Group Behavior Week 1 DQ1

Group Behavior

Week 1 DQ1 -- One group that I joined was a group dedicated to preserving a local waterway. I joined this group primarily to fulfill a need to give back to my community. The members of this group had shared goals and most of us had similar motivations. The second group that I joined was a consumer advocacy group. With this group, I joined it both for reasons of fighting for the rights of local small businesses but also for the social interaction -- I felt that this group would give me better contacts for my future endeavors. I believed that there would be a degree of interdependence between myself and some other group members where we could help to provide opportunities for success for each other.

Week 1 DQ 2 -- The consumer advocacy organization was in the first stage of development. The group had only a vague mission and did not have set roles for its members. Ultimately, as the group began to feel its way through growth, these issues remained unresolved and the group failed. To move the group to another level, I feel that the group members should have adopted a more focused approach to their mission -- the group had too many agendas for a group with a low membership level and few resources. A leader could have coalesced some of the sentiment within the group into a coherent mission and sense of purpose, with actions that corresponded directly to that sense of purpose.

Week 2 DQ 1 -- One instance where communication broke down I saw was when the two leaders of a group wanted to take the group in different directions but were seemingly unwilling to communicate with one another about this. This resulted in group members essentially choosing sides, splitting the group apart, again with little communication aimed at reconciliation.

Neither of the senders in this case was willing or able to send effective messages to each other. I do not believe this was a channel or decoding issue -- I never saw much effort on the part of either sender to adequately engage the other in communication.

The barriers may have occurred because each feared that working with the other would result in a dilution of his respective vision. By refusing to communicate, I believe each leader believed he could take control of the group as a whole, perhaps even by stealth. Overcoming these barriers could have been another member of the group bringing the two together to discuss their obviously different visions. Another solution could have been direct outreach on the part of one of the leaders -- even if the direct communication was hostile it would have represented something more direct than what occurred.

Week 2 DQ 2 -- Diversity is having a team comprised of heterogeneous members -- in physical characteristics, education, experience, outlook and other facets of being. Diversity brings a number of viewpoints to the workplace. In addition, it helps the company to better understand its customers if the workforce reflects the customer base. By opening up more markets within the general populace, diversity can increase the potential value of a firm by increasing its potential revenue streams. There are a number of strategies to increase diversity, including targeting recruiting, building better networks in specific communities and establishing mentorship programs that can encourage members of different communities to apply at the firm by improving the firm's employer brand within those communities.

Week 3 DQ 1 -- I was engaged in a field operation and my team faced enemy fire. Keeping the team together under such an adverse circumstance was partly the result of strong leadership during the event, wherein my calm lent stability to the entire team. It was also partly the result of strong leadership preceding the event, during the planning and preparation phases. When crisis struck, the team was ready for it, and therefore was able to succeed in the mission despite the obstacles.