Interpersonal And Group Dynamics Paper

According to Building the Team, group socialization is process of people joining and then leaving teams. The process has three distinct phases: evaluation, commitment, and role transition. During the evaluation phase, current members and newcomers examine each other and determine what exactly the new or existing members currently brings or will bring to the team. If it is determined that a member will bring more to the team than they receive, then that members is evaluated positively. The second phase is commitment. Commitment is determined by the options available to a team and its members. For example, if a team has a large pool of highly-qualified candidates at its dispense then it will be less committed to its members because they can readily

Interaction patterns throughout the group were definitely different peer to peer and each participant had different ways of interacting with one another. There were a few factors thrown in that influenced that interaction patterns. The relationship between the members was one of the main influences. These girls seemed to truly love each other and acted as though there were sisters, and their instructor Dominque was the mother. This was largely due to the amount of time that goes into the group and the time they spend together. The nature of their group goals was all similar as well, thus creating a steady bridge for the girls to progress on. The leadership within the group helped influence the interaction patterns as well. The dancers looked up to Dominque so much, so they were willing to do anything she said. The way they interacted with her was as though she was their role model, and truly someone they idealized. Since Dominique took on such a maternal role, she was able to provide both stern and playful group interaction influences. The size of the group also highly effected their interactions within the group because they were not a huge group. They had lots of

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.

Honestly I have taken all of the positive member roles in high school. However, because I was a good a student and strive to do my best I never once played the negative member roles. Usually I played the role of initiator-coordinator, since most of members would often elect me as the leader of the group. When placed in groups in school I would often come up with the general idea and the best way to put our plan into action. This was often true if the project involved a significant amount of research and professionalism. Examples of this was writing a paper, science fair, or even creating an imaginary business. Another role that I have been given was the role of the elaborator and coordinator. Often times I am given these roles because it is

I have been with Bethel University for a while. Some of the classes that were offered to me I had to second think. I just took a class called Group Dynamics. I thought before taking it would be horrible but the class turned out to be very helpful actually major thinking and learning tool in a group environment. As I pointed out before I really think Group Dynamics is the same aspects as critical thinking.

many factors including what type of group, the groups goals, and what theory or theories are

The first day were assigned the project we formed a group. We exchanged names and cell numbers. At first we were unsure of what play we wanted to do, and after reading a few; we decided to do “Behind Closed Doors”. From then we had our first meeting that upcoming Friday. We discussed each other’s jobs, and the information we gathered, and how it would all be put together. Each person did their own presentation board for their assigned job. Each board was done a little differently but all had what was required, which is the visual images, statement of concept and story. There are four members of the group, we all group text each-other from the day we all got the assignment till the day we presented. We text and even Facetime when we couldn’t meet in person (we all have IPhones). We all helped each other out even if it wasn’t our job. After we presented the feedback received was a round of applause from the audience, so I’m guessing that was a response of our group doing good. No questions was asked except from Professor Curry, and at the end he told us “Thank You and Good Job!” After presenting we noticed that several other groups also did the same play. That means that they enjoyed it as much as we did, and even more when we came together as a whole. Overall, I really enjoyed working with my team everyone did

When I consider that there are several variables that will have both negative and positive reflections in a group climate. I understand that when one has followed the rules or suggestions of how to communicate and collaborate effectively, they have not failed. The majority of a group decision is similar to a boomerang, and one should continue to be calm, positive, and

During the process of forming the outline and the PowerPoint, each other’s progress as well as competence was able to be measured and observed. We were able to critique each other’s work and build upon what each member already developed. Yet during the actual performance of the presentation, regardless of how much preparation or practice, what was delivered was what you got. There was no turn around point. This stress of the possibility of making a mistake at that point put not only a higher level of dependence on one another, but trust. Trust allowed the dependence to occur in the beginning. Aside interdependence I would say that synergy amongst the group stayed positive and constant throughout the group and the entirety of the project. Our ability to communicate what main ideas we thought would be pertinent to share in the presentation and who would be sharing which part happened with ease. With regards to equability, this stems back to the level of trust and interdependence the group had when it came to what specific information each group member chose as well as how it would be announced. Moreover, to the topic of openness. This I feel helped the group keep its homeostasis. Granted there was a lot of freedom to how each group member would select their information and how they would present, each member of the group seemed to be open to critique and feedback. We were all able to provide suggestions to each other as well as what we felt best for the presentation without the friction. The concept of groupthink did not affect the group and the overall morale stayed

A theoretical framework is a group of concepts with their definitions and existing theory that provides guidance to a research project by forming a valuable part of any nursing or scientific research (Nieswiadomy, 2012). There are many methods that could be applied as the theoretical framework for domestic violence (DV) research study. Most social sciences possibly will use the psychodynamic approach or the behavioral-cognitive approach as their theoretical framework, but a nursing theory will be applied in this study. The use of a theoretical framework is dependent on the theory that is relevant to the study.

In my group experience, I found it difficult to relate to the group because of certain characteristics such as age/maturity, perspective, and critical thinking. According to (Kozier, Erb, Berman, Snyder, Buck, M., Yiu & Stamler, 2013 pg.441) “Group dynamics is the communication that takes place between members in a group.” The group process, is forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning,” (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Hall & Weaver, 2001; Polifko-Harris, 2003 & Amos et al., 2005), helped us collaborated team contracts, teaching and learning plans, scheduled meetings, which were three times a week, group strength through time management enabled us to stay on focus, different ideas/perspective were welcome which enable us to meet and accomplished our goal and in final educating our peers and adjourning by appreciating each member for their contribution towards the outcome of the team

The continual meeting of the groups helped our overall development into a better flowing group. We each learned how to better interact with each other as the sessions went on and we became a better group in the process. One of the ways the group changes from the beginning was that we all became more comfortable sharing our thoughts and ideas with each other. In the beginning we did not know each other that well so it was hard to share ideas with each other, for fear of being judged or looked down on. But once we got to know each other and felt safe to talk about our own opinions and ideas, the group dynamic improved. The change was definitely a positive one and one that allowed us to challenge each others ideas or questions someones thought,

The discussion for this week is Group Dynamics. Webster’s dictionary defines group dynamics as “the interacting forces within a small human group; also, the sociological study of these forces. A well renown change management expert and social psychologist Kurt Lewin. He created the phrase “group dynamics” in the mid 1940’s (Moreno,1953) He has written quite a bit about individuals choosing a distinctive characteristics and conduct when placed in a group. He studied the influence of the distinctive character and conduct on an individual and on the entire group (Moreno, 1953).

The main dynamic that I saw emerge from the group was a sense of discomfort with one another. Throughout a majority of the sessions, group members participated in minimal self-disclosure and there was a great deal of staring at the floor. Not only was there an overall lack of discussion, group members disclosed during the first and second sessions feeling unsafe to work on their personal intentions. One particular member discussed feeling unsafe all the way through session six. Also, several group members commented in the third session that it was difficult for them to separate outside relationships with one another during group. This is something that I personally relate to since it was difficult for me to forget the positive and

As stated above, my group was comprised of people from different ethnic backgrounds, each with his/her own ideologies and perspectives. The challenge here was limited communication due to language barriers. English is used as the main language for communicating across almost all forums, including classrooms. Regardless of this, it became more difficult for us to communicate effectively simply because some of the members had a hard time deciphering what we were conversing about. It could have been that some of the requirements for presentation were confusing or some of the English phrases and terminologies were not conversant with them. However, we devised a mechanism where we integrated the