Groups and teams may sound as they are the same thing, but are quite different. Both consist of people working for a particular purpose, but are used in an organizational setting for different reasons. Workplace diversity is something used in groups and teams and this paper will explain how it is useful to an organization.

Groups

Groups are divided into three types of levels. The first level is the dependent level. Dependent-level work groups are the traditional work unit or department groups with a supervisor who plays a strong role as the boss (Dummies.com, 2010, para. 2). Every member of the group works independently, but the boss in is charge of each member of the group. The boss keeps a close watch on each member of the dependent group. If the members of the group need help, they do not ask for it from other members of the group, they only ask it from the boss.

Another level of a group is the independent level. In the independent group, each person is responsible for his or her area. Unlike the independent group, the individual in the independent group is not closely monitored by the boss. Members of this group are primarily concerned with their own work with little or no supervision.

The final level of groups is the Interdependent level. Members of this group level all count on each other to finish the work. Members of the interdependent group may have their own job role, but they may share responsibilities with other members of the group. This can be one of the most constructive groups because instead of one person trying to finish something by himself, he has other members of the team to help him or her.

Teams

The main difference between a team and a group is that a group is primarily a group of people

working individually to do their own job and a team is a group of people all working together to finish a job. Teams are not categorized into different levels because a team is just one group working on a project together. If an individual in the team does not win, the entire team does not win. In a group, one individual could fail, without ruining it for the whole team. Teams will collaborate on a project together, whereas members of a group will work on their own projects individually.

Workplace Diversity

In the majority of organizations, there will be workplace diversity. In general, diversity refers to the ways that people in organizations differ (Diversityworking.com, 2006, para. 6). In an era when flexibility and creativity are keys to competitiveness, diversity is critical for an organization’s success (University of Florida, 2009, para. 10). Diversity comes in all different forms Cultural, gender, age, and work experience are just a couple of ways that members inside of an organization can be diversified. Diversity can also include how people perceive a person or how they perceive him or her because personalities are different for every person. It is important for an organization to recognize workplace diversity and to interact with the different needs of each member in the organization.

Cultural diversity is present in most workplaces. People inside of an organization may come from different backgrounds and countries. Organization members who come from different areas and countries can be helpful to an organization because there could be many thoughts and ideas.

Diversity in sex is also a big diversity in the workplace. Although some jobs may have mostly women and others might have more men, there can be a great deal of both at any job. Some work may be preferred by women and other work may be preferred by men.

Another diversity in the workplace is age. In organizations today, there are many age groups. Young people may with older people. Different age groups may prefer to do different jobs. Most jobs do not require one age group to work there.

Work experience is another type of diversity present in the workplace. People who have worked at a job a long time might have to work with others who are just starting. Different types of work can appeal to people of all different ages.

Diversity in the workplace can be an advantage for an organization. If there are many people working on a problem, there is more than one person to come up with a solution. People from many different backgrounds and work ethics can work together to solve problems. With workplace diversity, there will be a broader range of ideas from the different personalities inside of the team. People who have been with the organization a while also can be helpful with the organization by contributing their expertise. A wider range of people working in an organization can help with communication through other countries. One of the most important advantages is workplace diversity is that the organization will require all sets of skills to perform all the duties that the organization will require. Different types of personalities and work experience is helpful in an organization because there are several types of jobs available and different jobs require different skills.

Conclusion

Organizations can either have groups or teams. A group in an organization is people who work individually to achieve a desired goal. A group may be described as a business where everyone works in a different department. A team is a group working together to

achieve a goal. A team could be people working together on a project. Workplace diversity in the organization is important because it lets people of different backgrounds, sex, age, and work experience to all work together and come up with different ideas.

References

Diversityworking.com (2006) DiversityWorking-About. Work Teams and Diversity. Retrieved

April 3, 2006 from http://www.diversityworking.com/employerZone/diversityManagement/?

id=5

Dummies.com (2010) Differences Between Work Groups and Teams. Dependent-Level Work

Groups. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/differences-

between-work- groups-and-teams.html

Green, K, Lopez, M, Wysocki, A, Kepner, K(2009) University of Florida. Diversity in the

Workplace: Benefits, Challenges, and the Required Managerial Tools. Retrieved April 3,

2011 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hr022

A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles

A quick google search believes this to be a quote of Christopher Reeves, noteably the most well known “superman”.

