Running head: PRSSA

PRSSA:
Small Group Observation

Blake Bailey, Garret Bowles, Alek Clubb,

Aaron Murdock, & Taylor Urmston

Utah Valley University

Comm 2120-001

April 14, 2018

PRSSA

Executive Summary

Our observation of the UVU chapter of PRSSA (Public Relations Student Society of

America) provided insight to a valued branch in student academia. PRSSA is an organization

created with the intention of preparing students for the professional career of public relations. As

many of those observing were Public Relations (also referred to as PR) majors, this opportunity

surpassed the value of a grade and ventured into an education directly applicable to our chosen

professions. Although the PRSSA members were students, like ourselves, we recognized their

experience and sought to understand how these members work as a group.

We began observing toward the end of their academic year, right before elections were

held for the following year’s PRSSA positions. We observed from the perimeter of a small room

used for studying, which was intimate enough to listen but not intrusive enough to disrupt their

meetings. The group was apparently comfortable with each other, as they spent much of their

time talking amongst themselves about off-subject matters. That did not overly influence their

professionalism however, as they were able to follow the agenda and contribute effectively. An

individual, named Wade, who was the President of the UVU PRSSA Chapter managed these

meetings. He helped regulate order while also facilitating discussion.

The meetings followed an agenda, which included announcements and the reviewing of

monthly goals. As the group appeared comfortable interacting with each other, they were

confident in their contributions and would actively volunteer for tasks; this allowed the meeting

to run smoothly as the team members collaborated their efforts into accomplishing their goals.

The President, or Team Leader, facilitated discussion effectively, allowing for input from each

member while requesting mutual respect by asking every other member to listen.

1
PRSSA

Each member had their own responsibilities which effectively divided the work up. If a

team member struggled with a task, other members were quick to provide help. This occurred

frequently as there was often a lot of planning and preparation required. The contributions of

multiple members made the work lighter for the lead members, which allowed the group as a

whole to focus on the goals set. The emotions of the group members played a large part in the

overall dynamic of the team - if a member was upset or frustrated, it was experienced or felt by

the rest of the group for the most part. This happened infrequently however as most of the time

was spent providing constructive feedback and valuable advice.

The group members actively displayed behaviors consistent with Symbolic Convergence

Theory; this will be explained further in depth later in this article, as well as the course concepts

of leadership and decision-making. The observations made will collaborate with our knowledge

of these studies and ultimately contribute to an understanding of this small group

communication.

Theory: Symbolic Convergence

As mentioned previously, the UVU chapter of PRSSA that we observed consisted of a

multitude of attributes that accompany the Symbolic Convergence Theory. According to Beebe

and Masterson (2012), “The symbolic convergence theory of communication explains how

certain types of communication shape a group’s identity and culture, which in turn influence

other dynamics such as norms, roles, and decision making. Over time, groups develop a

collective consciousness with shared emotions, motives, and meaning” (p. 43). The way

individuals communicate and relate with one another within a group ultimately leads to the way

2
PRSSA

the group makes decisions and how they delegate roles and responsibilities. When dealing with

the symbolic convergence theory these roles and the way groups make decisions are typically

based on shared experiences and common interests. The group as a whole takes on a new identity

based on these similar stories and emotions.

One of the main characteristics of the symbolic convergence theory deals with fantasy.

As a definition, “Fantasy is the creative and imaginative shared interpretation of events that

fulfills a group’s need to make sense of its experience and to anticipate its future” (Beebe &

Masterson, 2012, pg. 43). As the group faced issues regarding events or future responsibilities, it

was common for the members to use their imagination or past experiences to create possible

outcomes for the issue at hand. Prior to the meeting a member of the group was approached to

plan an event/fundraiser for a nationwide company who is involved in bone marrow testing. As

the group member brought forth this opportunity to help out, the other members discussed the

possible outcomes of hosting an event or a fundraiser. The question of funding for such an event

and the help from the actual organization were discussed. The group did not seem very enthused

regarding the event, and the decision to further investigate the invitation to help was based on

past experiences dealing with similar situations where proper credit was not given and the

amount of time donated from both parties was not equal. The ability to discuss possible

outcomes or fantasies based on past experiences helped the group come to a conclusion.

