Organizational-Behavior Exam Dumps - WGU Courses and Certificates Questions and Answers

Group Cohesivenessis the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. When a group is "working in different directions," it lacks the unity and shared purpose characteristic of cohesive teams. To increase cohesiveness, Organizational Behavior literature suggests several specific strategies.

One effective method is toPhysically isolate the group. By providing the group with its own workspace or isolating them from other units, the members are forced to interact more frequently with one another rather than with outsiders. This increased interaction often leads to a stronger shared identity and a "we-feeling" that helps align their efforts. Other common ways to increase cohesiveness include making the group smaller (not larger, which refutes option C), increasing the time members spend together, and increasing the status of the group or the difficulty of gaining admission. While option A (increasing difficulty of membership) is a valid way to increase cohesiveness, the provided source materials and the context of members "working in different directions" prioritize physical isolation as a primary structural intervention to foster unity. Creating more rigid roles (Option D) might help with clarity but does not necessarily increase the emotional and social attraction (cohesion) between members.

Image of Conflict Management Grid

Conflict is an inherent part of group dynamics, and how it is managed determines whether the outcome is functional or dysfunctional. The scenario describes aProblem Solvingapproach (also known as collaborating or confronting). In this technique, the parties involved meet face-to-face with the explicit intent of identifying the underlying problem and resolving it through open, honest discussion. Unlike other methods that might avoid the issue or seek a quick "middle ground," problem solving seeks a "win-win" solution where the concerns of all parties are fully addressed.

Other techniques mentioned in the options serve different purposes:Smoothing(or accommodating) involves playing down differences to maintain surface-level harmony;Compromisingrequires each party to give up something of value; and theDevil's Advocaterole is a technique used to stimulate functional conflict by intentionally challenging the majority view. Because the employees are actively engaging in open discussion to find a root-cause resolution, it is classified as problem solving.

While a strong culture can be a significant asset by improving employee commitment and reducing ambiguity, it can also become aliabilityunder certain conditions. One of the most critical liabilities occurswhen a strong organizational culture limits diversity within the organization. Because a strong culture pressures employees to conform to accepted values and behaviors, it can create a "mismatch" for people who bring different perspectives or backgrounds.

Strong cultures often act as a barrier to change because they lead to institutionalization, where behaviors are followed blindly without question. This can be particularly damaging during mergers or acquisitions, where two conflicting strong cultures may fail to integrate. Furthermore, when the shared values do not align with the organization's effectiveness in a changing environment, the culture becomes a "barrier to diversity" and a "barrier to change". Management must therefore balance the benefits of a cohesive culture with the need for diverse viewpoints that prevent "groupthink" and allow the organization to remain adaptable.

The interaction between cohesiveness and performance norms is a critical concept in Organizational Behavior. As shown in the research regarding group dynamics,the productivity of the team will improve significantlywhen both cohesiveness and performance norms are high. Cohesiveness provides the social "glue" that keeps the team together, while performance norms provide the "direction" by establishing clear expectations for effort, output, and quality.

When these two factors coincide, the group becomes a powerful force; members motivate one another to meet the high standards they have collectively accepted. This is the "ideal" state for any work team. If cohesiveness is high but performance norms are low, the group is unified but unproductive. If cohesiveness is low but norms are high, productivity improves only slightly because members lack the social bond to sustain high-level collaboration. Therefore, the combination of a strong bond and high standards yields the most significant productivity gains.

Social loafingis a phenomenon in group dynamics defined as the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. This concept challenges the common assumption that the "spirit of the group" always increases individual motivation. It was famously illustrated by the Ringelmann effect, where research showed that individuals pulled less hard on a rope when they were part of a group than when they were alone.

Social loafing typically occurs because of a dispersion of responsibility; when individuals believe their contribution cannot be measured separately from the group's total output, they may feel less "accountable" and decrease their effort. It can also stem from a "sucker effect," where individuals reduce their effort because they perceive others in the group are not doing their fair share. To counter social loafing, managers are encouraged to use individual performance evaluations, provide group rewards based on individual contributions, and keep group sizes small enough that individual efforts are visible.

