Running head: GROUP OBSERVATION #2

Group Observation #2 EDLD 6550

Lisa Newhouse
Western Michigan University

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

2
Group Observation #2

My first group observation of the International Students Organization (ISO) at Grand

Valley State University (GVSU), provided a cursory analysis of the groups purpose, roles within
the group, and how the group functioned. My impression of the group was that they were
cohesive; they were respectful towards each other, moved the agenda forward, and accomplished
tasks effectively. However, as I have gained further knowledge regarding groups, I have
questioned if the group was as effective as I originally thought and what part their cohesiveness
played in it. According to Winston, Bonney, Miller, & Dagley (1988), cohesiveness travels along
a spectrum and at either end of the spectrum, a group may not function well or achieve its
purpose, suggesting that effective cohesiveness needs to be balanced. They go on to say that
cohesiveness is elusive and difficult to accurately measure. In addition, a group may seem
cohesive on the surface, but it needs to be observed closely in order to truly know.
Approximately five weeks passed between my first and second observation, and during
the second observation I explored the concept of cohesiveness and obtained greater clarity on
what level of cohesiveness the group presented with. As stated in Winston et al. (1988), we
may consider cohesiveness as the centerpoint around which all other dynamics converge (p. 41).
With this in mind, I focused my attention on the group roles, leadership style, and what stage of
development the group was in, in order to provide a richer and deeper analysis of the groups
level of cohesiveness and how it related to their function.
Group Roles
According to Rogers & Senturia, (2011), a manifestation of a group that is too cohesive,
may contribute to a group effect known as conformity, which is going along with the group and
allowing yourself to be persuaded by members of the group regardless of your individual

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

thoughts. In order to guard against conformity, the authors support the need for diversity of roles
within a group that promote a diversity of opinion. In the second group observation, the roles of
dominator, supporter, and coordinator were again observed, but there were slight variations and
additions, which I believe assisted the group in guarding against conformity and being too
cohesive.
The dominator role was present and observed in the same individual as noted in the first
observation, however the role appeared to have evolved at the second observation. The
dominator was still attempting to dominate by interrupting others authoritatively, but during the
second observation, the dominator had aspects of the recognition seeker and expert; calling
attention to self, over intellectualizing, and demonstrating superior knowledge (Winston et al.,
1988). Overall his behavior was less antagonistic and aggressive, and he was receptive to
questioning and feedback from the group during the second observation. My impression was
that he was still searching for a positive means to provide input, and was learning how to do so
from group feedback.
The positive roles of supporter and coordinator continued to be present during the second
observation as well. In particular, the president demonstrated many of the characteristics of these
roles, seeking the views, ideas, and suggestions of the group, and coordinating action plans.
However, there were additional positive roles that emerged in the second observation, and I
believe they may have evolved in response to the role of the dominator/recognition
seeker/expert. Primarily the role of information seeker, an individual who asks for clarification
and factual adequacy for information being presented, emerged from at least two individuals in
the group. These two individuals consistently requested further information from the
dominator/recognition seeker/expert. They consistently requested that he provide supportive

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

details and specifics, but always in a positive and constructive manner that provoked the
dominator/recognition seeker/expert to substantiate the information that was being provided. My
impression was that they were encouraging his growth, and as a result he was learning how to
provide input in a positive manner. Conversely, his role encouraged growth of the other
members in regards to their response to him. During the first meeting, there were a couple
individuals that reacted to the dominator in a confrontational manner, however during the second
observation I noted that they responded as information seekers and supporters.
The presence of an individual in the group that consistently questioned and tried to go
against the consensus of the group, worked effectively in promoting an exchange of ideas and
preventing conformity of the group. According to Winston et al. (1988), the most solid basis for
a cohesive group is the development of respect among the members (p.42), and a cohesive
group tends to be productive, with group members willing to be influenced by the leader and
each other (p. 42). The groups reaction to this individual were consistently positive, respectful,
constructive, and cohesive.
Leadership Style
According to Val & Kemp (2012), there are three main styles of leadership; autocratic
(authoritarian), democratic (participative), and laissez-faire (abdicratic). Observing the leader of
the ISO, he seemed to combine the two approaches of democratic and laissez-faire to leadership.
On one hand, the leader encouraged participation from the members and elicited suggestions in
order to make decisions, but I also observed him to push the group to problem solve and come to
their own decisions. By eliciting participation from the group and pushing them to determine
solutions, he was abdicating responsibility and ownership of the group to them. However, at

