KDAZ: Progression of our Group Interaction while Observing and Analyzing Other Groups

1. Introduction

Attending a course such as COM 332 means more than just learning theories and enhancing interaction skills while working in a group setting. After a few lectures, the theories learnt improved our chances to better understand group dynamics, and our group was well defined. Kanmani, Dan, Alexis and Zuie Zuie were now ready to work for the first time in this class as an “Observation Group”. Before we immersed ourselves in the task, we had to come up with a collective identity. After much consideration, we settled for the simple but significant ‘KDAZ’, which represented our collective – projective identification. Once this identity was assumed, our next task was to figure out the purpose, or the goal of the group. Together we agreed that as an observation group, we would use various methods to collect data in order to provide feedback to our subjects. With this in mind, our final goal was to learn group dynamics to better enhance our group problem solving skills.

2. Measurement System

The first main goal of the group KDAZ was to find a group that would let us observe them. Observing is one thing, however it is not enough to lead us on the completion of a project. Clueless on group interaction analysis, the work of Bale guided us to perform some measurements on the group we were to observe. In fact, we adopted four different ways to measure the interaction of the group Superb6. We thought the most accurate way would be to break down their interactions into four different sections. The first one was to measure their socio-emotional interaction. The second would be their interaction related to task. The third was about discovering the roles each were holding. Finally, the fourth way was to collect important statements and in-depth analysis of group interactions to back up the interactions that were not noticeable enough to be put into charts. However, all these approaches often showed to be influential on the Dynamics of the group. Each member of KDAZ took care of one of those four ways of measurement. It has to be noted that the data may not be 100% accurate due to the fact that we have only begun to scratch the surface in observing techniques.

3. Designation of our Group’s Task: Group Observation

There were several problems our group had to resolve in order to accomplish its mission. It was clear since the beginning of this course that, as opposed to a task force group, it would be harder for us to contribute to the society - such as raising money for the homeless. It was after having found and experimented with various ways to measure and analyze group interactions that our goal was modified to include a tutorial put on a CD-ROM. This tutorial should help future groups of this class or elsewhere by using our observational and analysis system as a basis on further observation, hence, enhancing deeper analysis and understanding of small group interaction.

Goal:

As soon as our group met for the first time, one task was already clear for everyone.

The only unclear part was the way we were to approach the task.

We asked our classmates Joe, Nicole, Rajah, Andrew, Melissa and Shannon - members of the group “ The Superb6” - if we could observe their group interactions in order to collect data. Superb6 was a task force group, who agreed to be our ‘evolutionary group’; a group that we would observe from beginning to end in order to better analyze the development of group dynamics. KDAZ took this opportunity and attended their first meeting on the 27th of January 2000 at Coffee Works (which is situated on the second floor of Video Hits Plus). Sitting around a restaurant table, KDAZ had its first observation task.

The following were the goals that KDAZ decided on, earlier in the semester. These would prove to be our guidelines throughout our entire observing experience.

1. Contact with the task force group that was to be observed

2. Data gathered in 4 types of charts

- Socio-emotional
- Task related
- Roles
- Influential statements

3. Several verbal behaviors were identified for each measurement systems

4. After the second meeting observed, a self-report was given to each member of the group observed. The self report was mainly concerned with the:

- Different scales measuring what they thought about themselves and the other members.

(Awareness of their different roles; who tends to lead the group; how clear were the tasks…)

- What they wanted to improve the most on their interaction quality.

5. Creation of Performance Matrix chart with the plan of what the group wanted to improve the most (more explanation about the Performance Matrix will be given in the ‘Feedback to the Group Observed’ section).

6. After the fourth meeting, personal feedback was given to each member of the group observed. (The Performance Matrix as Motivation system was introduced).

7. Observation and analysis of the last meeting

4. Observation Process and Data Analysis of the group “Superb6”

FIGURE I

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

FIGURE II

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure V (Member's Name)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Every identified behavior was entered into charts for each meeting; an example is illustrated on figure II. Then, each identified behavior from every meeting was presented into graphs to see their Performance progress.

4.1. Role Related Measurement Interaction

There are three main categories of roles and several sub categories under each. We measure how many times each members take up certain roles and how often they do it using the chart below. We are also able to see how roles change from the first meeting to the last meeting by creating graph from the data.

