Running head: MIDTERM MADNESS
1
Group Dynamics Individual Paper
Emily Davidson
Western Illinois University
MIDTERM MADNESS
2
Group Dynamics Individual Paper
During the course of the semester I was part of the “Midterm Madness” group. For my
individual paper for the group dynamics course I will walk through each week to describe the
major group processes as I interpreted them and as they applied to the chapter of the week.
Week One and Two: Formation and Structure
The initial formation of the group was due to the ‘forced’ nature of the group. During the
first week we were very optimistic about being part of a group together. The paring of the forced
nature plus optimism helped to form the group in the initial stages. Our first group experience
was very enjoyable to me. It was simply a time to get to know each other and discuss ideas for
the project. There was a mixture of personalities in the group and it was nice to spend the first
period just getting to know these differences. Some of these balancing characteristics are big
ideas and creativity v. analytic personalities. This was positive during these forming stages
because we needed creativity in order to come up with an idea, yet it was balanced by someone
who looked at the logistics to say if the idea will work in real life. Next, there was a mixture of
people who “think out-loud” v. those who “take time to process internally.” Although some of
these personalities can conflict in certain situations, I felt as though we took the time to hear each
person’s ideas. Week two looked very different for the group’s formation.
During class, week two, we discussed the stages of groups. I believe our group was at the
storming stage during week two. At this point, the storming stage was not due to intergroup
dynamics but rather intragroup dynamics and extraneous variables that we could not control for.
For example, we found out that another group was doing a similar project. As a group we had to
work through this ‘storm’ if you will. Creating a project that everyone would be on board with
was much more difficult the second time around. Finding one project that six people would love
MIDTERM MADNESS
3
to do was hard enough. I became frustrated during this storm. This is because I am always
interested in doing something that other people are invested in, whether or not I am invested
myself originally- I can jump on board with an idea if it is what someone is passionate about.
This is one difference I noticed between me and the group. Not all of our group members
wanted to jump on board with any idea, which is something we had to work through during the
forming stages, especially the storming stage.
Our group did not create group norms, which Forsythe says is an important part of the
formation and structure of the group, because we did not want to shape the experience of the
group. During the forming stages such as the storming stage I saw some potential for norms to
be helpful. Each time someone came up with an idea for the project one particular group
member reminded the group to “think about the time commitment” and asked “does this really
change the world or make it a better place?” While these are important things to talk about, I felt
like we were not moving forward as a group. Norms could have helped in this situation. If we
had previously discussed our commitment levels and interests and created an operational
definition of what it means to “make the world a better place,” then we would not have to go
back to the question every time. Looking back, norms would have been beneficial during these
beginning stages.
Week Three: Stages and Processes
We eventually came to a consensus about the idea that we would all be excited about
because of our task orientation cohesion. I was happy with our final idea, a midterm food and
study time in the residence halls. We eventually called this program: Midterm Madness. After
we decided on the program, it seemed to be the end of the storming stage; however it was just the
beginning of the future storms to come. We then set up an extra meeting time to get a ‘move on’
MIDTERM MADNESS
4
with our project; again showing our task orientation as a group. We made great progress during
this meeting. We talked about how, where, and what’s of the event. We left this meeting with a
great handle on what this event would be like and how we all fit into it. It felt like we were in
the norming stage of development. However there was one problem: a group member was
missing from this discussion and meeting. The next meeting during or normal discussion time
was extremely frustrating and sent the group back into the storming stage. When we started to
discuss the extra meeting and the details we had finalized the missing group member denied one
idea in particular: prizes. We decided as a group that we would get prizes from local companies
in order to improve attendance of the event. This group member refused to back this idea. There
was no compromise or sharing of better ideas; rather there was just a stern “no.” This was
detrimental to the morale of the group as a whole. I do not think that having a group member
with a different opinion is always detrimental to the group, but in this case it was. Our planning
and excitement became at a standstill. Our group was again in the storming stage. Additionally,
this led me to feel somewhat apathetic about being part of this group and about our project in
general.
