Cohesive Group Papers

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

Groups do not always start off fully-formed and functioning. Bruce Tuckman's model of the developmental sequence in small groups suggests that groups grow through clearly defined stages, from their creation as groups of

Next, the barriers that exist in group communication are premature evaluation of ideas, poor physical surroundings, too many people, poor timing, and stinking thinking. The different ideas made from the group need an evaluation at a certain time; this is done only after all the ideas have been made from the group. Poor physical surroundings can be a problem for group disruption in communication. In some cases the room could be too hot, too cold, too noisy, not adequate enough seating and lack of technological needs for the group to function. If the group is too large then the communication can be lost and equal participation will not occur (Beebe &Masterson, 2006). Poor timing also can be a hindrance to the group by not

Working in a group to achieve a high quality group project can be one of people’s most difficult school experiences. Working in a group is tough because there is often someone who does not pull their own weight. “There are five stages to group development, adjourning, forming, storming, performing, and norming” (John & Wiley pg 166). Christine’s group from the Case Study the Forgotten Group Member is in between the Storming and Norming Stages. The Storming Stage “is dealing with tensions and defining group tasks,” while the Norming Stage is dealing with high emotionality and tension among the group members” (John & Wiley pg. 166). Christine and her group could have had better

However, if we spent a few moments to get to know each other a bit better, we might find that bonding a positive component in working together in this group and completing assignments. Individuals in group G have expressed their concern with another class group they have and how the communication is not flowing as it does in this group. They are frustrated and overwhelmed with the issues that are problematic in the other groups. There has been descriptions of social loafing and levels of conflict in discussing some of the issues the individual group members have expressed. One of the main complaints is based on how they communicate which is a slow process if only done via email, which one of the group mates has express of how they

The following memo was developed through deep reflection on the necessary decisions which lead to determine what possible areas of knowledge would be of importance to be analyzed, and the diverse methods and instruments that supported the understanding of the phenomena observed in the areas to be further discussed. In this vein, as a group, we decided to select articles that discuss the Ethics of Care Theory as a paradigm for nursing education. The reasons of our choice were, first due to a general knowledge about Ethics of Care Theory and its relationship with education; and second, the field of nursing provided a neutral arena for our discussions. None of us is related to nursing or any health-related educational

For example, we all have similar communication styles. None of us has a confrontational style, so there were no altercations. Sasha was the most outgoing member of the group in general, and sometimes she had to actively encourage some of the other members to speak up if she could tell there was something bothering them or if they did not understand what they were supposed to do. Otherwise, we all felt comfortable enough to share our concerns. We did not pick a group leader so much, but Sasha sometimes took charge of the discussions we had. This gave us some kind of focus, but generally we had a democratic group and collaborated continually. We brainstormed together often, such as when we came up with the keywords for researching the databases.

Team cohesiveness is the degree to which the members are attracted to a particular group and resist separation from that group, almost as a “team spirit.” It can be distinguished into two kinds: interpersonal-based cohesiveness and task-based cohesiveness. The “happy hour” group has very high interpersonal cohesiveness, which is based on how much they enjoy and like each other. As indicated in the case, the four members, Guy Jones, Mark Richmond, Nancy Gradford, and Jeff Waltz, hangout together very often, and form this informal friendship clique. They go to the happy hour at a local bar 3 times a week, eat lunch together on the same table, and chit-chat for hours. On the other hand, since not all four of them

The main dysfunction I had experienced with this group was the lack of commitment. Two of the group members hardly ever came to class so trying to get a meeting setup was nearly impossible. Even trying to do a meeting over Skype was a hassle since they rarely attended those as well. This caused the project to stall out. Eventually, this caused one of the members to quit the group and go off on his own. I ended up having to complete the majority of the project on my own since any help the other two provided

time ever was when me, my mom, my sister, my brother and my stepdad all went out to Chucky

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

This semester I was involved with two uniquely different groups for presentations, The Rule of Three and FlixList. The first group had a total of three members while the second group started off with five members, but grew to six during the course of the project. Both groups shared similarities such as they both experienced the establishment of roles within the groups, both experienced group cohesiveness (albeit in different ways and on different levels of cohesion), both groups picked topics and executed plans to be successful in the desired outcome of both groups and attainment of group goal which, in both cases, was ultimately earning a good grades on our presentations. On the other hand, the groups in which I was involved in were

Group cohesiveness is often strived for and encouraged, however, after this chapter it is clear just how damaging cohesiveness can be to a group. While it can be much more pleasant to work with people similar to yourself, highly cohesive groups often miss the benefits of disagreement and diverse opinions. Often cohesiveness is so strongly supported and encouraged that there may be punishments from varying away from group norms. If members fear punishment or judgement from speaking against the group, biased sampling is more likely to occur. This can result in making poor decisions and not actively using the skills each member holds. Group polarization is also much more likely to affect a highly cohesive group in comparison to a relatively diverse group. Group polarization can be avoided or limited by members who hold opposing views to the majority, which cannot be supported by a highly cohesive group.

When doing so the other group members were active listener, by using their whole body verbally and nonverbal. Like facing the speaker and giving eye contact and try to avoided interruption. The group also acknowledges the thoughts of the speaker by giving constructive feed back. Due to the effectiveness of the group communication, we were able to build trust, respect and understand the issues and make decision for effective change. We illustrate this by coming together as a group one again to accomplish the goal we initially wanted to accomplish. Since the first organization that we had chosen was incorrect, so we had to make the necessary changes to accomplish our goals. The other effective feature is the purpose of the group. Kozier et al (2010) stated that the effective group purpose is when “goal, task, and outcomes are clarified. Understanding and modified so that members of the group can commit themselves to purposes through cooperation” (p.401). For instance, each individual was assign a task and knew what was to be accomplished. As group we all decided to meet at suitable day and time which was beneficial to all team members, because we could commit to the group and focus on what needed to be achieved.

Working in a group can be very difficult at times. Different people with different views may not always agree which one another. Throughout the various task I played the communicator. I made sure everyone was on track on what we wanted to do. I also made sure people was okay and happy in the role they was playing in the group. My group worked together in collecting ideas from one another and making it into one.