PT 625 Group Dynamics

PT625 Group Dynamics

GROUPOBSERVATION

Group/MinistryName: Hitchcock Presbyterian Church Elders Date:February 4, 2015

Observer’sName:

Purpose/Missionof the Group

toengage with U.S. Presbyterians and global partners for faithful andeffective participation in God’s mission in a globalized world,growing together as communities of mission practice”

Purposeof the Meeting

Themeeting was aimed at reviewing the progress of the church’sministry, particularly with regard to the newly opened branches. Thechurch elder’s group needed to be informed

InterpersonalCommunication Skills (Explainyour responses)

  1. Expressing (verbal and nonverbal)

Moreoften than not, the discussions and questions are held verbally, withthe different members asking questions and contributing to thediscussions at hand. Nevertheless, non-verbal gestures are usedparticularly when a member is putting a point across. For instance,raising a finger when a statement rather than a suggestion is made.

  1. Listening

Inspite of the heated debate, all members are required to listen asthis is the only way that the communication would be effective. Evenin instances where a member does not agree with the suggestions ofthe speaker, he or she has to wait until the member has finishedspeaking before making any statement.

  1. Responding

Memberscould respond to questions immediately they were asked or write themdown and give answers later. Nevertheless, in instances where anyonewanted to give a response, he or she could raise their hands andinterject. This was particularly the case for the committee leaders.

CommunicationPattern (Explainyour responses)

  1. Directionality (one-to-one, one-to-group, all through a leader, etc.)

Thecommunication patterns adopted in this case was one-to-group, wherean individual would address his or her concerns or opinions to thegroup. Indeed, any one-to-one conversation was deemed to be adisruption of the progress of the meeting since the individuals wouldend up whispering and preventing the others from following up on themain agendas.

Leadership

  1. Leadership Style (Explain your responses)

Theleadership position adopted in the meeting was primarily democraticsince decisions were made on the basis of the agreement betweenmembers regarding the most appropriate course of action (Levi, 2013).Indeed, members, irrespective of their positions in the group, couldoverrule the decisions of the leaders and come up with an appropriatecourse of action provided they had the numbers and were in line withthe laid out rules of the ministry.

  1. Major Roles (Record Names(or use initials)/Positions)

Initiator/Contributor:S. M Luther. Information Giver: Chairman

InformationSeeker: Members/ Opinion Giver: Members

OpinionSeeker: Members Coordinator: Secretary/ Chris Straus

Energizer:Finance Secretary Evaluator Critic: Members

Encourager:Mrs. Magdalene Simons Harmonizer: Secretary General

Compromiser:Secretary general/ Luke Simons Expediter:

StandardSetter: Chairman

Follower:Members

GroupProcess Observer:

  1. Leadership Effects (Explain your responses)

Themembers were showed enthusiastic and eager participation in theagendas of the day. This may have resulted from the fact that theirresponses and contribution to the debates were given the appropriateconsiderations and debated appropriately in line with the perceivedimportance (Levi, 2013). Essentially, the members ended up givingresponses irrespective of how absurd they looked, knowing well thatthere was a possibility for their being considered and even adoptedfor the sake of progress in the group.

Goals(Explainyour responses)

  1. Explicitness

Thegoals of the group and the meeting were explicitly stated in thesimplest terms that all members could comprehend. This allowed allmembers to grasp the concept and come up with the appropriate andsuitable decisions.

  1. Commitment to agreed upon goals

Themembers commitment to the goals was spelt out by their contributionto the debates, as well as volunteering to do a particular task.

SituationalVariables (Provide detail)

  1. Group Size (How many people in the group? Gender Breakdown of the group? Does gender play a role in group decision? Is the number of people in the group adequate? Why or why not?)

Thegroup observed was composed of 36 members, a third of whom werewomen. This ratio was also reflected in the leadership positions. Itis noteworthy, however, that all members were deemed to have equalsay in the decisions that the group made, in which case the gender ofan individual played no role in determining the group decision. Ofcourse, the number of people is adequate given the fact that thechurch had around 300 members in its five branches.

  1. Time Limit (How long was the meeting? Was enough time allotted? Was the time used wisely?)

Themeeting took a total of 4 hours, which was quite sufficient for themotions that had been devised for the day. Indeed, the time was usedvery wisely given that all the agendas of the meeting were adequatelydiscussed and a resolution made regarding the same.

  1. Physical Facilities (What was the meeting space? Is it adequate? How was the space arranged? Etc.)

Themeeting space was perfectly adequate for the meeting given the factthat all members were seated including the visitors or observers. Thearrangement adopted in this case was pretty basic, with the appointedleaders and parish priest or reverend having their seats at thefront row, facing the members whose seats were arranged in 6 rows,three on each side and some space in the middle.

GroupDevelopment (Explain your response)

  1. Stage of Group Development (Forming, storming. etc.)

Thisgroup is at the norming stage as evidenced by its cohesiveness. Atthis stage, morale is high, as the members of the group activelyacknowledge the experience, talents and skills that each of themhave. As much as the members exhibit quite a bit of flexibility, theyare also interdependent and exhibit quite a lot of trust in eachother’s capabilities (Levi, 2013).

ObserverReaction (Provide details)

  1. Feelings that you experienced during the observation

Asmuch as I was a mere observer in the group, I felt quite as a memberin spite of the age difference between me and the members. It waseasy to feel valued and belonging, at least given the attention thatwas given to every member and his or her ideas.

  1. Insights, speculations, ideas, etc. about the process observed

Theprocess observed was, with no doubt, informative given the fact thatnumerous decisions were made all in form of agreement, where eachmember contributed to the process and expressed his or her feelingstowards any decisions that were made. Indeed, democracy in groupdecision-making is the most appropriate strategy.

References

Levi,D.J (2013). Group Dynamics for Teams. New York: Cengage Learning

7

Related Posts

© All Right Reserved