Reflective Paper Group Dynamics

Question: Discuss about the Reflective Paper for Group Dynamics. Answer: Introduction The process of decision making can either be interesting or cumbersome depending on the nature of the team members involved. When there is effective communication with minimal biases and prejudgment from group members, the process is likely to take a shorter while (Baked, 2010). On the other hand, when the group comprises members with diverse personalities and hence varied perspectives to concepts in life, the process takes a longer period of time. However working as a team can be constructive, educative and entertaining especially when each member disposes their personal interests and relate with each other with reference to the groups objectives. This paper outlines my experience in a group assignment in which we were required to make decisions on a number of aspects (Forsyth, 2009). The reflection will entail an outline of the effects of personality differences on the speed and effectiveness of decision making. In addition, the paper shall also highlight how the concepts of groupt hink, Abilene paradox, risky shifts and shared information bias impact the process of decision making. The group comprised three members each of which was assigned a specific role. The various activities undertaken by the group gave each of us good experience. Being the group leader, I found it hard getting the members to work collectively towards the main objectives of the group took quite a while but a flow in the rhythm of the process was later established. The personal differences could be attributed to the differences in personalities as exhibited by the group members. Because member B had good group work dynamics and remained active he was chosen as my assistant. The third member had the secretarial roles and could record the details of our deliberations during the meetings. However, each of use collectively contributed and discussed extensively on the topic (Henningsen and Henningsen, 2003). We agreed to have our meetings three times in a week. In each of these sessions, the roles would be reviewed and the topic discussed extensively. The conclusions reached with regard to the progress of the discussion were recorded by the secretary for future reference. The tasks had to be done that way in order to meet the deadline and hence achieve the groups core objectives. Since the diversity within the group led to an occasional breakdown in communication, we agreed to be resolving our differences amicably to avoid confrontations. The variations in personalities also led to misunderstandings among the group members. For instance it took us a lot of time deciding on the group leader. This is because nobody was confident enough to take the position. By noting the qualities of some of the group members, it was however possible to come up with a leader and collectively assign roles to the other members with respect to their capabilities (Harvey, 2008). Despite the challenges caused by variations in personalities during the process of decision making, a good understanding of each of the team members capabilities was a crucial strategy which enabled us to get the best out of each other. Consequently, diversity within a team set up is relatively inevitable; however, it is possible to incorporate the different perspectives and hence come up with the most informed choices. The experience offered an appropriate avenue through which the group members were able to learn more about each other. At the beginning of the whole process, it was quite a challenge bringing the minds of the group members together. This could be attributed to the fact that we were each new to each other and had different methods of handling issues. ). The sober minded group members provided a perfect balance to these differences by incorporating more rational approaches in the process of decision making. In a nut shell, the differences in personalities of the group m embers played a pivotal part in slowing down the decision making process According to Abilene complex, a group of individuals may choose to collectively make a decision not necessarily because they support the course but because they wouldnt want to compromise the decision. This concept highlights that not all members of the group may be in agreement with the decision made but will however remain supportive of the course. During the group activities, there are those members who remained passive throughout the decision making process. Despite not giving their views in a bid to influence the decisions made, they offered no objection to the choices settled on by the other members. For instance, when choosing the leaders, some of the members took up the roles without necessarily considering what was required of them in these positions. This aspect led to a breakdown in communication in most occasions since some of the chosen leaders had no clear understanding of the confines and description of their responsibilities (Harvey, 2006). This therefore implies that some of the decisions arrived at during the group meetings werent out of a unanimous understanding of the group members but resulted from a breakdown in communication. From this scenario, we can deduce that some of the group members mistakenly felt that their views towards the topic of discussion would counter the decisions already made by the other members of the group. This could be termed as prejudgment which is a common barrier to effective communication. Consequently, some of the choices made during the group discussions were not adequately informed due to lack of back up opinions from a good number of the group members. It is therefore important to have the group objectives and the topic under discussion clearly stated to the group before the most effective steps and channels are followed in a bid to come up with informed choices. As highlighted in the concept of the shared