FIGURE VI

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

FIGURE VII

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.2. Statements Measurement Interaction System

This system of group interaction measurement was not clear since the beginning

of our observing experience. In fact, we knew that collecting socio-emotional data, task oriented data and the identification of the different role patterns was not enough. The measurement of statements such as “I am so tired”, “I am very busy”, “I have plan this coming weekend” or “I don’t have time; I am really sorry” were not going to show up on the charts for the interaction analysis. However, those statements are from literature that was underestimated, especially on showing how much they can impact the motivation of other group members. Due to the lack of research found in relation to how strong statements affect other members of their group performance results,led us to not have sufficient focus experimenting in this direction. Future observational groups should do further studies in order to gain more insight in this section.

5. Feedback to the Group Observed (explanation)

The Superb 6 completed a questionnaire on themselves and their teammates after the 2nd meeting. The feedback given to the group was a compilation from three different sources. From Seashore’s evaluation in ‘group cohesiveness in the industrial work group’ and Brilhart’s effective group discussion - they measured how they perceived themselves in a group. Rae’s ‘activity self-analysis’ measures what they thought about the activity and the task - themselves in the group, and the leader. In Schultz’s ‘characteristics of emergent leaders of continuing problem-solving group,’ they measured what they thought about themselves and other group members.

Self-report feedback is a way for teams to improve, promote and reinforce the behaviors for effective teamwork (Domick, Reily & McGourty, 1997). Ramsay & Letho, Zigon (1994) indicates that several organizations have reported successfully using peer feedback in team settings as the basis for both development and evaluation.

Bernardin, Hagan, and Kane (1995) found improvement in subordinate and peer ratings (as cited in Domick, Reily, McGourty, 1997). Hazucha, Gentile, and Schneider (193) reported skill increases 2 years after receiving 360-degree feedback. By doing the self-report, it becomes a way for them to understand their own behavior in a team context and focus their attentions on the key behaviors relevant to an effective performance. Locke & Latham (1990) stated that by introducing the feedback instrument, it communicated to participants that certain behaviors were important and valued (as cited in Domick, Reily & McGourty, 1997). Domick, Reily & McGourty, (1997) found out that exposures to feedback (including peer feedback) create behavior changes. It also suggests that it is not so much the feedback itself that drives the change, but the exposure to and completion of the feedback instrument. The results were consistent with those reported by Smither et al. (1995) and Reily et al. (1996), who found that exposure to a feedback instrument without giving the results showed as much improvement as feedback itself.

Hackman (1987) said that regardless of the setting, the organization of workers into teams implies an increasing emphasis on self-management, both by individuals and the team as a unit (as cited in Domick, Reilly & McGourty, 1997). The effective transition to a team-based organization can be facilitated by organizational interventions designed to promote and reinforce the behaviors for effective teamwork. One of the ways is a behavioral feedback program. Domick et al. (1997) did a study to examine the effects of behaviorally based peer feedback on subsequent behavior in a team-based task.

Control theory explains the effects of feedback sign on group outcome variables. At the individual level, control theory assumes that a person’s reaction to feedback is determined by the desire to minimize the discrepancy between his or her behavior and the internal standards or goals that person has accepted. Matsui, Okada, & Inoshita (1983) stated that when feedback indicates that one has met or exceeded the standard/goal (positive feedback), it is generally expected that the individual’s goals and effort remain relatively stable. However, when feedback indicates that a negative discrepancy exists between performance and internal standards/goals (negative feedback), attempts to reduce this discrepancy can be accomplished by increasing effort and or reducing one’s standard (as cited in Mesch, Farh & Podsakoff, 1994). Control theory suggests that specific feedback is the basis for identifying goal-feedback discrepancies, which in turn direct one’s attention toward change and improvement (Domick, Reily & McGourty, 1997).

Performance feedback is information about performance that allows a person to change his/her performance. Feedback must be combined with a consequence if change is to take place. The combination of feedback and positive reinforcement is a very effective approach to improve performance.

Thomas Gilbert (1987), an experienced designer of feedback system, found out that providing feedback never produces ‘less than a 20 percent improvement in performance, often a 50 percent change, and sometimes improvements as high as six fold!’