But if this really is the definition of a hero.. Do you really want to be one?

I suppose it depends on how you interpret this quote; if you believe it to mean that the hero “never quits” and continues to try and try again?

Maybe, but suppose I perform the same action or strategy over and over, and each time I find myself in the same situation over and over.  Therefore I have great perseverance and endurance, but I keep hitting that same brick wall, so am I a hero?

Sometimes it is okay to quit, to admit “failure”, to loose a battle, and if doing so means you are not a hero; then maybe we should not try to be heroes.

Another common definition of a hero, is someone we admire, someone we look up to and try to emulate, a mentor perhaps.  If you take a moment and reflect on this; who are your hero’s?  What are the attributes that you admire most about them?

Should the “hero” save the day?

Firefighters, Policemen, Army/Navy and similar groups are teams of individuals devoting to helping people and the world during dire situations. On a daily basis these people sacrifice their own safety to protect others. What kind of courage does it take to run into a burning building, while everyone else is running out of it?

The best heroic events are not performed by indivdiuals, they are preformed by teams. The combined strengths (and weakness) of individuals working together towards a common goal.  In our fantasy world we might think we want superman to come and save us from the burning bulding, but the truth is one man (or woman) cannot do it all, and the individual no matter how special, and how unique is likely to cause more harm then good when working alone

It is easy to fall into the trap of wanting to be the hero. We all have a strong desire to be recognized to know that we somehow stand out amongst or peers. I myself have found myself sad..even depressed that every task I accomplished every test I took continued to evaluate me as “average”. Because inside I always longed to be more.  The problem with this mentality is that we cannot compare ourselves to others, we must compare ourselves to ourselves. We must improve upon the things that matter to us and not the things we thing others want from us, and maybe that’s what makes us heroes in the end.

The blame to stop the cycle 

What is the difference, often get bogged down in blaming members when things go wrong. As a member of the team you can do two things to stop this wasteful and destructive group behavior. I, the elimination of dumping the blame on the language you use. Replace blame and finger-pointing coments or questions with a focus on solving problems, or prevent problems. Secondly, if the other team members go to the blame, and a step in the “conversion” of the conversation back to a constructive approach. For example, here, “said Hassan words:” Well, perhaps we can save some time here in an attempt to ensure that the problem does not happen again, what can we do to prevent this next time? “ 

Focus on the present and future 

This put the blame on the session. Do not dwell too long on talk about the past. The use of the past (group success and failure) to assist the Panel to determine whether they were in need of improvement. Can not change the past – can be used only to find out. 

Stop talking about the return of the Canal 

He talked about the presence of a member of the team, especially with members of another group, usually involves dumping the blame on the process. Although sometimes it good to vent frustration on fellow team mate, should not be done within the team. It is counter-productive and harmful. Stop doing that unless you have a specific and constructive, and why. 

Personal responsibility 

Take responsibility for your behavior, and the results produced by the team, but not the behavior of your team. When responsibility for the actions of another member, would tend to want to change his team, which often leads to discord. 

Finally, focus on your do not spend your time thinking about the statement or in the team what needs to be done in the interest of the team. Think of what can contribute, and how they can contribute more effectively. Then do so. For example, if you had a great suggestion, do not dump in the group with the expectation that someone else will be implemented. Provided that you do so .. In any case, it is your proposal.

Recently I took three months off work, a much needed  break and  a few things going on in my life, I thought at the time I wouldn’t return to work for I felt unwell and drained, stupidly I presumed that no one would really miss me.  I got on the phone to my boss after some considerable time summoning up courage to call her  to tell her I was leaving due to ill health. Dials the number, she answers so sweetly , nervously I  blurted out my plight to her and rambled for a bit, then anxiously waited for her reply, after a little pause, where I suppose she was assessing the situation and what I’d just told her , she said, well why don’t you take unpaid leave and when your better come back. MY goodness I thought ,I didn’t expect that answer, bosses are supposed to be uncaring and not worry about their workers, so I said, sure I’d love that”, all the while thinking, that’s amazing she didn’t want me to leave.

