Group Dynamics and Conflict

Evolution of the Group/Team over the Term

Group Dynamics

Group Structure, Leadership, and Communication

Intra-group Conflict

Korn-Ferry Assessments

Peer Evaluation

Summary and Lessons Learned

The significance of teamwork in today's workplace cannot be overemphasized. With workplace tasks becoming increasingly complex, teamwork tends to facilitate faster task execution and an atmosphere of inclusion. Based on concepts and theories learned throughout the course as well as Korn-Ferry assessments, this paper provides my own reflection of the Group Consulting Project experience. The group project involved conducting the OB process for Nova Southeastern University College of Pharmacy. The reflection particularly focuses on how the group evolved over the term, dynamics that occurred between group members and within the group, conflict management, as well as group structure, leadership, and communication.

Evolution of the Group/Team over the Term

Tuckman's group development model demonstrates that groups develop in four major stages: forming (establishment of the group and defining its purpose); storming (conflict and competition emerges); norming (cohesion is reached); and performing (high productivity) (Margerison, 2003). These stages were particularly evident during the group project. At first, most members were quite new to each other in the sense that they had not interacted much before. Some members even did not know other members by name. The first meeting, therefore, involved knowing one another. Evidently, some members were quite reluctant to provide more details about themselves. This is not unusual as the first stage of group development is often characterized by anxiety and uncertainty (Margerison, 2003). The first meeting also involved conveying the purpose of the group, allocation of roles, discussion of key milestones, and establishment of team rules. For me, storming and norming were the most interesting stages. By the third meeting, the group was already behaving like a cohesive unit. Most members had a solid grasp of their roles and exhibited less anxiety during meetings. The group stayed at this stage for the rest of the term. Even so, we successfully achieved the milestones and objectives we specified at the beginning of the project.

Group Dynamics

Group theory shows that some psychological and behavioral processes occur within a group or between groups (Davis, 2016; Bateman, Snell & Konopaske, 2016). As mentioned previously, we laid down group rules at the very first meeting. The rules included aspects such as attendance of meetings, punctuality, individual responsibility, as well as communication and decision making during group discussions. The rules would guide every member's conduct for the entire existence of the group. One thing I observed is that the rules were important in fostering cohesion and respect between members. Our group featured individuals from diverse backgrounds in terms of race, religion, worldviews, and personality. Nonetheless, despite our differences, instances of destructive conflict were rare. Members talked to each with respect, avoided judgmental views, rarely interrupted one another while talking, were diligent in their roles, and strictly adhered to group rules. I believe respect for one another was one of the major factors that contributed to the success of the group.

Group Structure, Leadership, and Communication

Group dynamics also center on group structure, leadership, and communication (Bateman, Snell & Konopaske, 2016). From the very beginning, group members agreed that equality, openness, respect, and involvement would be the four major guiding principles of the team. These principles were particularly apparent in the structure of the group. A flat, decentralized structure emerged for the group. Even though the team had a leader, we treated each other as equals. Every member had a voice in every process and decision of the group. Literature has shown that democracy in group work has important implications for productivity, creativity, motivation, and morale within the group (Bateman, Snell & Konopaske, 2016). This was evident in our group as we were able to accomplish our objectives with little conflicts and misunderstandings. Democracy was also apparent in the choice of the group leader. Members proposed three members, whom we voted for. Out of the three, the member with the most support became the leader of the group. The leader exhibited the four principles in communicating roles, holding members to account, enforcing group rules, and how he treated and interacted with every member.

Intra-group Conflict

Conflicts within a group setting are virtually inevitable. As a group comprises individuals with different backgrounds, personalities, views, and beliefs, conflicts between individuals are likely to occur. Conflicts may be destructive or constructive (Bateman, Snell & Konopaske, 2016). Destructive conflicts are negative conflicts -- they create bitterness and hostility between group members. In our case, there were no notable cases of negative conflict. I would describe this as one of the major interesting aspects about our group. Most conflicts in our group were constructive or positive. A constructive conflict is where members differ in how to go about a certain task. Rather than competing, members collaboratively consider the various approaches and choose the most suitable, feasible, and acceptable one. In one instance, for example, members had different opinions about the frequency and timing of meetings. In the end, however, we settled on a frequency and timing that was favorable for everyone. That is the essence of constructive conflict -- the outcome satisfies everyone (win-win situation). This is consistent with the collaborative style of conflict management (Lawless & Trif, 2016).

Korn-Ferry Assessments

Korn Ferry's tool provides a useful framework for assessing management and leadership capabilities at the individual level. The tool specifically focuses on four dimensions: individual competencies, personality traits, individual experiences, and drivers (values and interests that motivate and influence an individual). As per the tool, my strengths include outstanding teamwork abilities, interpersonal skills, ability to take initiative, results-centeredness, dependability, independent-mindedness, openness, as well as adaptability. I have honed these abilities throughout my academic and professional life. Though I am not as assertive and confident as I would want to be, my strengths were of great relevance and value to the group. In fact, though all group members were effective in the roles assigned to them, the group leader described me as not only one of the most productive members, but also one of the most sociable, approachable, reliable, punctual, and flexible. I undertook some of the tasks group members perceived to be somewhat difficult, portrayed decorum during meetings, and willingly assisted other members with their tasks whenever they required help.