Models on Group Functioning - Case Study Example

Introduction There are various models on group functioning. These show different stages that groups go through up to the point of disintegration. There are always possibilities that conflicts may occur in any of the stages. These conflicts usually have to be solved as fast as possible for the group to be effective. A group leader is endowed with various responsibilities among them being in a position of identifying any conflicts. The group leader also has to ensure that unity is enhanced. This paper is dealing with analysis of a group case study. (DePree, 2000) Analysis Analysis of the case study concerning the group shows that there are various problems that the group is going through. It is evident that the group has not followed a systematic structure in its formation. It is also very evident that the first stage of group formation was not incorporated. This is the forming stage where the group members interact and get to know each other. (Eysenck, 1985) In this stage they get to learn each other’s personalities and who is best at accomplishing what in the group. This is usually a very essential stage that each and every group has to go through. During the initial stages, it is expected that procedures that the group will undertake need to be clearly elaborated to the members. This also includes the goals of the group. At this stage the group is not expected to accomplish so much. In the case study, it is very clear that the group members never took time to know each other and understand their diverse personalities. That is why some group members complain of being lectured. The other problem that is evident in the group is that there is no unity therein. The group members do not understand that they are one and the same thing. Analysis of the group case study shows that the group members are competing. Some want to outdo others. They don’t understand that any individual’s achievement is the group’s accomplishment. The second stage of group formation was also not taken into account. This is usually called the storming stage. This is whereby the group members take time to negotiate on various terms that the group will work. This in most cases is a time that is quite stressful. The fact that there are complains within the group clearly shows that this stage was never considered. (Mallet, 2006) The other problem in the group concerns the leadership. It is very evident that the leader does not delegate responsibilities but carries out tasks by himself. In this case, even if the leader has the role of informing group members of strategies and skills to manage their lives this should not be carried out in form of lecture. There is a way through which this information can be passed on to the group members while actively involving them at the same time. This gives the members a sense of ownership. This is one of the problems that are evident in the group as the leader seems to be domineering. With the involvement of the other group members this problem would not have occurred. The third stage of group formation was also not taken into account. This is the norming stage. During this stage, the group members get to acknowledge their different roles. This also means that they understand that for the entire team to fully accomplish its goals, then each and every member has to effectively accomplish his or her role. At this stage they get to learn that it is very essential to co-work even though each of them may have a different task to accomplish. During this stage, the team members have to develop feelings for the team. This includes passion for the team work. In this stage, it is also expected that the team members start sharing information more freely. In the group case study, it is quite clear that this stage was not handled. That explains why the group members cannot freely share information. They also don’t know each one’s role. That is why they tend to feel that they are just being lectured by the group leader. (Parker, 1990) Another problem of functioning in the group is that the group leader is not a keen listener. This is considering the fact he or she gets a warning sign from a group member. This is quite evident when one of the members asserts that they are not quite happy being lectured every week. This would have been a very good opportunity to give them time to air their views concerning the group. That shows that the leader is not a good listener. He or she takes up an authoritarian type of leadership which usually has got very minimal results. Therefore the probable causes of dysfunction in the group start with the leadership. There is also poor communication between the group members and the leader. This has resulted into lack of understanding. It is quite evident that the leader may have had a different approach in mind as compared to the rest of the group members. The leader never took time to talk to the members concerning the approach that they need to use. The other probable cause of dysfunction is that the group did not form in a systematic way. That means that there was no orientation that took place but the leader went on straight into handling his role. This resulted in the group members feeling that they are not part of the group. It is also very clear that the group members do not know each other well hence hard to co-work. (DePree, 2000) Another cause of dysfunction in the group is the manner through which information is passed on from the group leader to the members. Analysis of the case study shows that the leader only passes on information concerning strategies and skills that group members need to manage their lives in a lecture form. This is quite boring and does not work well towards the overall development of the group. Group dysfunction in the case study is also caused by the way the group leader handles conflict. It is very evident that the leader did not handle conflict in the right way. The sense of uneasiness in the group should have been one sign that there was a problem that needed to be solved. When one of the group members say that they are not happy being lectured every week, the leader never