Group Dynamics for High-Risk Teams - Essay Example

Group Dynamics Name Unit Institution Tutor Date Introduction In the course of my studies, I have been involved in a number of study groups as a study requirement and as a personal strategy in learning. All these study groups qualify to be work groups as per the work group definition in that they are small, temporary and goal oriented (Wk 1 ppt). These work groups have been unique in terms of their composition, formation processes and objectives. Similarly, I have also been a member of various teams, especially in sports. My personal experience in these teams and groups has given me a better understanding of the differences between a team and a group more so in terms of accountability. In this particular unit, ‘Group and organizational behaviour’, I have worked in groups to attain academic and practical objectives of the course (Wk 1 ppt). My experience has strengthened my theoretical knowledge and understanding of the subject. I have witnessed a number of theories at work in a number of the groups. Issues such as group formation stages and the challenges involved have all come along the way. Arguments and claims presented by a number of theories and models in group dynamics presented by various scholars in the subject have been encountered. In this report, I will rely on relevant literature and personal experiences to discuss in length the application of theory in group communication in two study groups that I belong to where one group has been very successful (Group A) in accomplishing its objectives while the other one has failed (Group B). Descriptions One of the major learning and teaching strategies is study groups or group discussions. As the name suggests, a study is the coming together of students to discuss academic matters for their own benefit. A number of academic experts recommend that group discussions should be held among peers. In a situation where a classroom scenario is replicated outside the class as a group discussion where a teacher of tutor is perceived as a member do not achieve the core objectives of a study group. In that regard, study group should be made of peers only. Membership to such groups should also be voluntary in order to set the right mood and attitude towards such groups. Davis (2009) argues that tutors should cease from grouping students but encourages tutors to advise students on how to form groups and observe the composition and balance the strengths of the members. Attaining this is very can be difficult as some students are bent on forming study groups based on friendship. Forming study groups comprising of friends alone has its benefits and detriments. One key benefit is that students do not waste time familiarising with another as opposed to study groups comprised of unfamiliar people. On the other hand, study groups comprising of friends only may fail to maintain the necessary level of seriousness required to meet the group’s objectives. Two groups that I have participated in have the most obvious contrast in terms of composition and performance though they have some similarities too. In the first group, henceforth called Group A, the tutor asked students to form study groups and gave the conditions for group membership. The academic strength of the members depending on previous class tests had to be balanced. After the students formed the groups comprising of five students, the tutor had to approve them by assessing whether all the conditions had been met. Three groups that did not the conditions were disbanded and new ones formed. I joined a group with other four members. Members agreed on the meeting place and time. On the first meeting, we chose a group leader. The role of a secretary who was responsible for writing down minutes was rotational. The second group that I joined comprised of four and me with whom I agreed to form a study group to hold academic discussions in two common course units we were taking. This group, henceforth called Group B, was supposed to last for the semester and duration of the units. The group’s main purpose was to create a forum for further discussion on complex issues learned in class to improvement academic performance (Wk 1 ppt) and motivated by commonality of purpose (Wk 3 ppt) The purpose was vague and clear objectives and goals were set at the beginning. The term ‘further discussions’ was too broad and could not be broken down into smaller measurable tasks. However, such issues did not occur until the group meetings started. The attendance from day one was dismal. Members gave flimsy reasons of not attending meetings. Upon choosing the group, leader there was opposition as two members argued that they did not a person to boss them around. They argued that because all of us were close friends, we had a very high chance of agreeing on anything and hence the role leader was unnecessary. However, this argument was shot down and a group leader was chosen. Group communication Grimme and Grimme (2009) indicate that communication in a setting where more than two people are involved in accomplishing a task is guided by the relationships of the members. There are two main relationships, teams and groups. A team is defined as a group of people about 2-10 or more working together to attain common objectives (Wk 3 ppt). The same definition may be applied to a group. However, in a group members are individually accountable for specific tasks or goals and there is no joint effort or mutual accountability. On the other hand, a team