0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
37 vues8 pages
Tyler Sanders returned to western Michigan university for another SHARC leadership council meeting. He observed that new students had risen as leaders and previous leaders had taken on new roles in the team. The group has developed into an effective team by understanding their group dynamic.
Tyler Sanders returned to western Michigan university for another SHARC leadership council meeting. He observed that new students had risen as leaders and previous leaders had taken on new roles in the team. The group has developed into an effective team by understanding their group dynamic.
Tyler Sanders returned to western Michigan university for another SHARC leadership council meeting. He observed that new students had risen as leaders and previous leaders had taken on new roles in the team. The group has developed into an effective team by understanding their group dynamic.
Group Observation #2: Final Paper With each year and semester, students and organizations start as a raw clump or clay and as the year progresses molds into a complex and grander masterpiece. On a bevy of occasions I have had the opportunity to watch student leaders learn and grow from the experiences that they have during an academic year. Upon returning to Harrison/Stinson Hall for another SHARC leadership council meeting, it was easy to recognize how much growth had occurred since the last time. While I did not get to see SHARCs creation, the current state of the organization was successful as the group has developed into an effective team by understanding their group dynamic. Entering the same lounge for my second SHARC meeting, I was initially subject to a different type interaction than I had observed in January. Kara, the President, and other members welcomed me back and were excited to see me back at leadership council. As I sat in the back of the room I remembered the first time that I had attended SHARC. In January the room seemed tense, cold, and slowly throughout the meeting more members had come. During this visit more than ten members were there on time and were making conversations and laughing like good friends do. The room was warm and welcoming and as the meeting began the students appeared to be enjoying themselves more than at the first meeting. Throughout the meeting, my observations showed that new students had risen as leaders and previous leaders had taken on new roles in the team. SHARC President Kara opened the meeting as she had done before asking residents to make sure they sign in and discussed the points that were on the agenda. Whereas Kara previously acted as a harmonizer among the eclectic group of students she was working with, at this meeting she had taken on a new role. As she worked with the students she became an interpreter as she recognized and was able to read
GROUP OBSERVATION #2: FINAL PAPER 3
the actions and non-verbals of each member of the group (Winston, Bonney, Miller, & Dagley, 1988). Kara was able to use this knowledge to be proactive and reactive in the information she was sharing and where the discussion and meeting should go from there. An example of this was seen when members broke off into groups and Kara was able to recognize the progress of the three groups and then return to the full group meeting at the right time. In this meeting Kara did not simply go through the items on the agenda, but allowed time for group think and opportunities for others to give reports. In the updates and information that was shared by other members of SHARC, the previous members who did not have a recognizable role in the group before appeared to have found their fit in the organization. As explained in the baseline piece certain members had fit into the roles outlined by Winston et al. (1988) while others were simply acting members. Throughout the meeting two individuals came forth as an energizer and the other a coordinator. The energizer, Ted, was not present at the first meeting, but brought a great vibe through the meeting and brought the mood up in the room (Winston et al., 1988). Ted had made an effort to walk around the room and interact with everyone before the meeting had even started and through the meeting he acted as the individual who made jokes and made the meeting fun. Another individual whom had found her place within the group was Erica whom had become a coordinator who was able to hear the different ideas of the other members and find the common ground between different ideas (Winston et al., 1988). Erica displayed this multiple times, but an example was when the group discussed a program that they were planning and she was able to point out what everyone seemed to want. Overall, the members of the group had started to fall into their roles and one final important portion of the group was understanding the role of the advisor. Stacie had now
GROUP OBSERVATION #2: FINAL PAPER 4
succeeded in creating a normative culture to how the team would function and simply came to the meeting as a resource (Zacaro, Rittman, and Marks, 2001). During the meeting she was able to sit on the sideline and did not talk throughout the meeting. Stacie had finally become an effective advisor that allowed students to lead the group and make it what they wanted it to be. Her efforts with the students on a one on one basis had allowed the group to function well and to go from formation to norming. While each individual had shown group, SHARC had also seen movement through group development as a student organization. In observing John Tuckmans (1997) theory of group development SHARC had gone from norming to performing during the last year. During the January meeting the group had come into the meeting and seemed to go through the motions. The President discussed agenda items, gotten volunteers, and left with no questions. At this meeting the functioning of the group was very different. Kara had started the meeting, but then each member was able to have a role in the meeting through reports and group think. Preparing for a week worth of events the room was split into three planning committees where their ideas were shared and logistics were put onto paper. After about ten minutes of planning each group was allowed to present the program they wanted to propose. Tuckmans (1997) performing stage is apparent in the group as they were now competent in completing tasks without conflict and were able to do it efficiently. All of SHARCs members had shown proportionally growth since January and this could be seen in the cohesion between the members and the way that they communicate now. Festinger, Schachter, and Bock defined cohesiveness as the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group (as cited in Winston et al., 2010). For the Harrison/Stinson leadership council these forces were the students and the success that they have had during the
