Group Process Running head: GROUP PROCESS

Group Process Amanda Simpson Tulsa Community College

Group Process Group Process Purpose The purpose of this project was to work as a group for the common goal of presenting evidence on the issue of the social networking in the health care setting. Phases

Throughout the duration of our project many functional and non-functional were filled by each group member. Our group size was small, five people, which would make it very easy to divide the work and easy to comply with one of our most important group norms of majority rules. During the forming phase everyone introduced themselves and to my knowledge none of us had previously worked in a group with the others. Additionally in this phase everyone was reluctant to take a leadership role thus assuming the responsibility of discussion board posts. This reluctance made it very difficult to get ahold of the overall purpose of the group project. Once we overcame our fears of group responsibility we were then able to start on our ideas of group norms and thus enter the storming phase. In the storming phase we were able to come to a unanimous decision of how the project would be presented later in the semester, we were also all unanimous in our decision to use Facebook as our social networking site. While in the storming phase one of our group members dropped the class leaving our group with only four group members which only caused irritation in the group. At this point in the project we had to move backward into the forming phase at which point by no other alternative I had to establish myself as the group leader. A group leader was an essential part in this group because of the nonfunctional roles that were constantly an issue. Shortly after this minor bump in the road we were able to revisit the storming phase and tasks were then delegated to divide the work evenly in the group to make up for the group member we lost. Throughout the storming phase our group

Group Process

experienced controversy as delegated tasks were not completed and continuing controversy over the research material, frustrations arose because individual assignment were not completed in a timely manner and material was not ready at the time of the scheduled meetings. The norming phase was the most difficult for our group to achieve as a whole because of the blatant disregard to our established group norms, I feel as if we did not reach the norming phase as a whole until the day of our presentation. Throughout the duration of this project it felt as if the group only consisted of two group members. Finally during the performing phase our group came together to finalize our work and present our researched material to the class. (Elizabeth Arnold, 2011) Functional/Non-Functional Roles To analyze the functional and non-functional roles I must start first by criticizing myself. I reluctantly took a leadership role in the group, I use reluctantly in the sense that I did not want to assume responsibility over the group and create an atmosphere filled with resentment. As the leader of the group I filled the tasks functions multiple times. The group consistently needed to be initiated mainly due to the level of importance this project took and the lack of interest by specific group members. Throughout the duration of the project I also had to continually seek information as to what the group was thinking and the direction in which the project was going. The maintenance roles I filled consisted of gate keeping, in our group it was very difficult with a specific group member to get past an old idea that the group had overruled for inclusion into the project. While performing the functional role of gatekeeping I also filled the role of encouraging and compromising. The roles came very naturally in our group because Joy is a very quiet person and needs to be prompted to verbalize her ideas, on the other hand with Rex I needed to be compromising to his ideas so he would feel and become a part of this group. The non-functional role I took on was that of blocker, this role was filled many times by me in the sense that it was a

Group Process non-functional role required in our group. More specifically the role of blocker needed to be filled in regards to Rex; in order for the group to progress Rex had to be controlled, unrelated

ideas had to be dismissed immediately in order for the group to proceed. The role of blocker was solely used with Rex, but only used when his ideas diverted the group. Other non-functional roles that I filled included joker and aggressor; this group project was particularly difficult for me because of the amount of distraction in the group, mainly environmental distractions. (Elizabeth Arnold, 2011) Lindsay filled multiple functional roles; she also joined me in a co-leadership when she saw that the work load was getting to be too heavy for one person. Lindsays functional maintenance roles included expressing, harmonizing, encouraging and compromising. Lindsay was reluctant to put her grade in the hands of others and so she was both offensive and defensive, both of these roles were appropriately used in time and behavior. Lindsay acted very professional; her specific assignments for the group were prepared and appropriate. Lindsay was responsible for a bulk of the information provided to the group. The non-functional role that I saw Lindsay fill multiple times was the role of self-confessor, most of these confessions of personal experience helped the group by providing information and some were mere distraction. Lindsay was a reliable group participant; she used open ended communication amongst the group and created an atmosphere essential to group development. (Elizabeth Arnold, 2011) Joys group participation filled many roles; Joy is a very soft-spoken person and required a lot of encouragement to verbalize her ideas. The functional roles of Joy were that she was very compromising; she openly allowed for suggestions by other group members and advanced forward from there. I am unable to clearly identify Joys non-functional roles, I can only summarize with the facts that Joy was constantly late with turning in group assignments, she

Group Process repeatedly came unprepared to meetings and failed to communicate effectively to the rest of the group. I enjoyed getting to know Joy in this group project; however her delay in producing assignments heavily hindered the group. (Elizabeth Arnold, 2011) Rex filled many of the non-functional and functional roles; primarily I would say that Rex most often filled non-functional roles. The functional role Rex most often filled was that of

encouragement, he filled this role by encouraging group members to think outside of the box this role was a great asset to the group. The non-functional roles Rex filled were that of joker, blocker and recognition seeking. Rex filled the role of joker functionally and non-functionally rarely was the humor appropriate for group discussion but when Rex utilized his humor appropriately it helped to relax the tension in the group. Rex commonly portrayed the role of blocker, he would often try and dismiss the ideas of the group and reform the project idea additionally he would hold on to a topic until Lindsay or myself gave in or until the topic became dead. His role of blocker hindered our groups progress, if he was unable to get his way he would shut down and not participate. When Rex was filling the role of recognition seeking he would distract the group from its goal, he would often go further into detail than we as a group could present in the specified group presentation time. Rex did not complete assignments in a timely manner nor did he communicate appropriately with the group. (Elizabeth Arnold, 2011) Conclusion In conclusion of this analysis I can walk away knowing that I do not function well in a group with members that do not account for their own actions. For the duration of the project I felt as if Lindsay and I did all of the work with very little contribution from Joy and Rex. I feel that if I was able to choose my group the project would have had a better outcome. I strongly believe that I did everything in my power to assure that everyone was included in the project and

Group Process

made sure everyone had some responsibility. In the end, compliance with deadlines was an issue with Rex and Joy coupled with overall preparedness. I think that my role as a leader hindered the group and I feel as if I could have been a better leader, overall I was not okay with the fact that everyones contributions would impact my grade. The group project seemed more like a duet betwixt Lindsay and me, which we were able to complete the project without much help from Joy and Rex. I would like to do group work again and pursue further leadership opportunities I would just like to be able to work with people who are enthusiastic about working in a group and who are willing to contribute toward the common goal. (Elizabeth Arnold, 2011)

Works Cited
Elizabeth Arnold, K. B. (2011). Interpersonal Relationships Professional Communication Skills for Nurses. St. Louis: Saunders.