McKinney 1
Amber McKinney
201401 Spring LIS-650-02D
J. Hersberger
14 April 2014
Team Ursa Major
Introduction
Team Ursa Major was comprised of Amanda Austin, Katie Barbour, Gabriel Grana,
Jennifer Stith, and myself. Everyone brought different skills, experience and personalities to the
group. As we worked on the case study by collaborating, communicating, and overcoming issues
and difficulties, we came together as an effective, organized team to complete our assignment.
Group Development and Maintenance
Formation and Development
Our group began the development process slowly but we grew and came together as a
group as time went on. Team Ursa Major followed most of the steps of the progressive model of
development described in Chapter 6 of Gordon’s text (2001) in a mostly standard way (pg. 154).
At first, our group seemed a little uncertain of how to start the project, especially while we were
in the ‘Orientation to Task (Forming)’ stage. At this point, we did not have a leader and no one
was really directing the group; therefore, some of us were trying out roles like the leadership
position. As Gordon states, as this stage, “[e]ach person, individually and through negotiating
with other group members, trie[d] to determine the interpersonal behaviors required to
accomplish the group’s task” (pg. 154). Various members suggested different starting points. I
suggested we all start by using the group’s Blackboard discussion board to post times we were
available and roles we were comfortable with, and Katie sent out an email at another point to get
things started.
I think we probably spent too much time in the first stage, and we should have put more
effort into figuring out our group dynamics earlier in the process. We probably should have used
more team building exercises in the beginning to help us learn about each other more efficiently
(Hersberger, 2014). This would have allowed us to move into the other stages quicker. In the
‘Redefinition of Appropriate Behavior (Storming)’ stage, we did not experience a lot of
intragroup conflict, perhaps because Gabe was an effective leader or because we mostly agreed
on issues and decisions. I think we spent the most time collectively in the ‘Coordination of
Group Behaviors (Norming)’ and ‘Formalization of Functional Group Behavior (Performing)’
stages. As functional roles began to emerge, group members were able to take on those roles.
Roles
The roles in our group project were filled as the need for them appeared. Gabe became
our main leader when he stepped up to the role since none of us really declared a desire to be the
leader. In Chapter 6, Gordon (2001) gives a variety of tips for team leaders, and I think Gabe
effectively followed most of them (pg. 168). When he needed to, he would admit that he didn’t
McKinney 2
know or understand something, he would share power with other group members, and he was not
worried about giving up certain things, such as the section he originally wrote. In Chapter 1,
Goleman (2011) writes about how moods can affect group, and states that “[g]ood moods prove
especially important when it comes to teams: The ability of the leader to pitch a group into an
enthusiastic, cooperative mood can determine its success” (pg. 14). It seemed to me that Gabe
mostly kept an upbeat, good mood that affected the rest of the group. He was a good leader, and I
think it was really great for the group that he did not hold tight to the power he had as leader; he
was usually seemed encouraging and open to new ideas and suggestions. I think our leadership
did change somewhat based on the needs of the project, as it was mentioned in class (Hersberger,
2014). Jennifer acted as a leader when she was suggesting edits, and Katie was the one who
compiled our final document. While Gabe was our main leader, others did step up to lead at
certain times during the project.
I eventually became the secretary for the group. During our first meeting, I thought we
might need to keep notes, so I began writing important points from the discussion onto the
Blackboard Collaborate whiteboard. I fell into the role of secretary and sent out the notes for
each meeting the day after the meeting, usually in the morning; these notes helped us keep a
record of the decisions we made (Hersberger, 2014) as well as things we discussed. We all took
on the role of writers as we tackled problems that Penny was experiencing. During part of the
project, we had to edit a massive amount of information that we had created. Jennifer was
particularly good at suggesting edits to other group members, which was beneficial since the
written sections needed to be pared down to three pages. Katie also helped out a great deal with
creating and compiling the final draft of our memo.
I think it might have been useful to do a standardized skills assessment of sorts when we
first started our group; while we stated some of our skills and normal roles, we could have spent
more time discussing and figuring out our skills. Gordon’s Chapter 6 states that “[m]anagers
need to survey the resources that individuals bring to their teams and help members use them
advantageously in accomplishing team and organizational goals” (pg. 158). I think if we had
used some kind of survey or questionnaire to figure out everyone’s skills earlier in the process,
our group would have better known the resources that members were bringing to the group and
been able to figure out roles more effectively. Also, while most of our roles were either task or
maintenance roles, there were a couple times where it seemed like someone was attempting to
take on an individual role by dominating the group discussion. While this issue did not happen
often and only created a little conflict, we probably could have better addressed these moments.
