Alhoug Jennifer

The group process broke down because there was never a group. This group began with a group of five individuals who had strong opinionated views as of the relevancy of their professions and experience. Instead of getting together as a group and mutually deciding how

Jim can analyse finance. He was not much interested in the retreat. Bob managed production and operations for a producer. He claimed to be an authority on most subjects even though these appeared to be conceited. Larry had a liberal arts background and high educate degree. His speaking ability was good. Rich had both good speaking and writing abilities. He could assume the leader’s role. Wayne was an average student and the most naive member. Ollie had the ability that performed many odd jobs and leaded the victories. Gary was thought could be the emergency leader of the group. He had the ability that encourage people even though he failed himself. Burrell was reliable and he coached basketball well. He could handled that if something goes wrong. Paul was an average student. He complained a lot, however he tried to promote the function of the whole group. It showed that he was very serious about this retreat. For convenience, the group leader set up 4 goals for the whole retreat. And he arranged the seat by person’s age and experience. Maybe this is the way the leader thought they can cooperate with each other. They tried to maintain an harmonious relationship between the members. They made a lot efforts to make the one who left the group at the beginning feel comfortable. And they tried not to make a big deal out of some serious personality problems. However the after a few days working, most of time they

The theoretical framework was somewhat dictatorship on today; I learned that the tone that the facilitator sets for the majority of the session is how the session runs. This is actually how I figured the sessions would be run, but to be aware that always expect the unexpected at any time. You must also be ready to adjust to whatever it is happening at that particular moment. This particular session appears to be more somber with quite a bit of silence and skepticism. Why this climate I asked myself? I really don’t know. I would suggest to the facilitator to have some kind of activity that she uses as an icebreaker. This would help get the communication going between the members. A specific skill that I have that would hinder me as an effective group leader is my ability to shut down once I got ticked off. This skill is useful in other settings to cool down situations.

The theories I will focus on in this essay is Social Penetration Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory. The reason I choose both these theories focus on initial interactions with stingers and how relationships develop. The social penetration theory is an objective theory (A First Look at Communication, page 93) uses the example of peeling an onion. It shows the “multilayered structure of personality.” The theory explains that as you go from not knowing someone and over time developing a more personal relationship through stages of disclosure. The other theory I will highlight will be Uncertainty Reduction Theory which follows seven main assumptions on how we develop information about a new acquaintance in order to lower uncertainty and predict others behaviors. Overall I will outline the core beliefs of these two theories and tie them together as how they both help us develop relationships with new people. And explain how we interact in new social settings. Both these objective theories show similar links but in some ways are different.

I facilitated the third session as the group entered into the middle phase of the group process. In the middle phase the group focused on getting the work done (Shulman, 2012). All of the group members, both have things in

I chose to look at a strike taking place in the video game industry. Many voice actors feel that they are not being paid enough for their services to the game making companies that they end up working for. Jennifer Hale has played major roles in several extremely successful video game titles such as the Halo, Mass Effect, and Bioshock series. She is part of a group known as the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, also known as SAG-AFTRA. This is the group that has declared a strike against eleven different video game publishers after nineteen months of failed negotiations regarding compensation.

The Contact Hypothesis states that interaction between different groups, or representatives of different groups, leads to reduced prejudice and promotes positive attitudes (Allport, 1954). This has lead to the development of Contact Theory, which elaborates on how contact can reduce intergroup anxiety. According to Allport (1954), for contact to have the desired effect, there are certain conditions to the interaction taking place between groups (or members of groups). Firstly, the people who come into contact have to be of equal status. Secondly, there has to be a common goal toward which the groups strive and intergroup

Group member cohesiveness was absent from the group meeting for several reasons, but the primary reasons were due to the fact that the group members did not have a common description of value or structure to the discussion. Each member viewed their own area of involvement within the organization as being more valuable than any other area, and it was this exclusion of other valuable traits that lead the group to begin to clash in such a

