Reflection On Group Processes And Dynamics Essay

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. The article focused on two realms of group development: interpersonal relationships and task activity. He hypothesized a four stage model in which each stage needed to be successfully navigated in order to reach effective group functioning” (Bonebright, 2010, p. 113).

Whether groups are formed for social or task oriented purposes, the ability to produce and maintain a sense of affiliation, peer support and collaboration is important for overall group functioning. The cohesion of a social group is produced through the establishment of a set of group norms, which are later defined as a guide for conduct accepted within a group of individuals. However, in order for a group to perform and produce results, the team leader should guide his/her team through the proper stages of group development, which includes the following steps: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Although teams should follow all these stages of group development, the forming and the norming stages are the most important,

Groups do not always start off fully-formed and functioning. Bruce Tuckman's model of the developmental sequence in small groups suggests that groups grow through clearly defined stages, from their creation as groups of

conflicts emerge amongst the group members, both on a personal level and organization of the task functions, and the boundaries that were established in the forming stage are tested by the members of the group and their individual desires, feelings, attitudes and ideas (Manktelow et al., 2016). In order to avoid failure, the group must mold their desires and needs to suit the needs of the group, and work on what the group norms are in order to allow for the progression to the next stage of the group development (Creasia & Friberg, 2011). The pediatric fair group experienced this stage of the group development in a very task oriented, group beneficial, and void of personality clashes manner. The members actively and enthusiastically participated

The five stage Tuckman’s theory (1965) namely forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning focuses on the way in which a group handles a task from the beginning to completion. The main group work approaches are cognitive behaviourist, feminist, psychoanalytic and humanistic approaches. Knowledge of theory enhances effectiveness of group work.

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

This is a case study of Southwest Minnesota State University wheelchair basketball team and how group dynamics play a key role in teamwork. From my understanding in class and playing for SMSU, I will explain how a group of individuals worked together to achieve a common goal. But, First, I will define group dynamics and how group decision making helped the team succeed as a group. Secondly, I will discuss the significant role of skills development. Most importantly, I will point out the variety of disabilities we share as athletes. Then again, groups can run into trouble, and it is useful to be aware of these issues, and the appropriate solutions right from the start. However, after reading this case study, you will be informed about how wheelchair athletes cope with group decision making, skills development, social comparison, and conflict between group members.

Although we had been using the consensus making decision style since the beginning of the semester we were also able to improve upon our administration of it. This approach is time consuming because it requires every group member to discuss an issue and all agree on it before it can be accepted (Levi, 2011). We found that it was taking too long for us to reach group decisions because no one wanted to offend anyone else or offer their honest opinion at first. The more we developed trust the better we could discuss issues honestly in a timely fashion and make well thought out decisions quickly.

The Tuckman’s stages of team development (Levi, 2007) will be used as lens to evaluate the work of the group presentation. The Tuckman’s stages of team development consist of five stages of forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Levi, 2007). In the forming stage we tend to know each other and figure out how we are going to run the presentation. At this stage, there was discomfort due to unfamiliarity together with confusion on how we will function together. The solution for that case was, everyone had each member contact detail, had a clear ground rules, as well as planned how we will accomplish our tasks. In addition, we also experienced the storming and norming stage. Levi (2007) says that the in the storming phase there are often

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.

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.

In a quite similar study, Bushe & Coetzer (2007) examined 208 undergraduate students, enrolled in an introductory organizational behaviour course, by testing their performance of task groups and furthering the studies of group development. The students were divided into 52 teams; each team was assigned smaller tasks due each week as well as a complex case that was due at the end of the course; questionnaires were also used during the semester to evaluate the group’s developmental progress (Bushe & Coetzer 2007). By grading the results of the case and using statistics on the results of the questionnaires, Bushe & Coetzer (2007) discovered that: as long as membership within a group is unclear there will be no team effectiveness and group development will lag. However, when membership is clear and groups become aware of their competencies, there will be a sense of “congruence” and the team members will work together to achieve the goals of the team more effectively (Bushe & Coetzer, 2007).

The use of group as a teaching method was explored in psychiatric nursing field specifically a therapeutic tool, and a form of peer supervision.

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