Time Management and Meetings
Our team was dedicated to being mindful of time constraints and meeting certain goals at
certain times. From the beginning, we decided that we wanted to finish our assignment earlier
than the submission date; we wanted to finish it by April 7th. While we did finish a complete
draft of the memo by that date, it still needed further edited so we did not turn it in until
Wednesday. We had three meetings over the course of our project, each held in Blackboard
Collaborate. These meetings were necessary to our completion of the project; in the meetings, we
could speak openly to each other and address issues or concerns that were better answered ‘inperson’ rather than through our normal email communication. During our meetings, we would
set a time that we wanted to end the meeting by and most of the meetings ended very near to the
time we had agreed upon. The only meeting that went far longer than we at first anticipated was
McKinney 3
the final meeting. At the meetings, we would discuss the work we had done and talk about future
goals. By the end of the meetings, we would have agreed on goals, or tasks, that we wanted to
accomplish by the time of our next meeting.
Most of our goals were formal goals, like Gordon mentions in Chapter 6 (2001) (pg.
158). Agreeing on the goals for the next time helped us come together as a group as well as move
toward accomplishing our task (2011, Gordon, pg. 158).While the group itself had very good
time management skills and set great goals, my personal time management skills are not as
polished as I wish and I need to work on those skills in the future. While I was not late with my
assigned portions of the project, I was usually one of the last to finish. In the future, when I am
working in a group or at any other time, I need to strive to be a better time manager.
Collaboration
Distribution of Tasks
Our main task was to create the memo for Penny, and we split the work into manageable
parts for the group members. After we came up with five different problems at our first meeting,
we each took a problem and worked on solving it. Looking back, I think it would have been
useful if we had put a page limit on how much information we should create. I think we created
an instance of communication or information overload when we first addressed the issues. We
created many more pages of information than was necessary, and I think it stressed us out a little
and made it confusing to figure out what needed to be cut out and what did not (Gordon, 2001,
pg. 192). Since the memo was supposed to be three pages, each person could have been
instructed to submit a page of information about their problem and we still would have had
ample material to pull ideas from for the memo.
Also, I think it would have been beneficial to have just one or two people closely edit the
final draft of our paper or to have edited the final document in a Google Doc. It was a task role
that would have been better filled by just a couple members rather than all of us taking on the
role of editors (Gordon, 2001, pg. 160-1). It was confusing to have each of us create individual
edited documents, since we had to open each document to see the edits that the person before us
made so as to avoid redundancy in editing. However, one person, Katie, did compile the final
document and put in all of the edits that we individually suggested. I think having a single person
compile the final document in the end was necessary so that we were not all trying to make the
final draft of the memo at the same time.
Innovation
Gordon’s Chapter 6 states that “[m]anagers in today’s organizations need to act
innovatively in creating and using teams. [. . .] Managers can use electronic tools to support new
ways of doing the job” (pg. 174). In our group, we used an electronic tool, Google Docs, which
is a tool that Gubnitskaia suggests in her chapter, ‘Real-Life Management Using Virtual Tools’
(pg. 101-3). While Gubnitskaia states that Google Docs can be used for scheduling and
fundraising, we used the tool to help us write, organize, edit, and view our memo to Penny on a
document that we could all see and work on at the same time. Since we all had a Google email
account and the majority of the team was familiar with the tool, sharing the document between
us was simple. It allowed us to share and look over what each of us had written without having to
McKinney 4
email a document back and forth; also, we could write notes to each other about our various
sections of the memo by using the comments feature. Using Google Docs cut down on time we
might have wasted by each compiling our own document or emailing notes back and forth to
each other.
Flexibility
Some of the people on our team showed a great deal of flexibility when we figured out
that certain sections had to be cut from the memo. In class, we learned that effective groups
‘[h]ave flexibility in determining how to attain the group’s understood goal,” and our group
became quite flexible during the course of our project (Hersberger, 2014). We started out with
five problems that we wanted to address then realized that we should only address about three, at
the most. Therefore, we had to shave off a couple sections. Gabe’s entire section was cut from
the final project, and he did not become irritated or fight to against having it removed. Katie also
had a great deal of her section on change management removed from the memo. Our members’
flexibility enabled us to complete the project without dysfunctional conflict.
Communication
Modes of Communication
Our group communicated with each other in a variety of ways, all of them digital in
nature. At first, we started out communicating through email and the Blackboard discussion
board, but after we all agreed that email was the best form of communication for us, we switched
to communicating outside of meetings through emails. After we created our Google Doc, we
eventually also communicated with each other through the comments feature as we made
suggestions and notes. Occasionally, it did became confusing when we were communicating
across multiple platforms or formats. For example, during our last meeting, when we were
attempting to edit our memo to Penny, we were working in both Google Docs and Blackboard
Collaborate at the same time. Blackboard Collaborate allowed us to speak to each other vocally,
but we were also using both the chat feature in the Google Doc and the chat feature in
Blackboard Collaborate, which made it difficult to follow both text-chat conversations at the
same time. Luckily, Google Doc did make a dinging noise whenever someone responded to that
chat. This is one instance where our methods of communication could have been streamlined.