Another common characteristic of the symbolic convergence theory is the use of fantasy

chains. This process of members sharing a series of connected stories helps the group develop an

identity of its own (Beebe & Masterson, 2012). In the first meeting we observed, the group

discussed the upcoming PRSSA retreat. When the topic was brought up, the members of the

3
PRSSA

group lit up and began sharing experiences they had on past overnight trips whether it was with

roommates or on the car ride to the overnight destination. As observers, we were able to witness

and better understand the overall culture of the group and the influence sharing stories and

laughing together had on the overall identity of the group.

Course Concept One: Leadership

As our group observed the PRSSA, we noticed that the leadership was evenly distributed

within the group. Beebe (2012) states that leadership is “as behavior or communication that

influences, guides direct or controls the group” (pg. 209). A leadership is someone who brings

the group into focus and able to talk about the topic that was on the agenda. He is the one that

introduces the agenda so the people in the group know what he is trying to accomplish. At the

beginning of the meeting, the group talked and discussed what they did over the weekend. Wade

was the leader of the PRSSA group and wade was really good in bringing the members of the

group. Whenever there was an important subject he made sure that everyone was paying

attention so that there was no misguided questions. Another great thing he would do is he would

make sure that everyone understood and asked if any questions. His philosopher if you don’t ask

then it is your fault. Wade truly understood what it meant for true communication in the PRSSA.

Each member of the group was responsible for their delegated task, however, it was very

common for members to ask other people in the group for suggestions on how to make their

projects better. If wade the group leader did not know how to address this issue, there was

another person in the back who name is kim. Kim is a member of the PRSSA and has a lot of

experience in handling certain questions that may arise. It was great to see that there was an

4
PRSSA

expert in the background so the UVU students in the PRSSA can get it right for the first time.

This individual is the counselor whose responsibility is to oversee the PRSSA club for UVU. If

there was a conflict, she would help the group see that there were other options to make the plan

work.

Throughout the series of observations, three individuals did not talk through the whole

meeting. It is possible that their roles were not that big, that they do not have the experience to be

in a leadership position, or that their roles did not require active interaction with the rest of the

group. A good portion of the population has been involved playing on a sports team. In sports

Communication is a big factor in regarding to team success. Coaches typically embody the

leadership qualities that are required when guiding a team. A good leader can help the team have

unity and success as one. The PRSSA group was quite comfortable with each other and the

majority of the time consisted of them chatting amongst one another. The leader in the group

Wade, brought the group together and said, “Hey, stop talking. Let’s get our assignments done”.

He encouraged the group to hear what others have to say about the agenda setting scheduling

conflicts and more. Everyone had a voice in the group and, when individuals asked for feedback,

everyone contributed. This created a positive and more effective communication environment

than if one person were simply listing the events that they would be doing in a couple of weeks.

Course Concept Two: Group Decision Making

According to Beebe and Masterson (2012), decision making is “the process of choosing

from among several alternatives” (p. 233). Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran (1983) observed

a process for making groups decisions. The PRSSA board made a number of decisions during the

5
PRSSA

meeting and employed various methods to reach them. What follows are two examples from our

observations of PRSSA following these steps organically.

A student representative of Be the Match, a bone marrow transplant organization, asked

the PRSSA board to host an event on campus. Daniella, the one who was initially approached by

the representative, brought the idea to the meeting, initiating the first step in the process of

assessing the situation. Wade, the president of PRSSA, asked for clarification on the timetable

and what exactly the organization wanted PRSSA to do for the event. He also pointed out that

the event was not really aligned with PRSSA objectives, contributing to the second step of the

process. Although there were attempts at identifying the role PRSSA would have in the event,

there was not enough information to understand that role or set a clear goal. Skipping the step of

considering alternatives, the group went straight into evaluating positives and negatives about

hosting such an event. Wade, the president, opened up the idea for discussion and members

would raise their hands briefly before talking or just start talking if nobody else was. As noted

earlier, some pointed out that doing these types of events in the past had not really helped

PRSSA at all, who sometimes would take charge but receive no recognition or help from the

organization. Only a few people spoke up, but one mentioned that the event was scheduled to

happen around the same time as the PRSSA retreat and would stretch the group’s resources,

identifying a negative consequence of getting involved. The last step is making the decision. The

decision made by Wade in the end was to have Daniella seek more details from the Be the Match

representative about the event and the group would discuss it at the next meeting. Although a

decision was made, and it was a quality one for this situation, the overall process of reaching it

was messy at best because of limited motivation and information.

