The Forgotten Group Member

In my small group for the film project analysis project I worked with four other students, Deonte, Frank, Osama, and Stephen. The specific purpose that we came together for was to analyse the film, Oz, The Great and Powerful and identify the different properties of communication in the film and how they were used. We held our group meetings after class three times and once before class. Our group had no clear leader, and instead each member was self-directed, and instead our group came to a general consensus at each meeting as to how tasks should be divided and what should be done before the next meeting. While there were significant setbacks to our group’s progress, aside from one anomaly our group worked well together and had only one major conflict.

In creating three offsite meetings in Napa Valley, Kathryn was able to help her executive team move through the forming, storming, norming and performing stages of team development. First and foremost the team went through the forming stage. In this stage the groups was able to identify their leader as Kathryn and were able to look to her for guidance and direction. Moreover, Kathryn was prepared to answer a lot of questions, which became apparent in the scrutiny of the offsite meetings. During this time Kathryn was forced to go very in depth and make analogies in order to answer the variety of question she

I’ve found that adult learners really struggle to work effectively in group settings, especially when they do not meet in person. We all lead very full and busy lives, making it difficult to sync our project timelines. I believe that doing a few things differently really would have helped the orange group’s paper. First, our team should have chosen to be more structured and follow a process. In the forming stage, we would have been wise to establish a group leader. Again, in adult learning settings I think students resist to doing so, however, the leader plays a large role in providing direction, encouragement and accountability. Julie was probably the closest thing we had. She did keep us somewhat focused throughout our process. During the storming phase, our group really could have benefitted from setting up and taking time to work together. We could have taken advantage of additional forms of CMC, perhaps via chat room to communicate in real time, rather than via email. This may have allowed the group to move more cohesively into the norming stage. We should have been sharing our individual work with one another for feedback, allowing the knowledge of the others to

Group member cohesiveness was absent from the group meeting for several reasons, but the primary reasons were due to the fact that the group members did not have a common description of value or structure to the discussion. Each member viewed their own area of involvement within the organization as being more valuable than any other area, and it was this exclusion of other valuable traits that lead the group to begin to clash in such a

The third team problem was that norms and values were not identified. Their main problem was the repetitive decision making process with no consensus.The objectives of their meetings where not stated nor was there proper time management. Henry should prepare an agenda of objectives and communicate them clearly to the group prior to the meetings. He should appoint Dana as minute taker for the meetings to ensure schedule is followed and necessary post meeting actions clearly stated and executed.

Further complicating group cohesion, one member never fully “buying into” the group. This was partly because of the topic being chosen at a meeting they could not attend, due to the own member’s refusal to meet except for a particular day in which the other two members both had scheduling conflicts. We solicited their feedback by text and email multiple times all of which went unanswered. As a result, this member was like “pushing an elephant” throughout the project and constantly threatened our group success. Whether it was through lack of competent communication, constant questioning of our project, insulting other members (I truly don’t think this person was remotely aware of how they were coming across even after it was pointed out), overall lack of enthusiasm for the project, and group itself; group cohesion was a constant struggle and the success of the group was in question. To handle the situation, the other two group members worked together, dug our heels in and kind of “dragged” the third person along for the ride. To the naysayer’s credit, when it came right down to it, they delivered for our group. We were able to present a well thought out, planned, and polished presentation despite internal tension present at the time. In both our Call and on our feedback from our presentation to the

Group projects can go one of two ways: you end up becoming close with your members as you power through the assignment or you end up feeling an enormous amount of contempt towards them that sprouts from their apparent incompetence. I’m very glad to say that I enjoyed working with my group members. They weren’t incompetent at all and were actual really nice to do this assignment with.

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,

Christine should understand how people relate to one another in groups and the blended personalities that each member brings will be based on their needs to express feelings of inclusion and control are important to the success of the team. With the situation with Mike and knowing off first hand that he is the class clown, is allow him to be creative and be the presenter of their project to the class to show case the teams work. Steve being the business mind, allow him to produce the project plan. By doing this, Christine would draw on each team member’s strengths and a successful workgroup performance.

She should take steps to improve team member interaction and overall team environment. During this time should needs to establish ground rules and clear expectations for acceptable behaviors. This will result in improved teamwork and reduced staff turnover. Rebecca understands that most employees are motivated by an opportunity to grow, accomplish, and apply professional skills to meet new challenges. She can provide Ryan and the other team members with challenges and opportunities. She should also provide timely feedback positive and remedial to keep the team moving in the right direction. It is important to use open communication, develop trust among the team members, manage conflicts and encourage collaborative problem solving and decision making. Rebecca may need to request management support if she team performance needs improvement. She should not be afraid to ask for

One of the main challenges that were noticed in the group was when Shai-naisha was playing the monopolizer and kept trying to over talk Deanna while she was speaking. These types of common members’ roles can be frustrating to the rest of the group and lead to unpleasant outcome in an environment that is designated to build supportive among members. However, the facilitator show great skills by allowing Shai-naisha express her concerns and then asked other members for feedback. In addition, the facilitator asked the other members did this behavior make them feel uncomfortable. This was another great example of how the goal-attainment was exhibit.

Based off his action, not attending team meetings and providing brief notes, Mike has become the social loafer of the team. Social loafers can be described as team members who work less and put less effort into the team assignment, than he or she would do if he or she had to complete the assignment alone. The key issues’ facing Christine is not only Mike’s social loafing but the lack of communication on her behalf to inform Mike of his lack of participation.

The agency has 7 core values and one of them is professionalism. Amy did not exemplify any professionalism at the meeting. She was counterproductive in what the team was trying to accomplish and she monopolized the teams’ time with unnecessary gossip. Quality care and commitment are also core values of the agency and Amy failed to do both. As a leader of her team, she did not step up and play her role. When working in groups there is always a leader and the must have good communication skills and provides the team with direction.

This team did not have in place the necessary aligned group dynamics to meet the standard of a high-performing team. In Kreitner & Kinicki, the first stage known as “Forming” states the team member should develop a mutual understanding in order to work efficiently and effectively (Pg. 274). Eric quickly formed a team of highly diverse members but good at their own field: Randy Lowerback (director of sales and marketing), Ray LaPierre of manufacturing, Maureen Turner of the design division and Carl Simmons of distribution. They all were the most capable person of what they did but working as a team, there were too many problems arose.

Although Mary Ann did not want to waste time with this open communication process, she would have realized that Mike and Jeanine work better together when each subordinate individually feels useful and important. Mary Ann got the results out of Jeanine that she expected because she made her feel useful and important. If Mike was properly motivated and given