The very next week  I was sitting  there feeling a bit blue, when a knock comes at my door, in comes my boss with a pink plant dressed in a ribbon my colleagues had all pitched in to buy me, with a beautiful card, again  busted’, here I was thinking no one cared and no one would miss me at work.

In poured the text messages and  good wishes from everyone. The most common being hurry up come back we miss you.

I ventured out shopping after a few weeks had passed by and ran into clients of mine they  would tell me how much they missed me and again when are you coming back to work?

So that really blew that theory out of the water.. some people really do value others input into their lives and care. some work places really cherish there workers and team leaders can be compassionate and understanding, as is my boss.  sometimes we get sick or our family members get sick it’s just life or sometimes respite is needed, it’s nice to know that available.

 It is hard getting to work someday as kids are needing our help and attention, but I try to remember when I walk out the door I take my mother’s hat off and my work that goes on, there are other people who are relying on me..

Have you ever noticed how the week flies when you’re at work and how much more you enjoy planning your weekends, you know why? cause your busy and your doing something worthwhile that’s makes you feel proud and happy.

So if ever I thought I was in a thankless job or felt what I was doing wasn’t worth while I certainly have changed my mind.

It was beautiful to see a couple of my clients jump up and down with excitement and joy to see me back at work and in that instance I thought this is what it’s all about, making people happy ,including me, being at work is the best thing I’ve ever done,

It helps us to grow as people, to learn to be a team player and value others opinions and respect what others have to say as their ideas maybe different than ours but never the less valuable. so the moral of the story is, if you’re a worker who gives to the best of your ability then you’ll be given back tenfold in your hour of need, cherish your work and if you have a good boss then let them know so they don’t feel they are in a thankless job.

In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams in the postseason games.  Team names deemed racist or abusive were not allowed on teams’ jerseys.  The ruling, however, was confusing and somewhat ineffective as the executive committee of the NCAA did not have authority over individual schools.  According to committee chairman, Walter Harrison, “What each school decides to do is really its own business.”  In other words, the only authority the NCAA has is to ban schools with such mascots from competing in an NCAA championship tournament.  School officials, however, strongly disagree with the NCAA ruling.  Florida State president, T.K. Wetherell, threatened to take legal action against the NCAA stating, “Florida State University is stunned at the complete lack of appreciation for cultural diversity shown by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s executive committee. … That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally ‘hostile and abusive’ is both outrageous and insulting.”  Athletic Director of Arkansas State University agrees with Wetherell in the representation of his school’s mascot:  “It is our objective to represent Native Americans in a dignified and stately manner.  We believe that our use of the nickname ‘Indians’ and ‘The Indian Family’ as our mascot affords the Native American customs and history the fullest respect and integrity.” 

In 1990, the Board of Trustees called Chief Illinwek of the University of Illinois a “dignified” symbol: “His ceremonial dance is done with grace and beauty. The Chief keeps the memory of the people of a great Native American tribe alive for thousands of Illinoisans who otherwise would know little or nothing of them.” According to these statements, it would seem that non-Native Americans believe they are honoring the tribe their school represents. 

While the NCAA has taken measures to ban American Indian mascots, their authority only reaches to tournaments within the NCAA division.  They therefore cannot create a clear ruling on the matter.  Major college football teams, for example, are not subjected to the new rules because there is no NCAA Division I-A playoff.  Some schools are also subject to exception; schools using the Warrior mascot do not use Native American symbols and are therefore unaffected by the ruling.  Likewise, North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the Braves mascot, will be unaffected because of the high percentage of Native American students that attend it.  Schools that are on the list of “hostile and abusive” mascots are likely to appeal and attempt to overrule the sanction brought forth by the NCAA.  The ineffectiveness of the NCAA’s ruling illustrates the attitude of sports teams and fans:  the teams and their fans insist that their mascots are a tribute to the Native American people.

