Reflective Writing (3)

Reflective Writing

Insert name

Institutional affiliation

Reflective Writing

In the contemporary work culture and dynamic environment in educational institutions and organizations, employees and students are required to work in groups that should have specific coordination and tolerant levels to improve the experience of working in groups or teams and deliver the objectives of the groups or teams. Learning in groups enables students to learn interactively. During the course, we were asked to work in groups. This is because working in groups enables students to learn what is being taught and retain it for a longer period than if the same content was presented using other instructional formats. Working in groups also enables the students to generate a broad array of alternative viewpoints or solutions to a problem (Lee & Hannafin, 2016). Working in groups also enables students to work undertake a project that would be too big or complex for o single student. It enables students with different backgrounds on a topic to bring their special experience or knowledge to the project. Students working in groups also have an opportunity to teach other students. They acquire a structured experience that they can implement in their future or current professional situations (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016).

Students working in groups is associated with various benefits. It enables students who find it difficult to talking in class to express themselves in small groups. It also increases the number of students who participate in classroom activities. Small groups help in overcoming the anonymity and passivity associated with large classroom meetings. Working in groups also makes students who are expected to participate to prepare effectively. This improves the learning process. Learning in groups also prepares students for interactions they are likely to experience in their professional life in the future (Zolkoski, Bullock, & Gable, 2016).

While undertaking the course “Managing Organizations and People,” we were required to work in groups. Tuckman and Jensen stage-theory model would help analyzing the group dynamics of my group. The model consists of five stages, which include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

Forming refers to the period in the which the group members engage in orientation and getting acquainted. This period is characterized by a high level of uncertainty. The group members search for leadership and authority within the group. The members who asserts of authority or is more knowledgeable may take control of the group (Kiweewa et al., 2018). The members of the group had different backgrounds in terms of education. The members of my group had backgrounds in business, management, and accounting. We were all acquainted to each other. However, we had not worked together in a group. Being acquainted to each other helped in solving some of the problems that are inherent in the formation stage.

Storming is the second stage of the stage-theory model. It is the most difficult stage. It is vital to the success of the group. It is usually characterized by conflict and competition among the members of the group as different personalities start emerging. The conflicts in this stage may lead to a dip in the team performance if the energy is not used into productive activities. During this stage, subgroups or cliques may form around team members with strong personalities or around areas of agreement. This stage requires the members of the group to focus on overcoming the obstacles and embrace individual differences. The members should formulate means of dealing with conflicting ideas or team tasks since failure to do so would lead to long-term problems. Since we were friendly acquaintance, we knew the expertise each other possess in certain areas. In addition, it enables us to maintain a suitable level or trust in each other. It also led enabled the members to express themselves freely. Good communication played a major role in the ultimate success of the group.

The norming stage consensus starts developing around the leader or leaders within the group. Individual roles of members and interpersonal differences in the group also start being resolved. A sense of cohesion and unity starts emerging during this stage. Team performance also increases at this stage as the group members learn how to cooperate, which shifts the focus away from conflicts to team goals. Nevertheless, the harmony within the group is fragile. If disagreements re-emerge, the group may revert to the storming stage. During this stage, the members of the group acknowledge the difficult of the task at hand the need to prioritize the achievement of the goals and objectives of the group. In addition, we agreed on ground rules that would help the achievement of the goals and objectives of the group.

During the performing stage, consensus and cooperation among the team members is well established. As such, the group is mature, organized, and functions efficiently and effectively. The group has a clear and stable structure. In addition, the group members are committed to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the group. Conflicts and problems are still prevalent at this stage. However, they are dealt with in a constructive manner as the group’s focus is solving the problems at hand and meeting its goals and objectives (Harper & Allegretti, 2017). There was good cooperation among members of the group during this stage. Each member acknowledge the importance of the tasks they were assigned in the achievement of the ultimate goals of the group. Therefore, they did thorough research while undertaking their tasks to ensure they captured all relevant information required to complete the task. The members were also open to suggestions by other members of the group.

Adjourning stage is the last stage in the stage-theory model. During this stage, most of its goals and objectives. Focus is on winding up the final tasks and documenting the efforts and results of the group. Certain team members may have regrets at the group is being terminated. Therefore, it is vital to have a ceremonial acknowledgement of the goals and objectives and the successes of the group. The goals achieved its goals and objectives. It completed the project the project in a timely manner.

Working in the group was helpful. We created ground rules that ensured we worked as a unit and tackled personality conflicts effectively. Leadership was one of the strong features of the group. Leadership occurred as we listened to the views of each of the members and their perceptions on what was required to ensure the group achieves its goals and objectives. It enabled each of the members of the group to discover his or capacity for leadership at some point during the deliberations within the group.

Leadership within the group was not characterized by speaking and giving orders to other members of the group. Instead, it was characterized by the ability of group members to listen what was required at the particular moment and express ideas in a manner that created opportunity for other members of the group. In most of my past engagements in a group setting, one person assumed the leadership of the group. However, my experience while working in this was refreshingly different. The difference between this group and my previous groups is that all group members were leaders individually. This ensured that everybody understood and appreciated his or her role within their group. The members did not have to be pushed or reminded to perform their tasks. They took full responsibility of their tasks and performed them as effectively as possible.

Relatedness was also one of the strengths of the group. It occurred when the members of the group listened to other members. I felt that the group performed at a level that made it difficult to distinguish between an individual member and the group. There was a high level of synergy within the group. This enabled the group members to know how to communicate with other members in a manner that they understand and appreciate. Constant and effective communication ensured the members were highly involved in the group discussions. It made them become personally invested in ensuring the group achieves its goals and objectives. It also ensured that the group made the members have a good “social” feel about the group. Therefore, they enjoyed being in the group. This ultimately improved the motivation and commitment of the group members.

None of this would have occurred if the group did not have team norms and cohesiveness. The setting of ground rules of the groups that determined the norms early in the group was one of the crucial activities of the group. It helped in the development of team norms, which were unwritten rules that all members of the group understood. Norms ensured the group members support the activities of the group and preserve the relationships within the group. Norms also played an importance role during the later stages of the group. It ensured the group members know the level of performance that is required within the group (Srikanth, Harvey, & Peterson, 2016). This helped in improving the level of work effort and standards, which influenced the success of the group. Having a high level of cohesiveness ensured the members of the group accepted and conformed to the norms.

References

Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187.

Harper, M. S., & Allegretti, C. L. (2017). Transition to Success: Training Students to Lead Peer Groups in Higher Education. New York, NY: Momentum Press.

Kiweewa, J. M., Gilbride, D., Luke, M., & Clingerman, T. (2018). Tracking growth factors in experiential training groups through Tuckman’s conceptual model. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43(3), 274-296.

Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707-734.

Srikanth, K., Harvey, S., & Peterson, R. (2016). A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: Moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team performance. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 453-493.

Zolkoski, S. M., Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2016). Factors associated with student resilience: Perspectives of graduates of alternative education programs. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(3), 231-243.