Process Of Group Interaction

Overall, this group project went very well and was completed on time due to the fact there everyone including myself assigned ourselves with a task role, relational role and from the start had individual roles present such as leader, compromiser, and gatekeepers in the group that made it

Over the past few months as we participated with the “Big Brothers Big Sisters” program, we divided into small groups in order to focus on different aspects of the organization during this project. The project included three main groups: social media, public relations and group planning. The first group was responsible for social media around campus. The second group managed public relations, which made flyers and used other media resources to spread the word throughout the campus. The third and final group focused overall group planning with the kids. This included different activities and parties for the children. As a class we were to plan and coordinate two functions that included the Big Brothers Big

Description of the situation, After receiving the IDs for the students in my group, I sent regular mail to arrange a meeting.The initial procedure of performing a role-play required a meeting among the individual participating. As explained by Tuckman and Jensen (1977), there are five stages of group development. These steps are determined as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Based on the Tuckman and Jensen (1977), development theory it is essential for a team to be coordinated when there is a task to be accomplished at a collaborative level. The purpose of the meeting was to allocate roles to everyone and introduced to each other. The people involved in the group were Consultant, dietarian, physiotherapist, occupation therapist, social worker, discharge nurse, (Mary’s daughter and son-in-law), adult nurse and diabetic nurse.

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

My group consisted of four other members-Christy, Daniel, Brian, and Allison. When we were first introduced to the idea of a small group project we knew that our presentation had to entertain the audience, and at the same time inform them. At that point, we were functioning as individuals. Each of us tossed out a ton of ideas and some were shot down right away. That took about 5minutes. Then Daniel mentioned that we can do a parody of the television show Change of Hearts, and it stuck to us like glue. Gradually we began to feed into his revelation, and started to add our personal touches. Each of us became elaborators. For about 15 minutes we took the idea and expanded it to see where it could lead

In the very beginning of the project, I planned to work with Kinzy but ended up combining our group with that of Noah and Nathan’s in the hopes that we would work well together as a group. This did not result as well as hoped, though we got the work done and I was given the chance to act as a peacemaker. As the project launched into action, we first had to decide upon an idea to sell, to which I suggested a few ideas, none of which were chosen. Each member of the group contributed to choosing the right idea for us to push into our target audience. From this point, I began to organize the beginning’s of our project, such as the lab for our scientific portion. Throughout the next week, however, conflicts within my personal life impacted and limited my ability to assist much in the creation and pushing of advertisements. My biggest contribution here was co-writing-and-performing an advertisement over the morning announcements. I then worked to help organize all the tasks we had yet to complete; it was decided that Kinzy and I would be writing the English essay and reviewing the Science Lab, the Byrd’s vice-versa.

During the planning portion there was defiantly a lack of participation among several of our group members. Although some members were lackadaisical(#1)in the beginning of the project they were able to hone(#2)in on the project and assist in its completion. The overall flow of our project was there was a person or two who organized the project and assigned people to tasks. For most of the part this system worked with out faults, but as everything involving groups there were some differences in opinion the cause of action for certain tasks but they were easily sorted out. The effort while exceptionally equal there were several people who preformed with a fallow attitude towards the project these people including Alex Maylay, Nikalaas Kolosso, Morgan Irving, Sean gallogly, and Harry Clevenger. Several people in the project preformed with flying colors, these people include Conner Berry, Hayley Rice, and Kate Albean. The made the most contributions and helped support the remains group members. The group had struggles in managing there time, but managed to get the job done even with the unexpected remodel on the final day of

However, in this case, none of us had the opportunity to not work with someone who we may not have a great relationship with because all of us had to work together as a group. In the beginning stages, when the group was brainstorming and planning, everyone allowed others to express their ideas. However, once we decided that we wanted to have a community day event, everyone seemed to have their own “vision” of how the event would result. I think that this may have been the first step into our inability to want to compromise and communicate throughout the group. In the individual groups, as well as the group as a whole, there were many derogatory statements made about other group members. Quite frankly, we were rude to one another. We used tone of voices and body language that emphasized that we were annoyed. There could have been a lack of communication in the group as a result of this unprofessionalism. There were many times when group members did not share with the remainder of the group what they were doing to contribute to the project and what needed to be done to ensure that it was a success. Some group members even had the belief system of “that’s not my job,” which really hindered the planning and preparation phases of the project. The day that the event occurred, however, gave the group an opportunity to reconvene and prove to each other what we, as students and human services professionals, can do for a community in

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.

Working within a group or team is unavoidable for most people. We are involved in sports teams, assignment groups, work teams, social groups and a variety of other groups and teams. Each of these groups share one thing in common, that is each requires us to communicate in some way in order to reach a shared goal or target. Therefore, it is imperative to know and understand how to work and communicate effectively with others to maximise outcomes and productivity.

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.

My feelings about the group process was a little mix at first but, at the end I felt like we actually brought it together. Beginning of the group member were all over the place and had no direction, when we were able to take a breather in just think ideas started to flow. I felt like that took the communicator to make it happen. By reinsuring the other group members that everything will go smoothly if we just don’t overthink everything.

The communication in the group appears to be inconsistent and does appear to harmful to some of the members. Certain members of the group are communicating verbally, others are communicating nonverbally and their behaviors are sending out intended and possibly unintended messages that is impacting the rest of the group in a negative way. Therefore, members may not feel comfortable talking about feelings, problems, or other issues within the group. In this case study Luisa, appears to be a main factor of why people are shutting down. As there is interference with groups communication based on anger, fear, and uncertainly. She appears to be provoking a response for attention or disapproval to perhaps gain or maintain power within group.

According to Cartwright & Zander (1968), a group may be defined as a “collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree”. Other definitions state that a group is “two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person (Shaw, 1981). Turner (1987) goes further to say that “a psychological group is one that is psychologically significant for the members, to which they relate themselves subjectively for social comparison and the acquisitions of norms and values…that they privately accept membership in and which influence their attitudes and behaviour”. Clark & Pataki reserve the term “group”

This is my first semester at City Tech. When I signed up for the group dynamics class I expected to have some difficulties. Prior to this class I worked on various group projects and for the most part it was a wreck. The information given was unclear, members were not focused and/ or the professor was too busy to help. As a result, I ended up doing all the work and not feeling confident in my projects.