6
PRSSA

Another decision that had to be made was brought up by Kim Hanson, the department

counselor who works with PRSSA. This time the group followed fairly well the steps of decision

making(Beebe & Masterson, 2012). She explained the current situation and identified the task at

hand: the Communications Department had an annual department event coming up, and the

PRSSA had hosted it in the past. The decision was whether to host it again this year or not. Wade

brought it before the other group members to discuss, giving them a clear goal for that decision.

Kim said that the alternative decisions were either to have the department do it or to skip the

event. One member, Katrina, pointed out that the event would take place after a new PRSSA

board was elected. This deliberation led to the members talking about whether it would be a

good thing or not for the PRSSA to take on the responsibility, since they had so much going on

already this semester. They looked at the positives, like how it was a tradition and something

they had been in charge of before anyway. Most group members said they like the event and

would not mind being charge of it this year. Wade mentioned the budget and Kim said she would

find out how much they had for it. Finally, the group having decided on an alternative, Wade put

the idea to host it to a vote. The majority ruled by raise of hands, so the decision was made and

he asked a few people to start preparing and making plans. This time the process was

well-executed and an overall quality decision was reached.

Conclusion

Overall PRSSA was exciting to watch and listen to​ ​because of symbolic convergence

theory. We noticed how good of friends this group came to be. The group had a causal open feel.

When we observed we noticed this created a support to the PRSSA members. One member

needed support for her upcoming speech and without hesitation the entire group wanted to listen

7
PRSSA

and help her. As we stated from above “There were times when it seemed the story telling got

out of hand and the group forgot the issue they were supposed to be discussing.” As a group we

have enjoyed learning from PRSSA in such different way. We like how unique this opportunity

was to be able to sit with a group and listen for a few hours without the impact of ourselves in

the group situation. The recommendations to PRSSA would be to have an agenda and have

respect for the group leaders. Overall this assignment was something unique to us all and helped

us learn from a small group, about being in a small group, and learning how to be a better

member when communicating with others.

8
PRSSA

References

Zanin, A. C., Hoelscher, C. S., & Kramer, M. W. (2016). Extending symbolic convergence

theory. ​Small Group Research​, 47(4), 438-472.

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T.(2012). Making decisions and solving problems. In K. Bowers

(Ed.), ​Communicating in small groups: principles and practices (​ 10th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Hirokawa, R., & Gouran, D. (1983). ​The Role of Communication in Decision-Making Groups: A

Functional Perspective​ (M. Mander, Ed.). Communications in Transition, 174.

9
PRSSA

PRSSA -

Thank you so much for letting the five of us from Small Groups come into your meetings

and observe the way you interact with one another to get things done. We enjoyed learning from

you all and are grateful for the warm welcome into your close-knit community. Thank you so

much for your time. We love PRSSA!

-Blake Bailey, Taylor Urmston, Garret Bowles, Alek Clubb, & Aaron Murdock

● Pseudo-conflict: when individuals agree, but poor communication leads them to believe

that they disagree.

● Ego conflict: when people become defensive about their positions because they think

they are being personally attacked.

● Simple conflict: When two or people's goals or ideas are mutually exclusive or

incompatible.

Conflict in small groups occurs when there are differences among group members over

perception, personality, information, culture, power, information, procedure, and influence. Each

member is unique, with different histories, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and values. When these

surface it causes conflict, no matter how members may try to empathize with one another.

Questions 1

Conflict is about disagreement. Communication experts William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker.

Three types 1. an expressed struggle 2. between at least two interdependent people. 3. Who

10
PRSSA

perceived incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others to achieve specific

goals.

1. pseudo-conflict: occurs when individuals agree, but, because of poor communication, they

believe that they disagree.

pros: Gets the group motivated to work harder,

cons:

1. can keep the group from completing its task

2. can interfere with the quality of the group's decision or productivity

3. can threaten the existence of the group

Pros: ​quality solutions, prevent groupthink, brings collaboration, effective processes for solving,

problems. Leads to a balance of power in a group,

Cons: ​Stone walls the group, separate people from the problem,

Pros: It can lead to quality solutions, prevent groupthink, bring collaboration, and effective

processes for solving problems. It also leads to a balance of power in a group.

Simple-Conflict: occurs when two people’s goals or ideas are mutually exclusive or

incompatible.

Ego-conflict: occurs when individuals become defensive about their positions because they think

they are being personally attacked.

Pseudo-conflict: when individuals agree, but poor communication leads them to believe that they

disagree.

11
PRSSA

12