Group Communication Function Analysis

Group Communication Functions Analysis Evaluation Form

The group I decided to observe it is my work team at the Assessment Center. I selected them because of the variety of leaderships, problems and solving solutions we encounter. A week ago we had our monthly meeting, in which the goal was to grow personally in our job environment and to implement that growth to our team-work. This group was conformed of ten people, an outsider speaker Mr. John Victory professor at LCC of "Diversity in the work place", our Director Becky Stimpson, two supervisors and us the co-workers. Members are ranging in age 19 – 50; mixed religions and cultural backgrounds. The meeting was the continuation of other team building activities in which all of the attendants
had the opportunity to talk and express their ideas equally.
In the meeting we used a round table format, where we all shared information of what we thought was failing in our team-work environment. We first started with an opening stage, in which all of us introduced ourselves to the speaker and expressed what we want to change in the future in our work place. The feedforward stage helped us out to identify some of our problems. We paraphrased our ideas as we discussed them. We found that we needed to realize some tension between co-workers, we needed to be acknowledged for the experience we have, we sick for honesty, creativity and respect between co-workers, in which most of us agreed. Throughout the meeting we used a ball as a symbol of priority; who ever had the ball had the right to talk. As we discussed we found that respect was a big concern for a lot for our co-workers. We concluded the meeting with the goal to respect each other and to be open to ideas. We put a time period to evaluate our new purpose, two weeks until next meeting.
In the meeting there were two decision-making methods, decision by authority and by consensus. Primary method was decision by authority in which group ideas and opinions were taken in consideration but the one who makes the ultimate decision is the one in charge of the group. And secondary method was by consensus where the decision taken by the group was unanimous, everybody agreed with the solution. For example, the Speaker John Victory started us with the meeting and gave us team building activities. The meeting was conducted by everyone, where we all shared information and gave ideas for our problems. At the end of the meeting we came up with the idea of having more respect towards each other. The decision that we took was unanimous, nobody was against the solution or had other thoughts about it. However, Becky the director, made the final decision regarding the solution which was to be more sensitive to each other and to have more respect among us. The methods used were well organized, but it did not have too much participation; although we had a consensus agreement, it felt that everybody followed the rest with out too much participation. I recommend that our director participate more in the discussion; even though, the director makes the last decision, it will stimulate the co-workers to participate with more enthusiasm.
Group Cohesiveness
Throughout the meeting the group was very cohesive.
Cohesiveness is the act of being closely connected and to work together as a group. For example, my group had a connection between ideas and feelings that everybody felt at the moment. The group was supportive to the problems that were brought to the circle of work members. For example, we all agreed that we needed to be acknowledged and to have some respect for our feelings in order to release some tension between co-workers. This group has many leaders in which each individual has different ideas, where we need to be listened and respect for our opinions. In different meetings, as put as an example, we were judge because of different opinions and different perceptions of what was said by our supervisors. This time we had the chance to express our opinions and ideas, everybody felt connected and we all agreed. In order to improve the cohesiveness of the group, I recommend that each member participate, so their thoughts, ideas, and opinions are addressed and fully understood by
everyone.
Norms
Norms are standard rules that are given to regulate appropriate and an appropriate behaviors.
The Assessment Center is a very diverse group, where you follow norms and regulations. We get paid to attend the meeting, so that makes it mandatory. In this meeting I observed that we all follow the rules, some better than others, because we have our boss who rules at the center it hard to break the standards. However we don't all have the same culture and traditions. We have some South Americans, including myself in this cultural category, in which time is relevant. We don't arrive on time. Because of the cohesiveness of the group some times is accepted, but rules are rules, they are made to follow them. In contrast American norms are more severe, so we started the meeting immediately. I think more norms should be established at the meeting, I will recommend more punctuality from other co-workers; international people should be aware of their environment and adjust to such
culture.

Role Members
In the meeting we had some task role members. Becky Stimpson, our director was our information seeker and giver. She seeks information and clarification for our problems. For example, when we expressed that we needed to be acknowledge, she wanted to know by who we waned to be acknowledge and when. Prof. John Victory was our evaluator-critic person, Prof. Victory goal was to evaluate the group and give suggestions to provide positive feedback to our ideas. We had a recorder which was one of our supervisors; this individual recorded our problems and plans to improve it. Some maintenance roles as encourager and harmonizer were again our director Becky and John. Where they gave us positive reinforcements, we all know that the one we see the progress is the director and the one who is going to make sure our goal will be accomplished. We all were compromisers. All of us found our problem, we acknowledge the fact of respect for our co-workers and we all compromised to change the situation. We had some followers in the group. They would participate but would not contribute new ideas to the group. No one was aggressive to the meeting. We did not have any blockers, neither a self-confessor nobody try to center attention on them. There were not dominators no one tried to take charge of the meeting. I think we should not have so many roles in a group especially in this type of group. There is only one boss and the co-workers. My recommendation for the group would be just to follow one form of member roles as group task roles or Group building maintenance roles.
Approach Leadership
Approach to leadership means different ways and views for leadership, in which the leader is viewed in different ways and valued in different styles. For example, this group had a traits approach views, where we can distinguish who are leaders and which ones are not. For example, this group has many leaders each of us were hired for our leadership qualities. Although have a big diversity we all have the same leadership characteristics. People oriented, business majors, hard workers. I think it is a hard environment because everybody has their own way to approach situations and to interpret them differently. But because of the cohesiveness of the group we get alone well. A recommendation for the group leadership role would be to change the approach of leadership I think the group would work better as a transformational approach where the leader not only takes credit by its own but also gives some incentive to their co-workers, something that was asked at the meeting to be recognized.
Style of leadership In this group we have mix of Democratic and Authoritarian leadership, which democratic leadership means that the leader gives some direction but allows the group to have their own ideas and solutions. And Authoritarian leadership means at only the leader has the power to make decision and to apply them to work. For example, the leader allowed the group to have their own ideas and opinions throughout the meeting. The group found problem and the solution for the problem. The leader gave some feed back to the solution, but as an overall the group gave the solution. However, the director was the last one to give the ultimate decision. Becky, the director, had to approve the decision made by the co-workers. To improve leadership I recommend not have two leadership styles. Especially the Authoritarian leadership, because if the group had their own decision and was not acknowledge by the director the group would had felt used and just put aside.