Since it is an open group, and some members have been to The Bradley Center in the past, some having been there longer than others, and others being totally new, the mixture of stages will occur. As far as my feelings about the group, I think it was productive for MH, DM, and TS. The alliance/subgroup obviously affected the group in a negative way in the beginning, and I thought that it would continue throughout the meeting because from my experience that is usually the case. However, I believe that DM did the right thing by opening up, and expressing his feelings, which lead to meaningful work occurring between him and MH. I also believe that the leader did a good job allowing this confrontation to play out, but not get out of control. She also did a good job of directly addressing problems in the group, and making the right decisions when

Our fist discussion was regarding the video “Planning a Playground”. The group in this video was discussing planning for a playground, what it would cost to put it up and how they could raise the money. I liked how this group communicated effectively an overall worked together. I picked up on some nervousness but that was mainly because they were meeting for the first time. The only issue that I could see off top was at some points some of the members would cut off the member that was speaking. I don’t feel that it was intentional or malicious but to communicate effectively you need to let others speak until their done so that you completely understand what is being said. In most cases this is how things are misunderstood because you only take from the part you hear or stopped them from saying. I identified constructive conflict occurring in this group. Constructive conflict is when behaviors help to build relationships, when you are able to manage your emotions and accept and resolve responses. It’s when you have task-completion,

The first is that it took longer for the team to become a high-performing team. Since team members were very diverse they had trouble communicating and coordinating at first. They continued to have these problems until they began to understand the skills that they all contributed to the team. Another negative result of diversity was a higher likelihood of conflict. In the movie, it seemed that many of the other teams did not struggle to work together and solve problems. However, Billy and Nick’s team struggled with conflict extensively. During the first few challenges it seemed that they argued more than worked on the given tasks. This stemmed mostly from the lack of knowledge of Billy and Nick. The students were very easily frustrated by the older member’s incompetence. Unable to explain their ideas to Billy and Nick, created conflict between the younger and older

A cornerstone for facilitators is to understand what happens to people in groups. To do this, we need to look both at what people set out to achieve, the task, as well as how they get along – the processes of group activity. People often behave quite differently in groups and teams from one-to-one settings. Some people become quiet, others turn into bullies or tormentors, some become jokers. For the facilitator who has to rely on others for getting the job done, this can be daunting. Why is it that a meeting feels electric one moment and awkward the next? Why do some people refuse to communicate while others do all the talking? It becomes easier to understand the process level if we take a practical example.

Staring into each other’s eyes as an opening activity was noticeably an interesting and unfamiliar experience for many in the room. Even when just explaining the activity created some reactions of confusion and hesitation. Like, “are we really going to do this?”. When some of the inside students had to pair up with each other, one could sense even more hesitation. Many of the Inside students expressed that they felt vulnerable and in a sense violated, like something was taken from them. I think this shows how such a system effects emotional and social well-being along with relationships. During the activity, I was partnered with Damen and I noticed that his mouth was shaking. Now, I can’t say what was making his mouth shake, could have been

It was clear from that point forward there were large personalities in the group, which caused friction between the group members. By the third group meeting on Moodle, one of the group members decided to leave as they felt that no conflicts should be occurring during the planning stage. The remaining four group members were confused by the departure, as many group projects will often experience conflicts, as it is part of the process (Liu & Tsai, 2008). On reflection, during the beginning stages of the group’s decision-making process our group had similar ideas and opinions and within the first online group chat; a target group was agreed

This was an absolutely memorable time and group I was able to work with. It gave me a whole new experience and perspective on working with so many different types of personalities, work ethics, and emotions. I will always have a better understanding and different outlook of why things don’t always go smoothly, and why goals, so often, are never met. Girls were always coming and going, so dynamics of the group were often changing, fights occurred frequently, and many people were even let go or transferred. Throughout all of the years of loses/additions in group members, the monthly goal sets, and even new leadership for certain periods of time, every month could have had a better outcome regarding the accomplishment of our goals. It was extremely difficult getting 10-13 people on the same page, and motivated for the same goal. A lot of the problems did stem from the leadership of the group, though many people say you can’t make someone want something, if a group leader doesn’t even try to provoke their team members to do better, you can guarantee less of what you expect. Each month, whether there were new group members (stylists), or not, we always experienced at least one form of a group dialectic and in many months, we did not meet our goals.