Johari Window

Communicating in Teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There are four Johari Window perspectives and these are called either “regions”, “areas” or “quadrants”. Each region contains and represents the information known about the person.

Syer and Connolly 1996 believe that team members need to develop awareness of themselves and each other, and of their differences, through giving descriptive feedback. This allows appreciation of differences, good contact and improved communication. Trust, respect, team spirit and synergy may emerge. The notion of a cycle more easily depicts the kind of continuous process that teams go through and need to revisit as members are introduced or move on. The cycle suggests that skill and attention are required from the manager and from team members.

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

Syer & Connolly (1996) describes a “team system” as a group of people who constitute a system of interrelated entities and whose members share a common goal. They argue that team members need to develop awareness of themselves and each other, and of their differences, through giving descriptive feedback. This allows appreciation of differences, good contact and improved communication. Trust, respect, team spirit and synergy may then emerge. Consequently this leads to a highly developed awareness. The notion of a cycle more easily suggests the kind of continuous process that teams go through and need to revisit as new members

Team has to agree on the methods to which conflicts can be resolved within the group, this has to be addressed as soon as possible to enhance team cohesion and progress team effort towards achieving its goals.

Throughout the readings communication was identified as a vital component for establishing and maintaining relationships. Porter-O Grady sanctioned for leaders to establish firm rules of engagement to help support a positive group dynamic (2013). While Kelly & Tazbir explained that friction and conflict were a normal part of group development and were representative of the Storming stage of group process (2014). Moreover, they explained that with assistance from the team leader the team can overcome these obstacles, strengthen inter-professional relationships, and enter into the Norming stage (Kelly & Tazbir, 2014). Here the team is able to participate in the effective exchange of communication and begin making progress toward goals. This represents progression into the Performing stage of group process (Kelly & Tazbir, 2014). When the team has met its intended target they are ready to anylze the outcomes of their work and enter the final stage of group process—Adjourning (Kelly & Tazbir,

When members in the team brainstorm ideas, they will ask a lot of questions pertaining to the problem at hand and do a lot of research on it. They will also break themselves up into smaller, more workable groups to increase efficiency. In addition, the members do not just limit themselves to finding information online, but they also find out firsthand about the problem from the people who are affected by it. During their firsthand experience, they are very observant and enthusiastic in gaining knowledge from the people affected. Then, they will demonstrate, communicate and share everything that they’ve learned with the other groups. There is focused chaos during the sharing and the members are all very lively, flexible, and open. All ideas are accepted, and no idea is “bad”, no matter how crazy it is. After much sharing, the team will narrow down ideas by voting for them, and the ideas with majority of the votes will be shortlisted. When the members are tired after the brainstorming session, they will call it a day and end off on a positive note.

Wheelan (2013) provides many good examples of what to do in certain circumstances that deal with safety and inclusion, conflict resolution, identifying roles and responsibilities, and fostering esprit de corps during group development. In addition, she identifies the positive traits that should be displayed by both team members and team leaders alike such as involving other members in the leadership of the group and actively participating in achieving objectives.

This was particularly important since our group project was completely unstructured in the beginning with each of Healthier Initiative groups being unsure of where exactly we would fit in. As such, we invested a significant amount of time in figuring out each of our roles in establishing the project and learned to rely on each other’s specific skill sets to formulate our different projects. Further, we had frequent check-ins with feedback to ensure that we were meeting targets that we had set for ourselves. The cycle of feedback extended to our projects which were reworked multiple times to ensure that we were best addressing the needs of the community. This cycle though sometimes tedious helped to strengthen the team dynamic by encouraging individual growth whilst allowing for buy-in from all members involved in the

An important part of our learning and growing experience must stem from our ability to analyze and reflect upon the groups that we have been members in. This reflection can define our understanding of the weaknesses both in ourselves and in the others within our group; and it can help to shape the way that we act in future groups. Adjusting ourselves to compensate for our weaknesses, based upon an honest and thorough examination of our actions within a group setting, is one of most important thing for any person to do. It is only through this evaluation that we can improve ourselves and our interactions with others. This paper will examine a group that was required to make an important decision about adding a new member

The team is assembled and the task is allocated. Team members behave independently, with anxieties about inclusion and exclusion. Their time is spent planning, collecting information and bonding, with an apparent willingness to conform. This can happen whenever new circumstances occur within a group, or when new challenges or projects are set within established

The Tuckman Model of Group Development has 5 stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Adjourning (Maples, 2008). During the first session of MOP, everyone was tasked with forming their own small project team. The very first class workshop activity involved meeting two new people and introducing one of them to the entire class. The aim of the activity was to indirectly assess who we would want to be in a team with, based on our perceptions of a person’s behaviour, values, and work ethic. Most people would want to be in a team with people similar to them on a surface level (age, gender, ethnicity) and on a deeper level (personality, attitudes, believes, values) (Liang, Shih, & Chiang, 2015). We were free to choose whoever we wanted in our team under the condition that the team we form is diverse.

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.

Levin (2005) suggests that the idea of a team is to share the same objectives. This may not always be the case if team members have never met before and are not fully clear of the task set. This can lead to confusion between members and may mean that some team members are unwilling to be told by their peers what to do. This is an example on ineffective team work.