takes time to get to the core of the matter. In-fact the leader continues with the lecturing without much acknowledgement. This was a big cause of the dysfunction within the group. Contracting and structure are usually very imperative in any group despite the goals therein. The structure in this case refers to policies or rules that govern the group members. This is usually very essential because it helps in solving of conflicts quite easily. The structure also refers to the different positions of hierarchy within the group. This could include the group leader to whom every person or group member is accountable to. This also helps in creating order within the group. It is also quite essential because it enhances accountability among the group members. Contracting or harmonization in groups helps a lot. This is through creating an atmosphere where the group members can easily air out their views without fear of victimization. It also helps the members to easily access the group leader concerning any issue. This enhances unity within the group and problems or conflicts within the group are usually handled on time. It is therefore very evident that the case study group did not have any contracting and structure carried out. This is considering that there were underlying problems within the group but they could not easily be spoken out. (Mallet, 2006) Task and maintenance balance are normally part and parcel of group activities. It is quite clear that in each stage, the group has to carry out various tasks in order to eventually accomplish the desired goals. Below is an illustration on different group stages and various tasks that need to be accomplished. Forming- in this stage, the task that needs to be carried out is the orientation of the group members. This was however not accomplished in the case study group. Storming- this is usually the second stage where task involves members emotionally responding to different demands within the group. This was also not carried out within the case study group. Norming- the task in the third stage involves getting the group members’ views on how to accomplish the tasks ahead. This was also not carried out by the group. Performing- the task involves actual performance of different roles by the group members. In the case study the group members were not assigned any roles and it is only a one man show from the group leader. Adjourning- this is the last stage where the group is terminated after the tasks are accomplished. The case study group has not yet accomplished their goals and yet the group is on the verge of disintegration. (Parker, 1990) Task maintenance is whereby the tasks are well managed in such a way that they are effectively accomplished before the group moves on to the next stage. This is quite essential as it ensures that the group does not merely rush through the stages but ensures that the tasks in each stage are adequately handled. This in most cases should be controlled by the group leader. This balance helps in ensuring that all tasks are handled at the appropriate time without merely rushing over. Analysis of power issues of the entire group shows that the group leader has vested a lot of power upon himself. This is considering the fact that the leader has not given the rest of the group members any responsibilities. This means that the group members feel so much under-utilized. From the way the group members are talking to the leader, it shows that they desire to have some power given unto them. The group leader has embraced the authoritarian type of leadership where he makes all the decisions. (DePree, 2000) This type of power is quite domineering and does not produce good results. As for the group case study, it is quite important that the leader gives some power to the group members. It is important to note that not all power should be vested into members. The group leader should maintain his position but allow the members to make some decisions and also give ideas concerning accomplishment of tasks. Delegative style of leadership should be embraced and this will give excellent results. (Lafasto, 2001) The group leader can therefore take various interventions. First of all is to apologize to the group for using a personal approach. This would help in enhancing harmony within the group. The second approach is to change the style of leadership to delegative style. This is through ensuring that the rest of the group members also have some power of making decisions. This will give the members a sense of ownership and hence result in well accomplished goals. (Parker, 1990) The group leader can also restructure the group in such a way that they start all over again. This is by starting with the forming stage where orientation is carried out. The second stage which is the storming and this will slowly by slowly build the group cohesion towards accomplishment of common goals. The potential outcome is a more unified group that will work hand in hand towards accomplishment of the goals. Conclusion It has become very clear over the years that tasks are better accomplished in groups than on individual basis. This is irrespective of the different areas of professionalism. Analysis of the case study group shows that there are different problems in the functioning. This includes poor communication and leadership among others. This has been caused by lack of listening skills from the leader, poor structuring within the group and failure to follow the necessary steps in group formation. The initial stages of group development were not well implemented. This is considering the fact that no orientation among other essential tasks took place. The leader has got all the power which would otherwise be shared with other group members. Contracting and structure help in creating order and enhancing accountability within the group. The group leader can intervene by apologizing to the members for not fully involving them. The leader can also consider starting all over again with the first stage where orientation is carried out. Step by step, the group members will have common goals and the results will be effectively accomplishment of goals. Read More