Week Four: Cohesion
Week four was rather fitting because the chapter was about cohesion. I could see some
cohesion dynamics were starting to happen within the group. The book talked about many
different kinds of cohesion which occurs for many different reasons. The source of our cohesion
was less about individual attraction to the group, but rather a sense of team work in order to get
the task done. Instead of being relationship oriented, our group was task oriented. This could be
the cause for some conflict; either with individuals who are personally more relationship oriented
or for the group in general not having a relationship focus. I think the group became more task
MIDTERM MADNESS
5
oriented rather than relationship oriented because we are part of a group because of a class and
class project. If we were part of the group because we had individual attraction to the group,
then I believe it would be different. This task oriented nature pulled our group out of the
storming stage. We wanted to work well together to accomplish the task at hand.
Week 5: Influence
It is difficult to see who is influencing the group from the inside perspective. I believe
influence is much easier to observe from an outside perspective such as the facilitator’s
perspective. This being said, there were a few examples of influence within the group. With the
earlier mentioned conflict we had a group member who did not agree- a minority influence, and a
group that was fairly set in their ways- the majority influence. In this case, the minority
influence seemed at the time to simply be a case of anti-conformity for the sake of disagreement.
Now, as I look back on this situation, I was quick to judge too harshly. I think that the minority
opinion came from a place of genuine concern. In order to mediate this conflict, we were
working under the conversion theory. We were motivated to try to get this group member to
change their opinion to reduce conflict. However, this did not work, the dissenter maintained
their position and the majority maintained theirs. In this case, a medium was not found. During
week five, as we are discussing influence, there was an interesting contrast to previous weeks.
During week five a group member addressed and questioned our task oriented nature. The
person who brought this up influenced the group through reflective challenge. The book
discusses how the minority opinion can change the group opinion. I do not think that all of us
necessarily want to be task oriented, but rather many of us do not challenge the task oriented
nature. When this group member challenged it, I noticed a change. Interestingly enough, the
influencer in this case was the same influencer as the past case. Ironically, we sat for the last
MIDTERM MADNESS
6
twenty minutes or so of class, just talking about different topics completely unrelated to the
group project. This was a nice change of pace for me; I enjoyed getting to know some of the
group members more personally.
Week Six: Power
At week six our group was at the performing stage. This was necessary since our event
was only one week away at this point. We were focused on both task and relationship so that we
could be performing both by getting the work done and also by getting the work done as a team.
Although we are doing some tasks separately, all of our individual parts are equally important to
the team. Power played into our beginning stage and also at this performing stage. Power is
typically a natural component of any group experience. Power in this case was different because
there was not one appointed person who is the leader or spokesperson for our group. We all
bring power to the group regarding the different tasks we are working on. This is both expert
power and information power. One group member brought expert and information power
because she works with individuals in the tutoring center; this part is important to our program
and therefore, her power is useful to the group. Equally important was the two housing group
members’ expert and information power in regards to working in the residence halls, working
with hall government for money, and working with Sodexo. One OSA group member brought
expert power by working with his resources to get advertisements put up on the screens around
campus. One group member used expert power helped her create our designs and
advertisements.
We also used different power tactics in our group as well. We collaborated by bringing
together our resources and to provide assistance with the different tasks. We discussed the best
ways to put on our program. We persuaded some of our group members toward different ideas,
MIDTERM MADNESS
7
such as the prizes example. We requested that certain group members be in charge of different
tasks. We socialized to increase our relationship cohesion in the group. In this group project, it
was important for all of the group members to maintain their own power. This was important,
because we wanted to maintain our own “face.” To maintain “face” means to preserve what
others may think about you or to change what others think about you. In this case, we all want to
maintain that we are a valuable member of the group. Being a valuable member of the group is
again, part of appeasing our referent power, AKA getting the grade (and learning too)!