GROUP OBSERVATION #2: FINAL PAPER 5
year along with many other forces. Among this group it was observed that peer pressure had been created between their commitments to the residents. It should be noted that the pressures that effect members can be external or internal, coming from personal opinion or that of peers, advisors, and other students. Not only had the group become friends, but now together they shared a common goal for the group in the vested interest of the individuals that lived in the hall and whom the group was to focus their efforts. In terms of communication, the group had went away from being silent individuals and had become a social team. This social connection has helped in the cohesion that brings the groups together to complete project. By creating interpersonal relationships with one another, SHARC members were able to cooperate as a team with mutual respect. This respect was seen as members of the group were giving both positive and critical feedback to the ideas being expressed throughout various portions of the meeting (Winston et al., 1988). A perfect example of this was observed as one group shared their ideas about a casino night, but could not come up with a large amount of ideas. In response members of others groups acknowledged the ideas, but essentially were able to provide feedback through other ideas. While bouncing ideas of one another was a necessity to understand the group as a whole, it is also important to reflect on the changes made in communication throughout the groups duration. During my baseline analysis it was clear that all interactions had to go through the President to be deciphered, but in this final observation members were able to communicate among one another. To elaborate on this idea Winston (1988) discusses the group being in the working stage and that this form of communication allocates for trust throughout the members to a point that the leaders affirmation is no longer needed. This also shows the point in which the
GROUP OBSERVATION #2: FINAL PAPER 6
leader no longer seeks control to be successful, but is able to negotiate and organize the members to create a successful team. According to Bloomdahl and Novan (2013), Empowerment and trust are key factors in building effective groups (p. 113). This quote resonates when it comes to my observations of SHARC and their functioning as a group. Empowerment holds a key piece in understand SHARCs development over time. In the beginning, as an advisor Stacie was able to empower certain students to take leadership in organizing the meetings and events. While this was relevant during the January meeting, the March leadership council meeting showed Kara and other executive members to empower individuals that did not have a position on the executive board. This empowerment and trust given to each of the members allowed them to feel like they had a place in the meeting and were part of the group. Observing the communication and relationships between the members of SHARC during this final analysis, it could be seen that trust was definitely occurring among the group. Whether it was in the fact that the group felt comfortable splitting up responsibilities or how the group had come to a point where they all understood their roles in the leadership council, it was obvious that trust had been built from previous experience. The leadership council organizational structure is designed so that the group meets weekly and is responsible for multiple events and programs. As an advisor, Residence Life tries to take a hands off approach that allows for the student organization for learn from their failures or successes. While this occurs during Tuckmans (1997) storming session, it allows for the members to start to understand their role and the roles of others in the group. Looking at these observations in reference to Foley and Bonneys stages of group development, it appears that SHARC had moved into the operational stage (as cited in Winston et al., 2010). Their movement into this stage was marked by the
GROUP OBSERVATION #2: FINAL PAPER 7
confidence that they had built for each others talents and knowledge of their efforts. A prime example of this was seen when the leadership council started to make decisions on what awards they should bid for recognition. Now the group was not only able to acknowledge their own identity, but also of that of the group. When I first visited the Harrison/Stinson leadership council they had been formed for a semester, but there was still room to grow. As seen through the hour long meeting in March, I was able to see a group that could accomplish anything because of the knowledge they now had of each other. As the year comes to an end, SHARC has become a piece of art consisting of student leaders and future world leaders. Every year is a new year with new first year students and other emerging leaders looking for an opportunity to do something great and advance themselves. Through my observations have proven that Harrison/Stinson leadership council has the ability to mold raw claw into and experienced and well prepare adult.
GROUP OBSERVATION #2: FINAL PAPER 8
References Bloomdahl, S. C. & Navan, J. (2013). Student leadership in a residential college: From dysfunction to effective collaboration. Journal of College Student Development, 54(1), 110-114. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427. Winston, R. B., Bonney, W. C., Miller, T. K., & Dagley, J. C. (1988). Promoting student development through intentionally structured groups, (3-72). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.