The BART Model

Participating in group activities have never really been my thing, but this project was a great experience. I got the chance to meet individuals with different problem solving solutions than I, and the people I communicate with daily. This project helped me gain communication skills amongst others when trying to make a decision, and the process of coming to an agreement. The knowledge, skills, and abilities I demonstrated throughout the weeks have grown and boosted my confidence when partaking in a group setting. I learned that people are easily offended and it may be hard to steer away from it, but it can be done. Teamwork has always been easy for me because I offer more help than needed to my teammates. The panel discussion taught me that not everyone one wants help, but the opportunity for their opinions to be considered. Each tool I have gained from this experience will make it easier for me to engage with others in the near future in a mannerly way whether it is for a grade or not.

Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran developed the Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making theory to “offer practical advice on how participants can act to ensure better group decisions” (Hirokawa, 1999, p. 170). They believe that as long as the members in a group care about the issue and are reasonably intelligent, the group interaction will have a positive effect on the final decision. In order for a group to reach a high-quality solution, Hirokawa and Gouran believe the group 's decision-making process needs to fulfill four task requirements they refer to as requisite functions of effective decision making. "Three core assumptions define the functional perspective: (1) groups are goal oriented; (2) group performance varies in quality and quantity, and can be evaluated; and (3) internal and external factors influence group performance via the interaction process.” (Wittenbaum, 2004 p. 19).

In team leadership, the Hill Model is stated by Northouse (2016) as “to simplify and clarify the complex nature of team leadership and to aid leadership decision making for team leaders and members” (p. 366). This model has several key concepts and practices that this paper will look at and exploit the aspect of influence and processes that people in a groups or teams interact and the force within the group acting to unit all the members or leadership functions. Whether traditional leadership of teams or groups with a formal leader or a self-directed group with no specific leader all benefit from an shared leadership with the attention and focus of all members on the groups process dynamics. This is more so the case in virtual teams benefiting from shared leadership. Team-based structures in organizations have several positive characteristics and are capable of increasing production, allocation and use of resources, effective on making decisions and problem solving, increased quality and services as well as, fluent innovation and creativity, as listed by Parker (as cited in Northhouse, 2016, p. 364).

Because we did not begin with an assigned or designated leader, different types of power showed up in each person's leadership as a result of personalities and previous experience. The team roles were adopted informally by all the team members. The leadership role was not formally assigned so everyone just worked on their assigned asks. We trusted each other for completing the tasks. However, leaders emerged in the group as leading email discussion, leading face to face group discussion, or leading discussion on webct.

Agreement and consensus is largely formed among the team, who respond well to facilitation by leader. Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted. Big decisions are made by group agreement. Smaller decisions may be delegated to individuals or small teams within group. Commitment and unity is strong. The team may engage in fun and social activities. The team discusses and develops its processes and working style. There is general respect for the leader and some of leadership is more shared by the team. The leader facilitates and enables.

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

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

Group work and required tasks are to be distributed evenly or by specific strengths of a given member. Responsibilities are to be balanced by how much one is capable of doing and how adept or willing they are towards working on a given task. All members are to put their best efforts in any given task assign that is assigned to them.

In this regard, the most influential aspects that spoke to me were to remain diligent in establishing ground rules for behavior or setting norms, and designating and clarifying roles for each group member. These ideals are not new and have also been encouraged in a wide variety of other educational texts which promote methods for using collaborative groups in the workplace. Robert Garmston tells readers that the typical roles in a group are the engaged participant, the facilitator, the recorder, the role authority, and citizen facilitator. He goes on to suggest the rotation of facilitator and recorder roles (Garmston, 2012), thus helping every participant to feel as if they have a voice and is able to

Specifically, this paper will address the following topics: the definition of a group, the roles played within the group, a description of the group member personalities, the intended focus of the group, how the group worked together as a team and the process that was involved, how conflict was resolved, and how the group emerged as a group at the end of the situation.

When the project was first introduced and we were out in a group together, we immediately discussed topics that we could present on. At the time, we did not choose a topic, but the following day we were able to find a topic that we all enjoyed researching and presenting on. Once we had a topic to present on, we split up the work evenly between us and started a google docs so we could post our notes and completed work online. This process was very dependent on every member of the group contributing to the end goal of presenting our finished project. For the most part we completed our respective tasks and was able to complete our presentation on why health care should be free. Our group did not communicate very much, this highlighted the interdependence

As I walked through Downtown Berkeley, I decided to sit near the Bart Station. I noticed that everyone around me had somewhere to go because it felt like everyone was in a rush. For example, I noticed that people were jaywalking the streets. As I sat down, I noticed that there were other students from my class that sat down near me as well. In addition, I also noticed Tak was sitting behind me, eating his sandwich. As I was sitting down and looked at those who were walking, I realized that it was mostly caucasians that were passing by, many dressed well, some were even wearing suits. Most of the people that walked by were students and adults and some of them were in groups and some walked by themselves. Everyone looked liked they had somewhere

Having tasks that are too difficult or are unfamiliar are likely to incite social loafing because they group member lacks the ability or courage to provide input. Robbins and Judge (2011) theorize that another cause of social loafing is an uneven equity. When two people are putting in different levels of input and receiving the same level of output the larger contributor will adjust their input to reduce cognitive dissonance. Another reason they believe is “dispersion of responsibility” group members cannot be held responsible because tasks and roles are not clearly assigned. (Robbins & Judge, 2011). In research by Worchel and others (1998) it was found that groups with friends or familiar members are far less likely to loaf when compared with groups made up of strangers (Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, 1998) Most people have been in a group made up of friends and colleges they are familiar with and seen that in these types of groups social loafing is drastically reduced.

This theory is a combined of two influential theories on group behavior, which Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats have wrote in article of ‘’Functional Roles of Group Members’’ in 1940. This theory worked in some teams that are effective in some but for some it isn’t. Their work influenced other earlier research and thinking about the function of group. The have researched more recently and have refined many ideas. Group roles are extremely useful and interesting in the way of looking at the behavior of the team. 26 different group role have been defined which can be played by one or more people within a group depends on that person’s skill.

A group engages in certain processes that naturally occur when a set of individuals are working together. In the Orientation phase, the needs of group members are to be oriented to the task, that is, to define the task, specify issues, identify expectations, and explore the nature of the work. From this, members develop a common understanding of the group's purpose. In the Testing and Dependency phase, participants generally act as if they depend on the leader to provide all the structure. They look to the leader to set the ground rules, establish the agenda, to do all the "leading," while the group members acclimate themselves to the setting. Group members exhibit behavior to test what behavior is acceptable and what is not, and begin to establish boundaries, to consider themselves as individuals in relation to the group, and to define the function of the group and the leader. This phase generally concludes when there is general agreement that the goals are achievable and that change is possible--whether it be changing behavior, making a decision, or solving a problem. Organizing to get work done involves a number of group decisions. These include establishing work rules, determining limits, defining the reward system, setting the criteria for the task, dividing the work and assigning individual responsibility for particular tasks. As it relates to