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

other times when a decision needed to be made and the group was not making the decision, he
retained the final say and made the decision.
The combination of leadership styles is similar to a participating style of leadership,
which according to Winston et al. (1988) occurs when the group has the requisite knowledge
and skills to accomplish the taskleader provides high levels of support and encouragement,
sharing in the decision-making process, but provides little direction (p.186). A good leader is
able to adjust their leadership style as the situation demands, and it is the degree of cohesiveness
that is a factor in determining leadership style. In order to have a participating style of
leadership, a group needs to have a high level of cohesiveness, which allows the leader to be a
facilitator while decreasing the focus on directing the groups activities (Winston et al., 1988).
My impression of the leader was that he utilized both approaches and he was utilizing them
effectively, indicating a higher level of cohesiveness. A group that does not present with this
level of cohesiveness, would require a higher level of structure, direction, and decision making
from the leader.
Group Stage of Development
In order to fully understand the quality of cohesiveness within a group, the groups stage
of development needs to be considered (Winston et al., 1988), Based on two observations of a
group it is difficult to gain a true sense of where a group may be in their development. However,
focusing on role dynamics and cohesiveness assisted me in analyzing the stage of group
development. Between the first and second observation, I observed group behaviors that
suggested that the group had moved through different stages of development.
During the first observation I noted the following behaviors from the group; testing
limits, challenging authority, and confrontation of group commitment, which suggested that the

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

group was in a transition stage of group development (Winston, 1988). During the transition
stage there is typically a challenge to the leader or the group. At the first meeting, the dominator
role appeared to be challenging the norms of the group, as well as the power of the leadership. It
was not a direct or obvious challenge to the leader or the group, but the behavior was overtly
authoritarian and subtlety challenging.
The response of the group to the behavior varied. There were a couple members at the
first meeting who responded to this behavior in a slightly combative tone, however the majority
of the group continued to be respectful and non-defensive in their response, which I believe was
modeled after the leaders behavior. The leader was consistently respectful to all members and
was efficient in focusing the attention back to the purpose of the group. Which effectively laid
the groundwork necessary to progress forward into a working stage.
During the second observation, the following behaviors were noted; cooperative effort,
individual ownership, members providing and receiving feedback from group and leader,
members caring and expressing concern for each other, direct communication between members,
and leader acting as a facilitator. In addition, the dominator role evolved into
dominator/recognition seeker/expert and did not seem to be as challenging to the group or
leadership. The role of information seeker emerged in response to the dominator/recognition
seeker/expert role and appeared to benefit the group as a whole. The group was goal oriented
and willing to take responsibility for tasks. They were independent in pushing the agenda
forward and looked to the leader for guidance only when they needed assistance. All of these
behaviors would suggest that they were in the working stage. According to Winston et al.
(1988), groups that moves into the working stage are committed to the goals of the group,

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

support and assist each other, and have developed a high level of cohesiveness. Suggesting that
cohesiveness at the working stage is balanced and effective.
Conclusion
By focusing on other areas of group dynamics; roles, leadership, and stages of
development, I was able to analyze how it correlated to group function, cohesiveness, and
effectiveness. In all three areas of group dynamics, the group is working at an effective level that
allows the group to be productive in tasks, encourages mutual respect amongst members, and
promotes growth of individuals and the group. My initial impression of the ISO group as being
effective and cohesive was confirmed after the second observation. The group has managed to
obtain a balanced level of cohesiveness that ensures their productivity and effectiveness as a
group.

GROUP OBSERVATION #2

8
References

Rogers, P., & Senturia, T. (2011). How group dynamics affect decisions. In M.W. Blenko, M.C.
Mankins, & P. Rogers (Eds.), Decide & deliver: Five steps to breakthrough performance
in your organization (7th edition), Portland, Oregon: Bain & Company.
Winston, R.B., Bonney, W.C., Miller, T.K., & Dagley, J.C. (1988). Promoting student
development through intentionally structured groups: Principles, techniques, and
applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Val, C., & Kemp, J. (2012). Leadership styles. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor
Education, 24 (3), 28-31. Retrived from ERIC:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ994012.pdf