Group Decision Making Analysis

Public speaking is a must needed skill in today’s business environment that, much like any skill, requires discipline to master. Public speaking classes have many benefits, including gaining confidence through practice to advance professional goals (O'Hair, Stewart, & Rubenstein, 2015). Additionally, oral and written communication skills are the most highly sought after skills from organizations seeking to hire college graduates (O’Hair et al., 2015). The Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) is a self-assessment consisting of 34 questions regarding communicating with others (CSU-Global, 2016). This paper will explore the results of my PRPSA self-assessment, analyze the results, and opine on how the results of the assessment may

suggests new ideas to solve group problem or new ways for the group to organize the task

There are many factors altering group behavior and effectiveness, such as decision- making, cohesion and communication (Crocker, 2016). The later has also shown a positive relationship with group task cohesion (Smith et al., 2013), and methods of enhancing intrateam

Throughout this project, I found that working through the Standard Agenda to solve a problem was an effective way for a group to decide upon a solution. Even though our group was unexperienced using the Standard Agenda, we were able to use each other’s strengths to improve the quality of our discussion about the issue of rising college tuition. Looking back to previous projects, I can see how our group has grown to better understand the methods of effective group work. While there were both beneficial and impeding forces at work in the task and social processes, I feel that overall our group had a successful problem solving discussion.

Barker, L. L., Kathy,J., Wahler, K. W., Watson, R and Kibler, J ( 1987) Groups in Process: Introduction to Small Group Communication, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J

Participating in teamwork in preparation for a presentation emphasizes the need for informal roles and communication during collaboration. Ewashen (2015) argues that groups with few members do not use explicit “formal groups roles” of leaders and followers, but instead have fluid “informal group roles” based on the overall goal (p. 247). Therefore, my role was informal and switched between necessary “task functions” and “maintain functions” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247). My task function was to research additional theories to support for our analysis as an “information seeker” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247). In addition, I acted as a “compromiser” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247) when there was disagreement about the necessary depth of our systems level analysis. Consequently, collaborative practice can be challenging due to diverse perspectives present, but these differences are invaluable during teamwork (Doane and Varcoe, 2014, p. 401). My informal role was successful as my flexibility supported the other diverse group functions which ultimately meet the goal of developing an evidence-based presentation. However, I could have had more of a maintenance function as a “standard setter” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247). Our group frequently met late and got off track in our discussions due to individual differences in expectations. I could have been better at enforcing punctuality and keeping everyone on topic by explicitly modeling these behaviors. Overall, collaborating and learning with

The third chapter of a Pocket Guide to Public Speaking is about anxiety in relations to

Diversity is important to mitigate two threats to group effectiveness. First, the Asch Effect, distortion of individual judgement by a unanimous but incorrect opposition. (p. 290). Second, Group think, when in a cohesive in-group, members strive for unanimity and override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. (p. 292).

The model of a group communication that attains its objective with easy and success requires a delicate process. An ideal group communication ranges from three to few members gathered and discussing strategies to accomplish a specific goal. Groups’ formations are the result of an old truism that more brains are better than one. Consequently, groups continue to define people’s daily collective efforts to solve problems an immense way. “When groups work effectively, members find the experience motivating and rewarding. Group members also learn a

Groupthink can stem from many factors, one of those factors being group development itself. One of the most commonly known group development processes is Tuckman’s five stages of group development: forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning. During the course of these stages a group will get acquainted with each other, go through the process of expressing their frustration for each other,

From this week’s readings, I appreciated how Schien (2006), demonstrated the importance of selecting a decision making method that appropriately fits “the time available, the past history of the group, the task being worked on, and climate” (p.297). Despite using purposeful selection, it is important to note that each method can prompt a unique set of challenges for group members. For instance, silence is often inappropriately interpreted as consent in “decision by lack of response” and “decision by self-authorization or minority” (Schien, 2006, p.299). Conversely, “decision by formal authority” can be ineffective if the leader/chair does not pursue decision that align with the perspectives of group members. Within the readings, I feel that

Tuckman proposes that groups develop via five stages; forming, storming, norming, performing and finally adjourning (Archee, Gurney, & Mohan, 2013a). The first stage, known as forming, involves clarifying the task and purpose of the group, and identifying boundaries of both the task and interpersonal behaviour (Archee et al., 2013a). For the presentation task we were randomly allocated into groups. This worried me greatly as I have struggled in the past with group members who do not contribute equally or see the task as important as other group members. To avoid this problem, the group collectively determined and agreed upon a number of ground rules. For example, we decided that all group members were expected to contribute equally to the presentation, all group members were expected to attend and contribute at all group meetings, and all group members would adhere to agreed upon deadlines. Having failed to do this in previous group assignments, this clarification stage

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.

Similarly to the underlying mechanisms characterizing social comparison processes, the risky-shift phenomenon occurs when an individual in a group shares private thoughts concerning a specific issue. Therefore, disclosure of other group members’ opinions causes the individual to change private judgements and to move toward risky directions by accepting the decision taken by the majority of the group (Brown, 1965).

FDM answers the basic question asked by the developers of this theory. Their question is as follows. “‘Why do some groups make good decisions while others make bad ones?’ Their model argues that the answer to this question has to do with whether the group has successfully accomplished four functions, which they call requisite functions” (pg.141). The four functions of this theory are problem analysis, goal setting, identify alternatives, and evaluate and select. Problem analysis is when the group focuses on the nature, extent and likely causes of the problem. This requires the group to be careful when differentiating between problems and the symptoms of the problems. Goal setting is when the group identifies what an ideal solution would look like. The group decides what elements are necessary and what elements are ideal but not necessary. Identifying alternatives is when the group generates a large number of possible solutions. This is when the group wants to brainstorm as many possible solutions, no matter what the quality of the solution is. Finally, evaluate and select is when the group evaluate each alternative using the established goals.