Communication_Analysis

Individual – Heart Group Process Report/Analysis of Top Shelf Consultants Anita M. Ayers University of Missouri As various communication mediums are being used to communicate; successful outcomes of groups are the result of essential and effective communication within the groups’ decision making processes. Dr. Nancy Spaeder; professor of the class: Group Decision Making Processes; had mandated the enrolled students to form into small informal groups in order to perform the necessary coursework of the class (Small Group and Team Communication, Fifth Edition, Thomas E. Harris, John C. Sherblom, Pg. 67-68). Our group; The Hearts was initially formed the first night of class, through a random process, conducted by a substitute professor. This process consisted of each student being given a playing card. Students were then grouped together based on same suited cards. The cards’ suit was the determining factor for the naming of each group. Contact information was exchanged as well as the group project instructions. I believe the first group decision made by consensus was that one group member was identified to email the contact information in order for our group Wiki to be constructed on blackboard (bb). Group members were directed to communicate using various forms of media i.e. phone, face-to-face (ftf) and computer mediated communications (cmc). I believe that the Wiki was not utilized by this group to its full potential. I found the Wiki to be a difficult and confusing tool to use; but tried to use it at least every day. I found fact to face to be my preferred communication media. The Hearts group was given instructions on the first group assignment (consulting firm) as well as time to work through the first stage of the Four-Phase Model known as Forming. During the forming phase, the Hearts group met face to face (ftf) and initially experienced primary tension since we had met for the first time and had a large assignment to complete in a short period of time. Each group member displayed behaviors, facial expressions, body language and vocal sounds related to nervousness, and uneasiness. Group members gradually relaxed as we became familiar with one another. We then began focusing on defining our group assignment and outlining the priorities of the assignment and what needed to be immediately addressed in order for us to proceed in our process. In defining our groups priorities and process, conflict was definitely avoided, played down, ignored, and some group members were joking, laughing, asking questions and interjecting belief based statements (Pg.58) and solutions before the problems were identified (pg. 62). The Hearts group initially experienced role ambiguity as group roles briefly went undefined (pg.45). Although roles were never assigned, many roles were emergent. I emerged rather quickly into the following group roles: task roles: initiating, elaborating, coordinating, summarizing, recording, giving and seeking information, clarifying, consensus testing, and proposing procedure; group maintenance roles: encouraging, supporting, process observing, setting standards and tension relieving. From my perspective, other group members were slow to become involved in the group process. The Hearts group did move into the storming as well as slightly touched the norming phases during the first meeting. By utilizing the nominal group technique in combination with the ACB idea sorting method to brainstorm group members ideas pertaining to the company type, name, logo, and the slogan; group members were forced to participate which lead to increased inclusion of group members and group definition. The group reached consensus on the type of consulting firm and came up with several company names, slogans, logos, and company structure ideas. The Hearts group was to meet face to face (ftf) to continue with the storming phase, and one of the group members had failed to reserve a space for our meeting. Consequently, not all group members were able to get to campus at the last minute to meet in a public space. I did meet with group members via phone and Wiki (remote). Based on the notes posted on Wiki by the group members present; there was much confusion and misunderstandings on what was completed, what needed to be completed, what was decided upon which lead to increased primary and secondary tensions and threatened group cohesion. The next meeting which took place in class was much more productive. Again, I assumed much of the roles as I had in the forming phase as group members cross-talked and talked over those who were talking during group round. I found it extremely frustrating and exhausting in performing and maintaining all of the roles. However, I found this to be essential in keeping the group focused, on task, organized, motivated and driven. We were able to identify the strengths of individual group members; and capitalize on those talents in order to move forward in our process. One group member took notes, created agendas and emailed these to the professor. This same group member was able to establish the email and Facebook accounts while another group member created the brochure, and another prepared the music and PowerPoint. The more time the group spent interacting with each other, the more capable the group became in making decisions to solve problems as they arose. I noticed that each time the group met, members had completed their tasks and were ready for review, discussion, feedback and finalization. As the deadline of our project was rapidly approaching; our group members were eager to find solutions and resolutions. Time seemed to become a major factor in developing a smoother process and finalizing decisions. I also believe that time was a driving force which provided opportunity for other group members to assume some roles and assist with the final product of the project. As our group moved forward from one phase to another; our group also moved backward and in between the four phases. Our groups’ ability to successfully present a viable consulting firm to the class was due to the groups’ ability to work together and work out problems through viable solutions. In analyzing our group during this phase, I find that the actions and dynamics of our group were synergistically performed exactly as our professor and our book indicates; at times we were successful and other times we weren’t successful. I believe that our group could improve if we have a group leader, define roles for all group members, become better organized, take turns in brainstorming and resolving conflicts which will reduce the risk of group think. In analyzing my actions and behavior in this group for this project; I realized that I quickly assumed many of the group roles. I did this because I knew the group had a lot of work to do in a short amount of time and I knew that I had a very hectic schedule. I also noticed that the other group members were not filled with enthusiasm on this project. The other group members were somewhat detached, unengaged, disinterested and were contemplating dropping the class. I knew I wasn’t going anywhere and this group needed to get started quickly. I believe that my taking on so many roles in the forming stage was a positive as well as a negative self-centered behavior; which was one of our groups strength, one of our groups weakness, as well as a secondary tension which threatened group cohesion in that group members looked to me for group process as well as group progress (pg. 41-53). I was the enabler which brought the threat of groupthink to the group.