group dynamics1, Psychology, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Psychology

group dynamics1

group dynamics1 Almost everyone has taken a class, attended a seminar, or at least heard someone speak about the importance of learning to work in groups. This project was designed to identify groups, individual’s roles, and required behaviors within the groups. Our group developed leadership and cohesive values. We started this project with a common goal and finished this project with a better understanding of group dynamics. Our group consists of an outstanding conglomeration of people. We have the assets of aged wisdom and ambitions of youth. Each of our members brings with him or her a range of experiences. The mean age of our group is 32. Our range of ages is 21, 22, 28, 31, 41, and 51. As a group four of our members employment histories stem from family businesses. The senior member is an Insurance Adjuster and our youth member is a full time student. 3M2KV, the name of our group, consists of two females and four males of various backgrounds. Mark Schroth, White male, brought to the group his expertise in the construction industry. Mark displays many functional roles within the structure. Michelle Gardner, White female, has years of experience in the management field and can convey this knowledge into the groups leadership role. Matt Rodgers, White male, having a family business background was able to display his harmonizer skills with this group. Kathleen Wasilenko, White female, has a quiet role as the group’s observer and recorder. Kyle Blowers, White male, has the luxury of unemployment and full time student, but was able to rise to the role of procedural technician during the course of this project. Victor Rodriguez, Hispanic male, emerged as a procedural technician within the group (Benne, 1948). Mark and Michelle shared the leadership roles on this project. With his background in construction, Mark became the group’s design leader. Initially, Mark was an information giver and a compromiser with the design plans. Mark brought the group a limited selection of house designs and was receptive to alternate selections from his primary choice. Michelle rose to the role of leadership once the actual construction planning was underway. While the planning was in process, Michelle was the information seeker in her requests to clarify the details. Michelle assumed the role of the recorder by writing down the house dimensions and actual construction roles of each group member. These two leaders were able to share the role within the group without causing any internal problems (Benne, 1948). In certain phases of the project two individuals would alternate role of leader. The group’s leaders were not chosen at the beginning of the project. Our leadership came from background experience and expertise. According to Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats, “Leadership has been identified with traits and qualities inherent within the “leader” personality (Benne, 1948). The other group members instinctively directed their comments to Mark and Michelle putting them in the leadership position. Beyond the leadership roles, our group exhibited strong cohesiveness. Driven by the same need to earn the highest possible grade, our group had a grandiose plan. The house was to be perfection and we had thirty minutes to build it. Our planning stage was very productive and left us all motivated. Each member started the construction by performing his or her individual tasks. During this phase we all were self-confessors. Our conversations were on concerts and sports but not on the task at hand. Although Victor asked for time, no one realized how fast time was flying. When Michelle called ten minutes the group started eliminating the details. We went from wallpapered walls, to painted walls, to the final are we going to have any walls? Our group hit a crisis and quickly discovered our house would take about three hours to complete per our design. In the final frantic minutes, our group never lost its cohesiveness. What happened next was the reason for this project. As a group we had a forty-minute discussion about wether or not to cheat and completely rescript our entire project. Mark, our construction leader, was devastated by the failure of his design. He tried to assume the entire blame and wanted to rebuild in an effort to make to up to us. A portion of the group supported Mark. Several members did not like the ‘cheating’ aspect of rebuilding the house. During this undocumented conversation, the group concluded the importance of the project was the process and the paper not the actual house. In addition, the discussions that were happening were excellent examples of group dynamics (Schermerhorn, 2000). Through a long and well-debated forty minutes the group came to a consensus. The point of the assignment was to work and function in a group. We achieved this goal. We took an unauthorized additional three minutes on video to put our house into a presentable form. Although our house is bad, in our minds we performed as a group beyond our own expectations. When working in a group, the general rule of thumb is to pay attention to group dynamics. “Group dynamics are the forces operating in groups that affect the ways members work together” (Schermerhorn, 2000). To the group’s advantage, individuals figured out which role fit them best. Within our group, the individual roles contributed to the groups overall functionality. As a group we all took on our roles relatively quickly and were able to work together. Although the group is the basis for this project, the individual must derive some value from the project in order for the group to be effective. The Five Factors Of Job Satisfaction address these individual needs. These factors are:  Relationships with co-workers (Schermerhorn, 2000). Within our group, the first three of these five factors are our key to development. None of the members are expecting a promotion or additional pay, but to complete our project while enjoying the work itself. Our group functioned very well on this project. There are several small things we could do to improve this functionality. Our first f Bibliography:

Word Count: 1025