There are eight characteristics of effective feedback. They are: specific information, on a performance the person controls, immediate, individualized, graphed, presented in relation to baseline, sub-goals, and final goals, antecedent to reinforcement and positive feedback.

The feedback we gave The Superb 6 was specific - on the performance they could control, individualized, graphed, antecedent to reinforcement and positive. Positive feedback is most effective. The most frequent kind of feedback people get on their performance is about what they are doing wrong. Feedback on a negatively stated pinpoint is a poor antecedent for positive reinforcement. Thus, our group gave the Superb 6 only one negative feedback to each individual and gave him or her a lot of positive feedback. The feedback is based on a performance that the person can control— participation and lieutenanting.

Feedback is associated with some evaluative statements. These statements, whether positive or negative, verbal or written, tend to work to increase performance. Feedback alone does not change performance; rather, performance changes because of the consequences directly associated with it, or those expected in the future. This is why we used the Performance Matrix where we reward The Superb 6 by helping them with the donations for ‘Save The Children Fund’ when they show improvements.

We gave The Superb 6 the feedback right before their last P.S.D Meeting. Through the result from the last meeting, it was clear that The Superb 6 had improved.

6. Improvement Report (Performance Matrix)

The performance matrix is a point system that gives the opportunity for anybody to improve different performances. It provides as much satisfaction to the person who sets the plan as it would the person who wants to improve. The performance matrix is not a method set up to measure performance in a precise way. However, it has been created to enhance improvement of identified behaviors.

In his Book, Daniels explains that with the performance matrix the variables measured are those that people often say cannot be measured (1989). It could be used in many different ways. Each variable could be measured by counting or judging. Sub goals are set up, and the pinpoints measured could be weighed as desired. When multiplying the column number to the weight, a score will be added up to other scores then it should be cumulated to a thousand in order to reach the ultimate goal. Scoring at different sub goals will result to feedback and reward.

Finally, there are many chances that the reinforcement provided by the reward and feedback will enhance further improvement.

FIGURE VIII

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

7. “The Roadhouse Group” Observation and Analysis

Besides the observation of the group Superb6, a thought came to our mind from a suggestion given by Dr. Yelsma at the beginning of the semester - to observe a group willing to challenge the idea of everyone ordering and eating the same dish.

The Roadhouse group consisted of friends from each KDAZ member. There were two Malaysians (Angie and Arne), two Americans (Dan and Lisa) and one Japanese (Ricky). Their short-term-goal was to decide on the same meal with strangers. When measuring task interactions, we noticed that the group got into task before getting into socio emotional phases. We also realized that one person dominated the meeting and showed patterns of a democratic leader (Bale, 1976). From this behavior other members released tension and moved swiftly to get the task done.

Our socio-emotional interaction analysis showed that all of the Roadhouse group members were very friendly. There was slight tension when they were deciding on the food, yet they held back. The tension went off when they were eating. This is all due to how they were brought up. When there was disagreement, they did not respond. Ricky and Arne were really quiet. Dan dominated the meeting. Angie is very good at tension releasing and she got along well with everyone. Lisa was very easy going and Dan gave the most orientation.

The group did not show any solidarity. Despite not knowing each another, we saw teamwork in the group. The meeting was too short to see underlying factors. We also saw that the group did not have a lot of cohesiveness as they just got together. It was decided among us that there were more things to see and observe with the task force group.

The role-measurement-data also found that Dan dominated the meeting. Yet, Angie was found to be very good at gate keeping. She kept the group moving and thus they are able to make up their mind within ten minutes, despite they just meeting each another. Ricky and Arne were really quiet and were not opinionated at all. They were followers and just went with what the group decided. This has to do with their culture. The energy of the group comes from Angie's laughter and Dan's ongoing talk. There was no need for any recorder. Dan was the information giver and Angie was the opinion giver. Yet, both of them were able to keep the communication open.

By looking at the phases of group, we saw that the group got into the task immediately. Angie brought everyone into decision-making; Arne did not show much interest in the whole thing; Ricky seemed detached and that Lisa did not have any lieutenant. One explanation would be Dan is 30 years old, thus showed more dominance in the group decision. "Competence" would be a better explanation, as Dan knew a lot of things. Lisa did not have any lieutenant could be because every other member of this particular group had come with someone, except for her - Angie and Arne, Dan and Ricky. We concluded that through our observation - of this group working on reaching a goal in a short run - that its interaction showed noticeable interaction patterns related to their background.

