suggests that there are only three phases (Gibson, el a...
In order to gain some purpose while working in a group, I know it can be challenging task to do because every group member is required to agree and cooperate. I am privileged to become a part of a group and completed our task successfully. Our group consists of 5 members and we experienced the stages of group development along with which different roles being considered. Our group formed with the common interest of competing and representing ourselves as competent and knowledgeable. The storming phase involved a trial being held to determine the capabilities of each other and positions were found to be disputed due to which we voted on leader of team. In the norming stage, roles of every group member have been stated and identified with the
Formation of groups or teams is not something that occurs overnight. Because it involves human beings that come from various backgrounds with different sets of values, forming a group and anticipating them to integrate and function dynamically cannot be expected to