Group Formation - Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning - Case Study Example

Group Assignment Reflection (Institution) (Name) (Course) (Module) (Instructor) Date of submission Table of contents Table of contents 2 Introduction 3 Group formation 3 Forming 4 Storming 5 Norming 6 Performing 6 Adjourning 9 References Introduction For students enrolled in the NURS11152 class, they were organized into groups. The groups were supposed to assist students in attaining the objectives of the unit, which is attaining and practicing professional communication skills in nursing practice. This paper will give a personal account of the whole process of forming the group and how the group functioned and how members communicated through journal postings. The paper will use existing and relevant theory and literature in connecting the progress of the group and how it functioned. Group formation Teams and groups are essential components of the work and learning environment. Working in teams allows duty and role sharing among group or team members depending on the task at hand and the purpose of working in groups/teams. A team usually consists of 2-12 members in the learning environment while the number of members varies greatly in work environments depending on the task among other factors. Team formation is the most important and fundamental step in any team work effort. Utmost care must be taken when articulating the purpose of the group and how it is formed. Wheelan (2005) writes that the “how” of group formation is more important than the “why”. In this case, the “why” part of forming the group had already been spelt out by the instructor. The “how” part of it was pre accomplished the function part of how was for the students. For groups to be formed, people need to interact, adjust their behaviour in response to one another and be well coordinated to work as collective entity (O’Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). This implies that personal attributes and compatibility must be considered in choosing the members of the group. Again, Wheelan (2005) advises that coordination of attitudes is important in choosing the group members. In any attempt to work in teams or groups, the initial step is to identify the role or the purpose of teams and then forming them. The groups in this case were formed by the instructor. The group utilized Bruce Tuckman’s team stages model to assist in team formation and functioning. The model is developed into five steps for successful team work. The five stages are; forming, storming, forming, performing and adjourning (Wheelan 2005; O’Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). Each stage is characterized by unique events. The forming stage involves identifying team members. In this stage, members may question the team composition and conflict is common. Where members have the freedom to choose team mates, conflict can be averted (Wheelan 2005). Although our group did not face major conflict at this stage, I felt that the students should have been given the freedom to form teams. The team leader can be chosen at this stage in order to offer guideline to the team on such issues as arranging team meetings. In a small group like ours the issue of team leadership was inconsequential though performed majority of a team leader’s duties such as spearheading meetings and discussions. Forming The team formation stage for our group was relatively uneventful. Having known each other as classmates, Kate Linda and I had no problem in being in one group. However, some issues arose. Linda was concerned about our ability as a team to remain focused on the task at hand arguing that my familiarity and friendship with Kate and our overall age differences would interfere. Kate and I assured her that we would try our best to remain focused and also exploit our friendship and age differences to ease communication and information sharing within the group. This view is also supported by Michaelsen, Parmelee, McMahon (2008) who say that unfamiliar team members may take time, usually at least four working sessions to trust each other which may hamper team progress. This was critical considering my previous experience with group work assignments where most meetings were platforms for revolving arguments over simple matters. Consequently, I entered this in the journal; I am somehow apprehensive about working in groups. Sometimes, one’s individual contribution towards the group might not be matched by other members who may pull the group downwards. However since it is a compulsory requirement, I will give it my best. Nonetheless, I also felt that by the instructor choosing the groups, the chances of friends only forming groups was averted. Storming The storming stage practically translates to the introductory cum brainstorming sessions aimed at gathering ideas on how to handle the task at hand and where roles and positions within the team are questioned. At this stage, different personalities come out. Michaelsen, Parmelee, McMahon (2008) say that it is common for the team leader’s suitability to be questioned at this stage and conflict is common. I personally felt that Linda’s prior attitude towards my friendship with Kate would undermine the functioning to the team. Her attidude was also a clear indication of low levels of emotional intelligence which do not fit a group leader. Linda’s perception towards fellow group members would compromise the team if she was awarded the team leader’s position bearing in mind that each individual player has a tendency to feel that he/she contributes more in the group than other members (O,Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). Norming The third stage in the Tuckman model is norming. In this stage, team members get used to one another and assign roles and tasks to each member. The role of the team leader becomes more pronounced as he/she assigns the role. At this stage, group members should inform the team leaders about their strength and weaknesses (O,Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). Group members should be assigned roles and tasks that best utilize their strengths and talents. This stage is characterized by increased cohesion, more collaboration, trust, open communication and appreciation of differences. In our group, cohesion was easy to attain because of the small size of the group and the mutual need to attain a high grade. I also felt that my friedship with Kate would be instrumental in enabling the group to work together. As group members we agreed to view the interview on YouTube individually. Each member would then give a personal view in the next meeting. We