8. Interaction Measurement Tutorial

We decided to put together all the data we collected for this project and present it as a tutorial in CD-ROM. We used the PowerPoint for better presentation. The slide will bring the user through the whole presentation. Buttons are available for ‘back, forward, or home.’ Underlined words or phrases indicate that clicking on the underlined words can retrieve related links regarding that particular subject. We hope that by going through this tutorial, the user is able to understand our perspectives on group interaction and dynamics. Graphs in the CD-ROM are set in a way for easy editing when necessary. Also, it is a way for easy interpretation of the changes each group member has made.

All graphs and measures, when looking at them closely hide a pretty valid and accurate representation of the actual group interaction that we measured.

10. Cohesiveness in our Group

Cohesion is “a group property with individual manifestations of feelings of belongingness or attraction to the group” (Stokes 1983). The four kinds of cohesion are task, socioemotional, hard, and soft. Cohesion is a co-construction concept that means that we can develop it together as a group. It was found that KDAZ worked together as a group to enhance the cohesion.

Joseph Stokes (1983) talks about three variables that could lead to cohesion. The first is attraction to individual members of the group. Stokes states that there is really no evidence to back up this notion. This would be true in our group as well. When we came together in the beginning, we could not have been attracted to each other because we did not know anything about each other. The second variable is the instrumental value of the group. It is likely that a group that offers value to its members would most likely increase attraction (Stokes 1983). This could also be true for our group because probably when we came together, we were all just in it for the grade. We were required to pick a group of people we did not even know in order to receive a Group Problem Solving grade. The third variable is risk taking that occurs in the group. Risk taking such as intimate self- disclosure and expressions of hostility and conflict are more likely to occur in more cohesive groups because it can lead to greater cohesion. This took place in our group at times when we would talk about our personal lives and disclose private information about ourselves. There were also times of conflict in which certain members took risks in becoming hostile and speaking about issues that they felt were important. In the end, it was events like this that increased group cohesion because we were able to see inside one another and better understand where each of us were coming from.

Janis (1972) defines groupthink as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Of all the factors that contribute to groupthink, Janis puts the most emphasis on cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness will work with other contributing factors to either increase or decrease the quality of the decisions made. Decision making increases when cohesiveness involves more “commitment to task,” and decision quality decreases when cohesiveness involves more “interpersonal interaction.” Our group was subject to both kinds of decision making at times. We became a fairly cohesive group as time went on, but we were so focused on the task most of the time that cohesion increased the quality of the decisions made. This happened quite often when we were in a hurry to get the task done if we had some sort of deadline or if we had spent too much time on one subject and wanted to make a decision so that we could move on. There were times, however, that we were more focused on the “interpersonal interaction” aspect, which led us to make lesser quality decisions. This happened most often when we did not have a lot to accomplish in our meetings, which made it quite easy to have groupthink. Overall, we accomplished an enormous amount of work, and made some excellent decisions in which we all contributed great ideas.

Evidence states that human behavior is affected by the presence of others. Conformity increases in highly cohesive groups as compared to groups with low cohesion. Conformity is a “conscious, non-negotiated, and unilateral means of reducing interpersonal differences through changes at the behavioral level” (Melvin Sakuri 1975). Some conformity was noticed in the group at times. After class we would usually all meet at the Plaza Café. We would all eat the same food, which would be something like nachos and cheese or sandwiches. In meetings, we would sometimes try to wear the same color clothing. We all wore our blue ribbons on several occasions that we purchased from the task force group. Sometimes we engaged in behaviors such as the ones mentioned because we wanted to increase cohesion.

Stanley Gully, Dennis Devine, and David Whitney (1995) state, “researchers have frequently considered cohesion to be an important component of group process and performance.” However, the strength of the cohesion-performance relationship is ultimately determined by the nature of the task. When coordination, communication, and mutual performance among group members are necessary, cohesion and performance become strongly related. This was noticed in our group whenever we had an important decision to make or we had a lot to accomplish. The cohesion in our group made it easier to get through times such as these, because we knew that we were all in it together. We were willing to put all of our ideas and skills together in order to have higher performance.