We usually had success with our email communication, but there were a couple moments
when we had minor issues. Moniz (2010) writes about email in a chapter about communication
and suggests that “[w]hen sending e-mail, it has become increasingly important to be able to both
limit the volume that we send and to be as succinct as possible in terms of content” (pg. 89). Our
group was effective at sending succinct messages, and we were usually able to limit the volume
of emails we sent. The only time that we began sending a great deal of emails was at the end of
the project, when we were making edits and finalizing the memo. Most likely, we could have cut
down on the amount of emails we sent at that time by using the Google Doc to edit the final
memo instead of sending drafts back and forth; it became somewhat overwhelming to keep up
with the various emails and edits. Overall, the communication between the five of us was good
and effective with some small problems.
McKinney 5
Effectiveness of Communication
Our group was usually very good at communicating with each other and being open and
vocal during meetings and through emails. I think we were aware of how we worded emails and
spoke to each other in group meetings. As stated in Gordon’s Chapter 6, “[t]eam members may
check perceptions, practice active listening, give feedback, and redesign jobs to increase trust,
improve communication, and encourage resolution of conflict,” and I think we did performed
many of those points during our emails and meetings. Some of us were more outspoken than
others, and some of us preferred written communication over verbal communication, which
meant that Blackboard Collaborate, with both microphone and text-chatting options, was a good
fit for our meetings. One of our members was very assertive and confident when she spoke or
wrote, and she was not hesitant about voicing an opposing opinion, which was good since it
brought everyone’s attention to certain issues. I think this also helped us to avoid groupthink on
occasion (Hersberger, 2014). Sometimes her communication style was a little too aggressive, but
overall, her thoughts were very valuable and helped everyone reconsider ideas or portions of the
assignment. Occasionally, we would have issues understanding what each other meant, or after a
meeting, something that had seemed clear during the meeting became misunderstood. Most of
the time, we would ask for clarification or give feedback that made the meaning clear. In Chapter
7, Gordon (2001) mentions how ‘noise’ can interfere with the communication process (pg. 18990), and I think I allowed ‘noise,’ in the form of the note-taking, occasionally distract me from
the conversation. While it was necessary for me to take notes, I should have strived to contribute
more to the group discussions. I also sometimes had issues with decoding what other people
meant in emails or in our meetings, and I think I should have asked given more feedback or
asked for people clarify what had been said.
Conflict
While overall our group was fairly free of conflict, occasionally we would have
disagreements. The conflicts in our group were not destructive and most of the time, the conflicts
became functional conflicts. In Chapter 9, Gordon writes about using interpersonal techniques to
deal with conflict. While we often collaborated to fix conflicts when they arose, sometime we
compromised on conflicts or avoided them because perhaps we did not understand all of the
angles of the conflicts (pg. 282). The conflicts that were resolved through collaboration were
more useful to the group than those we compromised on or avoided.
Conclusion
While there was still occasional frustration and confusion, overall, this was a very
positive group experience. This group worked well together and only experienced minor
moments of discord, none of which soured the mood permanently or diminished the work ethic
of the group as a whole. I am coming away from this experience with an improved vision of how
groups can and should work, and I think this will help me to form better groups and teams in the
work place.
McKinney 6
Bibliography
Goleman, D. (2011). Primal leadership. In Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence (ed.
1, pp. 3-18). Florence, MA: More Than Sound.
Gordon, J. R. (2001). Creating high performing work groups and teams. In Organizational
behavior: A diagnostic approach (ed. 7, pp. 150-176). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall. Gordon, J. R. (2001). Leading effectively. In Organizational behavior: A diagnostic
approach (ed. 7, pp. 220-246). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gordon, J. R. (2001). Diagnosing breakdowns and improving communication. In Organizational
behavior: A diagnostic approach (ed. 7, pp.184- 211). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Gordon, J. R. (2001). Diagnosing power and managing conflict and stress. In Organizational
behavior: A diagnostic approach (ed. 7, pp.260- 290). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Gubnitskaia, V. (n/a). Real-life management using virtual tools. In Information Technology.
(other information not available. Might have been edited by Smallwood).
Hersberger, J. (2014, Feb. 3) Individual and Group Behavior [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved
from Blackboard Collaborate Recordings:
https://blackboard.uncg.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_11_1&url=/
webapps/blackboard/execute/courseMain?course_id=_368421_1
Moniz, R. J., Jr. (2010). Communication. In Practical and effective management of libraries:
Integrating case studies, general management theory and self-understanding (pp. 83100). Oxford: Chandos.