comprises of members ideally 5-10 who work together and take a common approach in attaining specific goals whereby they hold themselves individually and mutually accountable for the end result (Wk 3 ppt; Grimme & Grimme 2009). Therefore, it applies that in a team, cohesiveness among members is given relatively more weight than in groups (Bronwynne, n.d.; Grimme & Grimme 2009). As such, the definition of a group marks the foundation and style of communication within a group. Communication in small groups is based on the interaction levels and structure of group members. The interaction structures are dependent on the interaction levels of the members before the group is formed. In fact, in existing groups, “various investigations found that the utterances of group members tend to follow each other in predictable patterns such that it is often possible to anticipate what a group member will say if we know what another has said previously” (Macks & Salwen 349). Griffin expounds on the structuration theory in small group communication to say that there are three dimensions in group structures that guide communication namely; interpretation (how we should understand), morality (what should be done) and power (how to do it). Each structure can produce another structure though it is common to see one structure opposing the other. In analysing communication aspect in the two groups, there are indications of opposition and complementarity in some of the structures. Analysis The fact that members of a group have no mutual accountability already announces a precarious situation. Members are likely to flout rules and seriousness of the whole process is relatively low. In one of the groups that I had joined and participated in before it collapsed, I noticed how members exploited the definition of a team and the fact that there was no joint accountability and led to the failure of the group. In this particular group (Group B), communication level was high though the level of seriousness was low. The issues that cropped up for discussion were non-academic and this went on for so long affecting the output of the group. In the other group, communication levels are high though only on academic matters. As such, communication should be geared towards attaining group objectives. Group communication is very important in the attainment of group objectives. There are three major characteristics of group communication that distinguish it from other forms of communication. These are interaction among members, interdependence, shared norms and values and assumption of collective identity. The interdependence element was most apparent in Group A where each member had something to learn from the other. One memorable event was when the group was required to complete a class group assignment using the SPSS software. Apparently, only one member was well experienced in using the software implying the group could complete the assignment. However, all members agreed that is was important that the SPSS-experienced member train the rest of the members on how to use the package effectively. This nearly turned the group sessions from discussions sessions to training sessions. Nonetheless, communication did not entirely turn one-way as many people would expect. The environment was very different from the class environment as it had a social element that allowed a relaxed tone and unofficial element in communication. The familiarity amongst the members enabled speedier learning and grasping of the basics. Eventually, everyone was well equipped in handling SPSS questions. Various personal characteristics of individual members determine the overall group communication trait. Key among them is the communication traits of individual members and the interaction levels. For instance, in a group made up of close friends, communication levels will be high and interaction will be beyond that of attaining group objectives. Although learning takes place best in social environments, chances of getting derailed in a group consisting of friends are high. This was the case in Group B where all members were close friends. Non academic related matters often took precedence over the group objectives. Jokes dominated many meetings and the timelines were rarely kept (Wk 3 ppt). Though one member attempted to out the group on the right path by condemning any non-academic interactions, he was met with a lot of resistance. This member thus opted out of the group to join a supposedly more serious and focused group. This marked the beginning of the end of the group. On the other hand, Group A excelled and continued to function very well. The objectives of the group which were enhanced understanding of the subject in class were attained with greater success and peer reviewing each others assignment before submission (Wk 1 ppt). Communication in the group was largely kept formal though jokes and social chat came up occasionally. In fact, one member was notorious for bringing up jokes especially relating to tutors. The group leader, a very serious guy with the help of other group members succeeded in reigning on the guy and keeping him focused. However, it is important to acknowledge that the jokes he cracked and other light moments made it worthwhile to look forward to the group meetings and discussions. This helped in breaking the monotony of discussions and avoiding boredom. Alternatively, some groups are authorized by a higher authority. For students, the group forming authority could be a tutor while for organizations it