Overall, our group became more and more cohesive as the semester progressed. We ate together, talked on the phone, hung out together, laughed, joked, and bonded, as well as accomplishing many tasks. We learnt so much about the stages of cohesion and how they progress. This was an excellent group to be a part of, and it was wonderful that we could develop so much cohesion despite the diverse backgrounds and personalities that each of us possess.

9. Mediated Interaction in our Group

KDAZ was not only interested in developing an effective way to measure group interaction of other groups. However, we thought that we could learn about group interaction by experiencing different types of interaction system within our own group. The oldest technology was the phone. Talks related to personal concerns, brainstorming, and misunderstandings arising after a meeting; are all situations where the phone has been useful. The second most used was the electronic mail. It was an idea to collect all email transfers in order to see what impact it had on decision-making. There is no proof to show this though. However, there are memories from decisions made and new issues during meetings that have been brainstormed several times before through email. There were in fact, during this semester nearly everyday email exchanged between group members. Some members emailed each other less, some up to four times a day; depending on how busy the members were.

The latest form of technology we thought only to experience. Through ICC (interaction computer conferences) it was possible to exchange messages, to discuss issues, and make decisions. One common technology that offers ICC is Yahoo.com, which can be downloaded from anywhere around the world for free. There are several factors that should be mentioned while interacting through technology. First of all, ICC is a neutral way of communicating and only offers the potential for written communication (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). Our common opinion about our first experience using ICC was that we got nothing more than a chat. It might not have an affect on task accomplishment; however, it did contribute to the cohesion of our group. Sharing a same enjoyable experience bring members together.

After some reading on GDSS (group decision support system), which refers to mediated communication facilitated by technology (Connolly, Galegher & Jessup, 1990), it was suggested to group members that we run an ICC session again using a similar arrangement to GDSS. We put together a guideline regarding how we could have a productive interaction. We considered a guideline and had an agenda before the second ICC meeting.

The crucial problem that arises was that this same day we wanted to meet at the Bernhard Center lounge and then go downstairs to conduct our second mediated group interaction. That was the plan agreed by everyone. It had to work that way because we did not yet get the chance to prepare the video meeting. It did not work, one member could not come earlier and another one did not feel well to stay at the Bernhard Center anymore. The last chance to meet before the videotaped meeting was to run our meeting completely through ICC. Surprisingly we soon saw the effect of having a clear guideline and an agenda. We brainstormed at the beginning to choose issues that we were interested to talk about the most. Then, we made the final decision on the topic we all had interests and at the same time enough knowledge about in order to all have an equal opportunity to participate well.

According to Easton and Scott, computer interaction does eliminate totally factor such as such as domination of discussion by one or more members. In addition computer interaction enhance equality for every member to participate (1996). This is a fact that does not only bring positive effects to the group. If expert members in the same field, for instance, tail the group, chances could lead mediated interaction as a tool to enhance productivity (Sosik, 1997). However, our group tends to have members with various talents at different levels. Two of our members have good skills supporting or relieving tension between members while the two others tend to be more task oriented. It leads to understand that decision made through mediated communication, without nonverbal and very little socio-emotional interaction, not corresponding to a high productivity plan. Members that tend to be more socio-emotionally talented have a hard time to brainstorm ideas that would get them into challenging work.

In essence, members will enjoy equal participation that would affect the group productivity. When there is an equal participation between members, those who participate usually less than other members will in this setting feel comfortable to bring ideas that could be great but less challenging than if the meeting would have been led face to face.

In conclusion, equality of participation brought greater satisfaction to our group. However, in a long run the satisfaction of equality slowly would pair with low productivity. This fact could lead the group to meaningful conflicts, depending how high the productivity is expected from a certain class level or from the boss.

10. Diversity in our Group

Webster’s New American Dictionary (1995) defines diversity as “a state or an instance of difference; unlikeness; multi-formity, variety, variation from right, goodness, perversity (p.759). If diversity is based on only age, culture and gender, our group is diverse. Age normally goes with experience. Dan is 25, Alexis is 22, Kanmani is 19 and Zuie is 18. On the other hand, different cultures bring about different values. Dan is from Switzerland, Alexis is from United States, Kanmani is an Indian from Malaysia and Zuie

is a Chinese Malaysian. Gender is said be one of the underlying factors of stereotyping people. There are three girls and a guy in this group.