information bias, there is the tendency of a group to take more time concentrating on information which most of the group members are already familiar with. Our sessions comprised numerous occasions in which the members spent time arguing over aspects with which the group members were already familiar with. For instance too much time was spent highlighting the components of the topic of discussion before actually sharing important information to aid in the decision making process. While most of the aspects shard by the group was familiar concepts, the unshared information remained as hidden profiles (Hollingshead, 2001). This could be attributed to the fact that the group lacked a visionary leader with a good understanding of the concept under discussion. As a result, the group was not adequately exposed on the innate and more complex but constructive elements of the topic in question. The decisions were therefore made based on the members basic knowledge of the topic and not necessarily on the backdrop of a wider point of view. We can therefore deduce that shared information bias results in poor decisions being made by a group (Kahneman, 2000). The interaction between members never ended at the group level but also proceeded at personal levels as some of the group members formed factions to further in a bid to understand one another more. From these interactions, it was possible to establish a rather interesting twist. Group thinking may empower some of the group members to act boldly and contribute actively in making more daring decisions but could not reciprocate this boldness when approached at a personal level (Sharot, 2011). The risky shifts in a group set up may negatively impact the outcome of choices. Through the concept of risky shifts, we can outline that some individuals make decisions not because of their belief in this stands but perhaps due to the pressure related with group dynamics. This affects the quality of choices made within a team as members basically depend on the groups collective effort towards obtaining a solution to the problem under discussion. Good decision making ought to be aided by an individ uals personal belief and the ability to maintain a stand on their decisions using rational arguments. For effective decision making, risky shifts ought to be noted and minimized (McAvoy, 2007). Making informed decisions also involves observing the right ethical standards. The group dynamics involved a careful consideration of all the ethical aspects associated with the question in mind (McAvoy, 2006). As such, the group ensured that all the decisions made were in conformation with the set ethical standards. It is however a fact worth noting that an excessive concentration on the ethical issues took a lot of energy and time. This in turn impact the quality of the decisions made (Ronald, 2004).. Concentration on the ethical issues did not only lead to the occurrence of shared information bias but was the leading cause of rigidity among some of the group members. While ethical standards are crucial factors to consider during decision making, they ought to be considered within the shortest time possible so that more energy can be diverted to the actual process of decision making. Conclusion In order to get the best out of a group, it is important members to enhance cohesion and an extensive understanding of one another. Through this, personalities can be established. These variations can therefore be harnessed in order to ensure that the team makes the most informed choices. Secondly, the team should not spend more time and energy discussing an issue with which the group members are already familiar with. Instead, the group leader can working on exposing more of hidden profiles or unshared information which in turn improves the quality of decisions made (Wilcox, 2010). The group also ought to have taken part in more team building activities. For instance, the group can take part in a short group game before embarking on the main discussion. This strategy does not only enhance understanding among the members but also uplifts team unity and cohesion which are key components of effective decision making. Finally, in order to minimize the problems of time and energy wastage , the group could also establish and work with timelines. The time allocated for the discussion of a given element within a group ought to be adequately observed by the facilitators. Proper time management in addition to good communication skills play a crucial role in helping groups to make informed and effective choice References Baked, D. (2010) enhancing group decision making: An exercise to reduce shared information bias. Journal of Management Education, 34(1), pp. 249-279. Forsyth, D. (2009) Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Henningsen, D. and Henningsen, M. (2003) Examining social influence in information-sharing contexts. Small Group Research, 34 (1), pp. 391412. Harvey, B. (2008) The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. Harvey, J. (2006) The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management (paperback). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Hollingshead, A. B. (2001) Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), pp. 1080- 1089. Kahneman, D. (2000) Choices, values, and frames. New York; Cambridge, UK. Sharot, T. (2011) The optimism bias: a tour of the irrationally positive brain. New York: Pantheon Books McAvoy, J. (2007) The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an agile team. Information and Software Technology. 49 (6), pp. 552563. McAvoy, J. (2006) Resisting the change to user stories: a trip to Abilene. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management. 1 (1), pp. 4861 Ronald, R. (2004). Ethics and Organizational Decision Making: A Call for Renewal. New York: Greenwood Publishing Wilcox, C. (2010) Groupthink: An Impediment to Success. London: Xlibris Corporation