would appraise each other views on the interview. Performing The next part of our activity which was to watch the interview video together corresponds with the performing stage in the Tuckman’s model. According to Tuckman, this stage is characterized by the actual accomplishment of the task. While the task cannot be achieved within one meeting, the viewing of the interview video was done in one meeting. Prior to the meeting, I posted this in the journal. Today our group will be meeting later in the afternoon to watch the interview video on YouTube. The distraction from the intended learning by watching a class video on YouTube is too much for persons such as me who are acquainted with the site for other non-academic purposes. The scheduled group meeting went on with no major incidences. The members the group used one laptop to view the video. However, immediately after viewing the video, I noted that one of the group members was very curious on checking out something else on YouTube. This could imply that the discussions of the video did not receive full attention from this particular group member as she was thinking about the other thing that she was curious about. The nurse patient interview critique was done immediately after watching the video. Some of the elements that the critiques covered were; does the interview exemplify the purposes of communication? Were all the essentials of human communication present? Were there any nonverbal communication and if yes how were they used? Did the nurse in the interview follow the appropriate guidelines for communicating with patients? A number of authors make suggestions on how nurse patient interviews should be carried (Timby 2008; Kelly 2009). A number of them agree that prevailing circumstances should dictate the interview proceedings though it always nice to start with ‘small talk’ when communicating with patients. This may include greetings and knowing how the patients feel in general (Stein-Parbury 2009). In discussing the video interview, our group a lot of emphasis on this initial part of the interview. I was also very vocal in this case as I believe that a nurse who comes out so strongly according to a patient may appear intimidating and not empathetic (Kelly 2009). This will therefore hamper how the patient expresses herself to the nurse and the amount of information revealed. The questions that the nurse posed to the patient were also under scrutiny in the discussions. According to Alligood and Marriner (2006) the ability of nurse to remain on the path of what is important and recording the same is clear indictor of good nursing practice. The authors argue that some nurses might be carried away by sympathy during the nurse patient interview that may mislead them into asking questions that are irrelevant to good nursing practice. As such, the authors reiterate that there is need for empathy in nursing practice but no room for sympathy as it may interfere with the delivery of nursing care. During the group discussions, I felt that one of the members was unduly accusing the nurse of being sympathetic in asking some of the questions. I personally felt that although nurses are expected not to be sympathetic in delivering care, they cannot separate themselves from their inner being that calls for humaneness. As a result, I entered this posting in the journal Nurses are human beings at first before being nurses. It is therefore understandable when traits of sympathy show up as long as they do not overshadow professionalism. It is only through experience that I have learned that nurses learn how to manage sympathy in nursing practice. The environment in which nurse patient interview is conducted is also very critical in nursing practice. The patient has at fit to be made comfortable to ease any discomfort or an environment that accommodates any medical or physical problems. Hamric, Spross and Hanson (2005) note that some patients are very sensitive to privacy issues which determine how they communicate with the nurse. The authors say that it is the prerogative of a nurse to ensure that the environment is fit for conducting interviews. Our group analysed the video interview on the suitability of the interview room. Concerns on privacy and availability of medical examination equipments were raised. However I felt that these concerns were veering off the topic of discussion which is communication skills. I was timely corrected by being reminded that communication is a contextual issue, which means that the environment contributes to both the verbal and non verbal communication. Adjourning The critiquing part took one long session. Members agreed on handing the assignment for marking. With the completion of the task, it was time for adjourning the group which is the last stage of Tuckman’s team formation model. The members were allowed to once again voice their personal concerns pertaining to individual members and the work in general. Having taken the role of the group leader, I thanked all the members for their contribution in the group. I also allowed members to voice their concerns on their views on the team leadership matters. Finally the group was announced dissolved. Conclusion The group was well organized and communication among members was very fluent and orderly. This can be attributed to the small number of members. Very large groups may suffer communication breakdown and even requires greater effort and planning to organize meetings due to personal commitments. In most cases, it is expected that prolonged periods of working together as team members drives members into friendship. This was not verifiable given the short lifetime of the group. Nonetheless a bond was created beyond mutual academic aspirations. References Alligood, M. & Marriner-Tomey, A. 2006. Nursing theory: utilization and application. London: Elsevier Health Sciences Hamric, A., Spross, J. & Hanson, C. 2005. Advanced practice nursing: an integrative approach. London: Elsevier Health Sciences Kelly, P. 2009. Communicating with patients and their families. Sydney: Cengage learning Michaelsen, L., Parmelee, D., McMahon, K. 2008. Team based learning for health professions education; guide to using small groups for improving learning. Melbourne: Stylus Publishing O’Rourke, J. & Yarbrough, B. 2008. Leading groups and teams. London: Cengage learning Stein-Parbury, S. 2009. Patient & Person: Interpersonal Skills in Nursing. London: Elsevier Health Sciences Wheelan, S. 2005. The handbook of group research and practice. New York: Sage Timby, B. 2008. Fundamental Nursing Skills and Concepts. London: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Read More