Diversity plays a major role in workforces by affecting the performances of people in groups. Pineda & Whitehouse’s (1997) study indicated that members of different ethnic groups differ in the way they seek information or perform tasks. Fiedler’s longitudinal study showed that race differences were found to affect both member- reported team process and performance on projects among groups of college students. Stereotypically speaking, Alexis is from a country where people are more outspoken. Yet, as the group made a mistake by not listening to her that much, she became quiet. Later in the semester, after bringing the issue to the table, the group is able to bring her back in and hear what she says. Although Kanmani and Zuie is from the same country, it is not the same as Kanmani is English-educated while Zuie is Chinese-educated. Kanmani was taught to speak up and challenge issues brought up to table, which she doubts, while Zuie was taught to accept what the authority said and work hard. Despite Dan’s culture, Dan’s experiences enabled him to contribute ideas to the group. Girls are said to be more emotional and guys more tasks oriented. Despite having three girls in the group, Dan was not left out at all.

Research supports the idea that dimensions of diversity affect individual’s achievement. Evidence further shows that diversity enhances creativity, problem-solving skills and organizational flexibility. Due to the very different backgrounds and experiences, diverse groups have a broader and richer base of experience from which to approach a problem. Shaw also stated that when group members have different perspectives, the qualities of the group’s problem-solving skills are higher than non- diverse groups. Also, because of these different perceptions, diverse groups are able to analyze issues more critically. All of us in KDAZ brought really different views on the table. Our group was able to see really different perspectives and had to learn to listen to ideas that we might not have heard before. We think that it was hard to put down our own value to not block other people’s ideas and try to accept them. The ability to accept different views increase openness to new, creative and critical idea. With all those good ideas on the table, we have a variety of choices to be able to pick out the best solutions or decisions.

On the other hand, diversity reduces cohesiveness and increases miscommunication. Fiedler’s (1966) study on effects of cultural diversity on group performance indicated that culturally diverse groups reported a less pleasant atmosphere and experienced greater communications difficulties than the non-diverse groups. As Dan and Zuie did not come out from an English speaking background, thus it was hard for the group to understand each another. Without dealing with the problem properly, this turned into tension in the group, which in turn reduced cohesiveness.

As the group spent more time together, we changed diversity, which we saw as an obstacle, into a great advantage. While we were working on the project, we learnt how hard working in diverse groups can be. Now culture, age and gender are not an obstacle in our group. We see each member in our group, KDAZ, as we are able to see each individual as a unique person who is able to have their very different views and yet accept other people’s view. Diversity to us is not having the same characteristics or patterns of behavior. As we bonded, we also learnt that understanding where a person comes from is important to work in a group. It enables us to understand each member’s ideas better and each member puts an effort in adjusting to the group. Now, Dan is better understood after knowing where he came from. He has learnt to include people by listening to them talk. Zuie learnt that by speaking slowly, others would understand her better. Also, speaking up showed that she is interested in the job. Kanmani practiced her critical thinking by challenging our group to reduce groupthink. Alexis learnt to see a different side of an issue.

11. Conflict in our Group

As has been mentioned in class several times by Dr. Yelsma, “conflict is good”. And never have the members of the group KDAZ found that more true than since being in the class, and working together as a group.

To most of us, conflict can be very unpleasant, but conflict has been around since the dawn of time, and with the amount of time spent on conflict and conflict resolution, it has become a natural part of the human experience. This has been an important lesson that all of us have learnt during the space of four months.

Conflict, according to Louis Kriesberg in his book Constructive Conflict is “when two or more persons or groups manifest the belief that they have incompatible objectives” (1998, p.2). At many times throughout our four months together, we have definitely felt that we had incompatible objectives. As Shari Caudron mentioned in her article ‘Keeping Team Conflict Alive: Conflict Can Be A Good Thing’, “The premise of team-based work is that a lot of people working together can't help but achieve better results than any one person working alone. Though that's often true, the convergence of many different kinds of personalities can create friction unlike any we've seen before” (2000, p.6). This seems remarkably true for our group, due to our diverse backgrounds that bring forth a vast range of experiences, values and beliefs. All of us had similar dreams of achievement, but differed in the process of accomplishment. Added to that were the ‘little’ details that did not seem so little as we moved on - quality versus quantity, short-term results versus long-range planning, and so forth, and soon, no matter how cohesive we had become, differing points of views ruled and the struggle for control had begun.

As situations became harder to handle, some internal conflict management were utilized. We went through the phases as mentioned by Kriegsberg (as cited in Lulofs & Cahn, 2000). He contends that the process of conflict starts with an awareness of conflict. This is whereby the parties involved notice some form of disagreement of values, principles or ideas and view the situation as crucial (Kriesberg, 1998). Next, strategies and tactics are used to address the conflict in some way. In this case, the first strategy we all used was the avoidance approach (Weeks, 1992). It is the most tempting approach, as people tend to avoid the conflict all together in hopes that it will go away by itself. But as we soon found out, though it provided some temporary relief, the avoidance approach did not provide a cure. Thus, other strategies were utilized. One of the best things we were able to do was to internalize – change within ourselves. One reason why it is important to look within ourselves is to gain a better understanding of our own tendencies, patterns, and beliefs” (Weeks, 1992). Another reason why it is important would be so we are better able to put the problem at hand into proper perspectives and resolve the anger and mistrust that lies within before attempting to resolve the conflict. This way, emotional conflicts will not interfere with the conflict of issues, and therefore lead to better conflict resolution (Graham, 1990). It can be said that this seemed highly effective, as by changing out internal thought perception, we were better able to deal and resolve the conflict without causing undue stress. Of course, the language we used also helped dramatically. A way to address the conflict at hand would be to use the language of logic, emotion, and process, in order to have a greater awareness and ability to direct and control conflicting energies (Garmston, 2000).

Finally, when strategies or tactics have been used to manage the conflict at hand, it would then lead to either an escalation or de-escalation of the conflict. This is a crucial stage as it can result in conflict resolution if the parties involved are effective or further disagreement. Effective conflict management is very important at this stage as the conflict could be terminated without ever dealing with the issues at hand. Though we started off just avoiding and never dealing, we soon learnt our lesson and began to utilize various tactics to minimize, and hopefully totally abolish the conflict we had. It is believed that internalizing was the most effective strategy within this group as most of our conflict came from differences in values and beliefs, which just needed to be adapted and adjusted to the group’s synergy. When all has been said and done, we reach the fourth stage that, according to Kriegsberg, sees some termination to the conflict. The effects of this stage, or the outcome of the present conflict would then affect the way future conflicts are enacted (as cited in Lulofs & Cahn, 2000).

In his wide ranging experience, Dudley Weeks states that conflict is almost universally perceived as a negative occurrence, a “blemish on what most people expect should be the smooth operation of a well ordered life” (Weeks, 1992, p. 4). Weeks goes on to explain that conflict is neither a positive nor negative in and of itself but “an outgrowth of the diversity that characterizes our thoughts, our attitudes, our beliefs, our perceptions, and our social systems and structures” (1992, p. 7). With this in mind, conflict can bring about an open, alternative way of thinking and behaving. This was a valuable lesson that we have all learnt from our group interactions. Every one of us started off avoiding conflict, hoping against hope that things would move along smoothly. But it is important to realize that conflict promotes growth and understanding, and even better productivity.

Groups who experience neither cognitive nor emotional conflict tend to be apathetic and make decisions based on the suggestions of the leader or the group's most vocal member (Garmston, 1998). This would in turn lead to the most abhorred ‘groupthink’, something that we should avoid at all costs, as stressed by Dr. Yelsma many times.

In many cases, mismanagement of conflict has given the subject a bad name. As Lulofs and Cahn stated, “it is possible through the learning of more constructive attitudes and more positive conflict management and resolution skills to become less apprehensive about engaging in conflict and more confident of a positive outcome” (2000, p. 8).

12. Conclusion

This collective paper has been the fruit of KDAZ observing interactions of other groups. With strong background theories acquired from literature and lectures, KDAZ accomplished its goal by putting together various ways to measure group interactions. In order to let other learn about group interaction, we made a tutorial that could be helpful for future observational groups. Finally, KDAZ would like to thanks Dr. Yelsma, the Road House Group and the Superb6 for their great contribution to our learning about group interaction and the growth of our own group. It has been an interesting experience for all of us, and definitely a lesson that we will all take with us.