Week Seven: Conflict
Many of the group’s conflicts fell under the mixed-motive situation. We had separate
ideas that we wanted to use (competition) but wanted to work well together and compromise
(cooperation.) This was evident in the raffle of prizes situation. One person had a strong
opinion, yet didn’t want to alienate herself from the group so she stated that although she does
not agree with the raffle, she will go along with it since the group wants to as a whole.
Additionally, I earlier discussed that our group was more task oriented than relationship oriented.
This is interesting to me because I believe our conflict fell under the task conflict category. We
would have disagreements about the project rather than about our relationships with one another.
Overall, our group tried to remain cohesive regardless of the conflict going on. This has a lot to
do with the fact that we are cohort members and that we want to remain in good standing with
one another; as well as for the project- we want to do well on the project. If there has been a
conflict, we have tried to resolve it. In our attempts to resolve conflict, I believe we have used a
few different tactics. Negotiation was used during the raffle debacle; we tried to negotiate the
timing of the raffle in lieu of keeping the raffle as part of the event. One of our group members
yielded to the idea of the raffle, whether or not she agreed with it. And we have cooperated to
MIDTERM MADNESS
8
identify solutions that are satisfying to all of the individuals involved such as advertisements,
placement of the program, and timing of the program. In class we talked about how conflict can
either make or break a group. I do not feel like we came out any higher or lower.
Week Eight and Nine: Paper Process
Before we started the paper writing process, one group member brought up that she
thought it might be beneficial for us to create group norms for this process. We could then
compare our experiences of doing a project (Midterm Madness) without group norms, and doing
another project (group paper) with group norms. I felt as though adding group norms truly did
help with this process. It was important to have created these norms so that feelings will not get
hurt and so that we can communicate more clearly during the application and analysis part of the
group process. Although it was a group norm to be open and honest when discussing each
other’s roles- I still did not feel comfortable bringing up some of the issues I had experienced in
the past with certain group members. Also, one of our norms was to “own our mistakes.” I had
hoped this would impact one certain group member and that I would not have to bring these
things up- but rather the person would bring them up. However, this did not happen. Since we
were past the first project and were working on the second part of the project I was ready to start
new and move on from these things.
Week Ten: Performance and Decision Making
We had to perform –either sink or swim- several times now. We had to perform during
our program. Regardless of our relationships, the task had to get done. I think one motivating
factor in our performance during the program is the evaluation apprehension theory. We not
only had each other to see our performance, but we also had other cohort members as they
attended the event. Therefore, we felt as though we were being evaluated and wanted our
MIDTERM MADNESS
9
performance to go well. Chapter 10 also brings about a different term for diffusion of
responsibility- called social loafing: reduction of individual effort when working in groups. I
can see how this might have played out with a few situations in our group. The creation of group
norms during the paper writing process helped to create goals and minimize free riding. Free
riding will be minimized because it is a norm: “you must finish a task you have been assigned.”
Decision making was a difficult task for us at the beginning of our project. We
deliberated for a while before we were able to finally decide on a project. During the paper
writing portion of our project I felt as though we are doing a better job with cohesion and
decision making. With the normative model of decision making I feel as though we each
facilitated and delegated to identify the issues and implement decisions. Social comparison
played into our decision making often. I felt that at the beginning we wanted to do something
“bigger and better” than our peers- we wanted to be significant. When we found out that our
project was similar to another groups, we decided to change the project. Social comparison is
playing into our decisions still as we decide how to present our information- we are motivated to
have the “best” presentation.
Conclusion
This semester I have learned a great deal about the processes that play apart in the
dynamics of the group. I think the larger importance of this knowledge is my application of this
body of knowledge to my practice as a professional. I have been able to identify different issues
and potential solutions with the different groups that I work with such as the desk assistants and
resident assistants of my buildings. I hope to continue this application of the material to help my
future practice as well.
MIDTERM MADNESS
10
References
Forsyth, D. 2010. Group Dynamics. (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth