Effective and Ineffective Group Performance Personal Reflection Memo

Personal Reflection Memo: Effective and Ineffective Group Performance

Effective and Ineffective Group Performance: Personal Reflection Memo

Groups are becoming increasingly prominent in schools and work settings. A group is termed effective if it is able to realize its intended goals within the stipulated time frame. I have worked in an effective, as well as an ineffective group before. This text presents the specific aspects that made the groups either effective or ineffective.

Personal Reflection Memo: Effective and Ineffective Group Performance

Teams and work groups are becoming increasingly prominent in the work and school setting. Just as is the case with individual work, group work is termed effective if the group is able to realize its intended goals within the stipulated time frame; otherwise, the group is regarded as being ineffective. I have had the pleasure of working as part of both an effective and an ineffective group. The details of each group's operation and the specific aspects that made them either effective or ineffective have been enumerated in the subsequent subsections.

The Effective Group

I have selected the team that I worked with at Winick Realty Group as the most effective group for this memo. The team was composed of only three members -- Jeff (the group leader), Jeff and I, and its main task was to negotiate with prospective promising client to get them to accept the property deals that the company was offering. We were able to achieve this goal rather smoothly and within the expected timelines. I took note of a number of aspects that could have contributed to the group's success and exemplary performance.

To begin with, the small size of the group made it easier for members to schedule meetings, interact effectively, and seek clarification whenever they encountered challenges (Corey et al., 2008). Moreover, with only two people to supervise, Jeff, the group leader, had ample time interacting personally with members to ensure that work done was effective, and that members clearly understood their roles. Social loafing and free riding were avoided because the group size was manageable, and each member had their own defined roles. Members interacted closely and it was relatively easy for the group leader to notice when a member was encountering difficulties or was facing challenges in their personal life that interfered with the effective operation of the group. Besides the issue of size, there was also that of composition -- we all had different levels of expertise, and this made it relatively easy for us to not only develop a reporting mechanism, but also grow individually by learning new skills and knowledge from each other.

A second element worth noting was the fact that each member's roles and responsibilities were clearly identified and spelt out. My duties, for instance, as the most inexperienced member, included researching potential clients and cold-calling them to give them information about existing properties. Patty, who was more experienced than me, was responsible for contacting these prospective clients and marketing products to them. With roles so clearly defined, the group was able to avoid overlaps in duties, or delays and conflicts resulting from such. Moreover, members were able to complement each other's efforts and to work collaboratively as opposed to in competition with each other (Corey et al., 2008).

A third potential element of success in this group was the constant communication among members. Owing to the small group size, scheduling meetings was easy and we were able to meet once every week to discuss progress and keep in touch with new developments. Constant communication made it easy for us to interact at a personal level, and deal with challenges or problems before they escalated.

Finally, there is the aspect of leadership -- the group's leadership was distinct and very effective. As the group leader, Jeff made a point to consult with Patty and I before making any decisions. This increased our motivation as it made us feel valued, and part of the greater organization. Additionally, Jeff often stayed out of the day-to-day operations of the group, delegating the same to Patty and I. I, personally, felt that this kind of delegation exposed us to new challenges and opened opportunities for us to grow individually (Corey et al., 2008).

The Ineffective Group

The most ineffective group that I worked with was my International Studies Program Group. The work done was shoddy, and the professor openly expressed his disappointment, forcing us to retake the group activity. First and foremost, the group consisted of six members with more or less the same level of expertise -- the large size made it almost impossible to schedule meetings effectively and interact personally with each other. As expected, social loafing and free-riding were prominent, significantly impeding on the group's ability to work collaboratively. Moreover, there was a general lack of interest among group members, and there never was a time when we all met and discussed the team's goals, objectives, and distribution of roles. As such, there was nothing unifying group members. Miscommunication was a serious problem, perhaps because we all were introverts who were less concerned about knowing each other and building social relations. Finally, the team lacked leadership, and there was no one to guide the rest of the members towards effective goal achievement.