Would you like me to proceed with the next batch of questions (Questions 16-20)?

Astrong organizational cultureis one in which the core values are both intensely held and widely shared by the members. One of the primary advantages of such a culture is theformation of strong employee commitment. When employees believe in and identify with the organization's values, they are more likely to be dedicated to its goals and more willing to put in extra effort to see the organization succeed.

A strong culture also serves to reduce turnover because it creates a high level of agreement among members about what the organization stands for. This unanimity of purpose builds cohesiveness and loyalty. Furthermore, a strong culture acts as a substitute for formalization; it tells employees how they are expected to behave without the need for thick manuals or rigid rules. While it can have liabilities (as noted in Q32), the immediate organizational benefit is a motivated, committed workforce that shares a common sense of direction.

In the study of Organizational Behavior, the "nature vs. nurture" debate examines how much of an individual's personality is inherited (heredity) versus influenced by their surroundings (environment). While heredity sets the outer parameters or "potential" of an individual's personality, environmental factors—such as culture, family, and social groups—dictate how that potential is realized or constrained. This specific individual exhibits traits like competitiveness and independence, which are often reinforced by a business environment that rewards such behaviors.

However, personality is not a static result of environment alone (refuting option A and D), nor is the environment irrelevant to personality development (refuting option C). Instead, the interactionist perspective suggests that behavior is a function of the person and their environment. The "potential" of a person's personality traits is often activated or suppressed by environmental demands. For example, a person with a natural inclination for leadership may only see that trait flourish if the environment provides opportunities and requirements for leadership. Consequently, the individual’s success is a result of how effectively they adjust their internal traits to meet external environmental requirements. This adjustment process is a key component of "person-environment fit," where high levels of fit lead to better performance and job satisfaction.

The link between performance evaluation and motivation is best explained throughExpectancy Theory. According to this theory, an individual's motivation to exert effort depends on three relationships: Effort-Performance, Performance-Reward, and Rewards-Personal Goals. For an employee to be motivated, theymust have confidence that the effort they exert will lead to a favorable performance evaluation(the Effort-Performance relationship).

Image of Vroom's Expectancy Theory

If an employee believes that no matter how hard they work, the evaluation process is biased, based on luck, or uses unclear criteria (like personality traits rather than measurable behaviors), their motivation will suffer. Furthermore, the employee must believe that a good evaluation will lead to organizational rewards (such as a bonus or promotion) and that those rewards will satisfy their personal goals. If any of these links are weak—for instance, if the evaluation process is perceived as unfair—the entire motivational chain is broken. Therefore, the perceptual process is central to this relationship; it is not the objective reality of the evaluation that motivates, but the employee's perception of its fairness and accuracy.

The effectiveness of a team is generally categorized by its composition, context, and process. According to the Big Five Personality Model and team research, effective teams are typically composed of individuals who score high onemotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These traits help maintain a positive working environment and reduce interpersonal friction. Furthermore, teams must ensure that they have people to fill variousrole demands—meaning that all necessary tasks and social-maintenance functions are being performed by someone within the group.

Crucially, effective teams do not necessarily have an "absence of conflict" (which refutes option C). Instead, they maintain amanageable level of conflict. Specifically, "task conflict"—disagreements over the content of the work—can actually stimulate discussion and lead to better decisions, provided that "relationship conflict" (interpersonal animosity) remains low. Therefore, a team that is emotionally stable, fulfills its role requirements, and handles conflict constructively is much more likely to succeed in a high-pressure environment like the electronics market than one that simply tries to avoid all disagreement.

The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. Fiedler identified three contingency dimensions that define the situational favorableness: Leader-member relations, Task structure, andPosition power.

Image of Fiedler's Contingency Model

Position power is specifically defined as the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases. A leader with high position power has significant structural authority, which makes it easier to influence the behavior of subordinates through formal rewards and sanctions. In contrast, a leader with low position power must rely more heavily on personal influence or rapport to achieve goals. Understanding these dimensions is crucial because Fiedler argued that a leader's style is essentially fixed; therefore, to improve effectiveness, one must either change the leader to fit the situation or change the situation (such as increasing or decreasing the leader's position power) to fit the leader.