could be the management while in the larger society it could be political leaders. Balance is a major consideration in forming these groups. Conventionally, bright students tend to congregate together leaving out others or friends gather together to form a group. The success of Group A is thus highly attributable to the clear articulation of the group’s objectives. This was lacking from the time of formation of Group B which ultimately led to its collapse and failure in achieving its loosely defined objectives. The authority that forms the group more often than not articulates the group’s objectives. For group B, there was neither higher authority that formed thr group nor one that articulated the group’s objectives. This implies that the forming authority and clear articulation of goals in a group set the tone of communication in the group and determines th group’s success. While there is shared accountability in a group, individual accountability in terms communication requires that each makes contributions during group discussions relevant to the task at hand. In my experiences in Group B, there have been instances where some members have failed to make adequate contributions to the group. Fraher (2005) indicates in cases of students’ group discussions, students who are poor in class or are shy are likely to be inactive actors in terms of communication. He however recommends that they should be made to understand they need to make contributions for the overall success of the group. Another element that I observed that can hinder accountable communication among some members is failure to take individual studying seriously. For instance, as members of Group B, we agreed to tackle a particular problem individually through extensive reading which we would latter discuss and consult one another over the same in the next meeting. It so happened that in the next meeting, two members had no contributions to make. They had not read the material and did not have the slightest idea of the problem’s content. Personal traits of individual members can make or destroy a group. In the case of the second group, how members managed their egos and how arguments were handled ensured the success of the group. One of the members for instance has assumed to be the natural leader. Having been a leader in other groups, he assumed that group leadership would come automatically in the new group. However, in exercising democracy, two members expressed their interest in being the group to which a vote was held. In this case it is apparent that members were able to communicate amongst themselves and express the desire to have a democratically elected leader. In some cases, members may act disinterested in the politics and affairs of the group and fail to communicate their fears and seek assurances over certain areas (Weightman, 2004; Davis, 2009). This issue of how leadership is attained in groups introduces the next issue for analysis in group management matters, power and politics in groups and in therein lays leadership. The manner in which the group leader communicates with the group members is matter of life and death for the group. One of the key components of leadership in a group or elsewhere is communication skills. The ability of a group leader to communicate and lead effectively is a significant in determinant in the success of the team or group. Davis (2009) indicates that leadership is the most important asset of a group or team. The same applies for companies and even countries. He argues that any task that is to be accomplished by more than one individual requires proper leadership to guide and motivate people towards attaining the common goal. Lack of leadership thus was a direct cause of failure for Group B. Conclusion Groups can achieve more than what members can achieve working individually if they get to communicate effectively. However, the dedication and the approach to a group’s objectives can be lower as compared to a team. The school scenario however, works best using study groups as discussed above. Through practical experience, this report has shown that small group communication structures literally determine success or failure of any group. The relationship amongst the members determines how the group progresses through various group formation stages. If communication within a group fails, the group is destined for collapse or failure to meet the laid down objectives. References Behfar, K. Peterson, R., Mannix, E. & Trochim, W. (2008). ‘The Critical Role of Conflict Resolution in Teams: A Close Look at the Links Between Conflict Type, Conflict Management Strategies, and Team Outcomes.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), 170–188. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170 Bronwynne, (n.d.) Fresh Perspectives: Managing People. Johannesburg, Pearson. Davis, B. (2009). Tools for teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons Fraher, A. (2005). Group Dynamics for High-risk Teams. New York: Iuniverse Forsyth, D. 2009. Group dynamics. Sydney: Cengage Learning. Griffin. (1994). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Grimme, D. & Grimme, S. (2009). The new manager's tool kit: 21 things you need to know to hit the ground running. New York: AMACOM Somech, N., Desivilya, H. & Lidogoster, H. (2009). ‘Team conflict management and team effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 30, 359–378 (2009). DOI: 10.1002/job.537 Weightman, J. 2004. Managing people, 2nd ed. New` York: CIPD Publishing Read More