Professional sports team owners also deny any racism in their mascots.  In the November 15, 1992 game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Washington Redskins in Kansas City, angry Native Americans and their supporters demonstrated their disapproval.  In response to the demonstrations, team owners chose several minority players to announce that their teams did not mean to insult, but rather to honor the native people they represented.  Major television networks and newspapers have agreed, editorializing that the portrayal of American Indians in their mascots is just “good, clean fun.”  Team owners have argued that “a few disgruntled Native Americans” have no right to undermine the nation’s enjoyment of its sports teams.  In an attempt to counter claims of racism, proponents of the racist mascots, such as Ward Churchill, have claimed that the Native Americans have created “a serious barrier to the sort of intergroup communication so necessary in a multicultural society such as ours.”

Other non-Native Americans, however, hold a different opinion when it comes to “honor” and “dignity” of Native American mascots.  Dr. Richard Lapchick, director of Northeastern University’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society and critic of the University of Illinois’, sees nothing dignified about the portrayal of their “Chief Illinwek”:  “Could you imagine people mocking African Americans in black face at a game?” he said. “Yet go to a game where there is a team with an Indian name and you will see fans with war paint on their faces. Is this not the equivalent to black face? To me, Native Americans are our most spiritual people. They believe that we all live within the one circle of humanity, no matter what the color of our skin. We wait for our sports teams to honor that circle.”  Others of non-Native American descent have taken the issue of American Indian mascot portrayal seriously.  Roy Saigo, president of St. Cloud State University, a Japanese-American and a national leader of the anti-mascot campaign, convinced the NCAA to consider a formal discussion of the mascot issue.  The United States Commission on Civil Rights backed his efforts, calling for “an end to the use of Native American images and team names by non-Native schools.”  Saigo believes that “until we resolve this, we will continue to inflict pain on one of our nation’s most scarred communities.” 

The pain that Saigo speaks of, however, runs deeper than he may have thought.  In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) called for the immediate ban on Native American mascots in schools, athletic teams, and other organizations.  Former APA president, Dr. Ronald F. Levant understands that the eradicate racism, it must be eliminated from schools:  “The use of American Indian mascots as symbols in schools and university athletic programs is particularly troubling because schools are places of learning. These mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and too often, insulting images of American Indians. These negative lessons are not just affecting American Indian students; they are sending the wrong message to all students.”  Based on a growing body of social science literature, research has shown that racial stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals have a harmful effect on the development of social identity and self-esteem in young Native Americans. 

Research has also shown that the racial stereotypes found in mascots proves to be detrimental to young non-Native Americans.  Non-Native American children are susceptible to accepting the mascots as the true portrayal of Native Americans.  According to most students, Native Americans only survive in their history books.  Traditionally, very little information has been presented to students, but that information includes stereotypes that encourage children to ostracize those who appear different from themselves.  It teaches non-Native American children that it is acceptable to engage in culturally abusive behavior, as well as carry on inaccurate ideas about the Native American culture and community.  This discrimination can easily lead to negative relationships between members of the Native American community and members of the non-Native American community.  Those in the non-Native American community who have been educated on the real issues understand the pain it is causing, as well as attempt to eradicate the blatant racism found in negative portrayals of Native Americans.  According to Dr. Lisa Thomas of the APA Committee on Ethnic and Minority Affairs, “The discontinued use of American Indian mascots is a gesture to show that this kind of racism toward and the disrespect of, all people in our country and in the larger global context, will not be tolerated.”

Non-Native American parents and educators are beginning to understand the effect their school mascots have on their children.  The values of tolerance and respect in the schools are contradicted when a stereotyped image of a Native American leader represents the school’s sports team.  When educators take the time and initiative to help children “unlearn” their stereotypic views of Native Americans while teaching the truth, students become a valuable resource in the reformation of racist images in a place of education.  The opinion of non-Native American students, after an informed discussion of the truth behind Native American history, expresses an intolerance for racism.  Most students sympathize with Native Americans, upset by schools’ intentional decisions to choose blatantly racist mascots.  Some students, on the other hand, differentiate between mascots.  After thoughtful research, many argue that the University of Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek is not disrespectful, while the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo is an obvious caricature and therefore an offensive image.