A small group is a collection of people who interact with each other face to face over a time to reach goals (notes 3-10-99). The number of people in a small group range from three people to seven people, usually an odd number to break a tie (3-10-99). This format is what our group project is based around.
For this project we decided to take up a collection of items to donate to the DMACC daycare center. Our goal was to complete the project within one month. We posted signs in building five and building two and placed a box to collect the items in the lounge of building five. We put in a few items ourselves and the rest was up to the campus to donate.
We chose the circular meetings because they are informal and one of the most productive settings. A circular seating arrangement is being seated in a circle so everyone can see you, which makes it a lot easier to communicate (notes 3-10-99). Informal seating is when you sit anyway you want so everyone is at ease and comfortable with each other. This group can also be defined as a social one, which usually sits four to twelve feet apart (Notes 2/26/99).
We had no explicit rules, which are formal guidelines that govern the behavior of the group. We did have unstated rules called norms. Even though we didn’t discuss them, our similar values, beliefs and behavior determined the guidelines. For example no one in our group slandered a religion or made a sexist joke because of our shared norms (Handout 3).
There are three kinds of norms: social, procedural, and task. Our group exhibited social norms by the way we expressed our emotions (Handout 3). We were honest with each other and expressed our ideas easily. Procedural norms outlines how the group should operate. Luckily in our situation we were all agreeable to others suggestions. We didn’t need any votes to make our decisions. Our group didn’t delegate a certain leader, usually depending on our meeting one person took control. Task norms focus on how the job itself should be handled (Handout 3). Our group didn’t exhibit any task norms; we handled jobs as they came with no certain guidelines.
Our Group Roles were informal and functional roles, which are patterns of behavior expected by other members of the group (handout 5). The roles our group could be categorized in are task roles, which helped the group accomplish things and social maintenance roles, which helped the relationships between members of our group (handout 5). We worked well with finding the tasks at hand but also keeping good social relations between us. The Conciliator was implemented when our original project could not be done. We as a group then had to support & encourage the growth for new ideas. We really worked well and easily came up with a new idea.
Our group did not have an agenda to follow; we just came to class and told each other what we have done for the project. Our meetings were brief and to the point, discussing with each member what was supposed to be done before the next meeting. The only procedure we established was for Katie to take notes during every meeting. Also, at the end of the meetings we asked if anyone had any questions. When a group member was absent from a meeting someone would let them know what went on to keep everyone informed on our project.
There are two approaches to problem solving descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive approach allows a group to proceed on their own to solve the problem, with no real guidelines to follow. While the prescriptive approach involves an attempt to follow a set of rules to solve a problem (handout 11). Our group followed the descriptive or the traditional approach to problem solving because we determined our purpose and what solutions we could give quickly, with no set guidelines. We didn’t see a direct problem with the supplies at the DMACC Daycare, but we felt it would serve a good cause to collect items for the children.
When discussing our solutions or how we would collect items we realized that depending on just volunteer giving could be hard to come by in a college. We knew to make our project a success we would have to advertise the drive to make people aware. We hung posters on the bulletin boards in some buildings and tried to talk it up to our friends. The box was placed in building five in the lounge, hoping to attract people who went there everyday and saw the box.
In the first few meetings we were indecisive about what direction we wanted to go. Brainstorming was a big part of the project the first couple meetings. Brainstorming should have limits set from two to five minutes with lots of ideas and no evaluation of the ideas (Notes 3/10/99). Although our group didn’t set any time limits, we did have lots of ideas and didn’t criticize any of them. Piggy backing means going off someone else’s idea to come up with a better one. We knew right away that we wanted to do something for children. First, we discussed going to Blank Children’s Hospital and making Easter baskets but when that idea didn’t work we piggy backed it by finding another way to help children.
Working with a group in a project like this it is very important to be a good listener. Not only when we were brainstorming but throughout the project it was important to be a conscientious listener. Some of the tips were to stop talking, put the talker at ease, ask questions and judge the speakers content not delivery (Notes). In all group situations you will have many different personalities. Part of learning how to work well in a group for school and later in your job, depends on how you can blend those personalities to accomplish your goal.
Looking back at what hindered our group communication could have been trying to keep everyone on the same page throughout the project. At first we felt more timid about initiating our ideas, not sure if that’s what everyone wanted. Since we didn’t know each other very well going into the project, it took time to feel comfortable with each other. Once we got the project rolling and started collecting items we all communicated very well. We discussed a timeline for when the project was due and what needed to be done.
If we were to start all over again we would probably change a few things in how we organized our project. We did really well, but with someone taking more of a leader role it could have ran smoother. We were all unsure about what task each of us should do, that could be eliminated by delegating tasks in the beginning.
This project taught us a lot about group interaction. We all were depending on each other for the grade we earned, so it helped us keep in tune with our goal. Some of us may have careers that involve these kinds of group projects; this experience should help us all in our future.