Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Group Dynamics
From the inception of the group at the beginning of the group work engagements, the team had little idea about the personalities of the members of the group, there was a lose relationship that was purely based on the issues to be discussed or the research to be conducted and each person went his way after that. This changed with time as the group members got more and more acquainted with each others' personality and there was more understanding that grew among the group members. This meant that the group members did not just talk about the real academic issue in the meetings but there was opening and closing issues and comments that had nothing to do with the matter being discussed. In the process, there grew several contentious sections of disagreements, discontent as well as too much unanimity on an issue that made it uncomfortable for the group members to carry on before such were looked into. Decisions could be delayed and direction of the assignments derailed during such times. However, after the team learnt to tolerate the digressions and distractions, there grew a quick way of fixing problems...
This was experienced particularly at the norming phase (Chattillon R., 2013). At this stage the team members started to respect the authority of the team leader and others began showing leadership in specific areas of group activity hence roles were assigned according to the portrayed ability. At this stage, the team members had known each other better and were socializing capable of asking each other for help and providing constructive criticism. The team had also developed a stronger commitment…
Reference
Chattillon R., (2013). Tuckman's Five Stages of Group Development. Retrieved September 30,2014 from http://www.slideshare.net/perspectum/5-stages-of-group-development-norms-tuckman-16474067
Individuals trust that agreement speaks something relating to the fact. Complying with the group norms hence fulfils our requirement relating to mastery. When individuals privately, show their compliance since they trust group norms represent fact, the group has the impact of information. At the time when the chances are high, individuals are more inspired to take correct decisions, and hence correspond even strongly. Going away from the agreement weaken
Group Cohesion Within an Organization We often hear much about "miracle" sports teams such as the 1986 New York Mets, U.S. Hockey's Soviet Union defeating team, and even this year's curse-destroying Boston Red Sox. Long after the individual exploits of individual players are forgotten, the team effort and lore will remain. Sometimes, the team stories will even build over time. For instance, today baseball fans will remember the 1986 New
This gave each member of the group a sense of affiliation within the group. Everyone felt that they were an important member of the group and their opinions and ideas counted. Because of this affiliation then each member of the group felt as if they had some power. They had influence and power over many of the important decisions that were being made, including those having to do with staffing.
Group Motivation Inventory Motivation can be defined as the various ways used to make people or a group of people to become more interested and committed to their work. Scholars' termed motivation to be more of sociological and psychological concept as it is relying on human behavior and how they relate to one another. Group motivation is an important aspect in group dynamics since most groups purely rely on motivation to
"Reponses given were on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the extremes by strongly disagree and strongly agree." (Marcos, Miguel, Oliva, and Calvo. 2009, p.1) the results reported "show a significant relationship between team members' perceptions of efficacy and each of the four sociogram factors, with correlations exceeding .30 in each case and in the hypothesized direction." (Marcos, Miguel, Oliva, and Calvo. 2009, p.1) Individual self-efficacy in relation to
Group Annotated Bib Annotated Bibliography Crits-Christoph, P., Johnson, J.E., Connolly Gibbons, M.B., & Gallop, R. (2013). Process predictors of the outcome of group drug counseling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(1), 23-34. The authors report that 93% of the substance abuse treatment programs in the United States use some form of group counseling and majority of these are based on 12 -- step programs that require abstinence and the philosophy that is