Maintaining Efficiency in Groups

            While individual achievements are often welcome in various projects, there are instances where the work done will be more effective if it is conducted by individuals working together in a group. While groups may have they challenges, they stand to achieve great results if they manage to overcome the challenges faced. Groups offer advantages especially because there is more than one person tackling the issue being addressed. This means that there will be more people trying to resolve any issue that may arise by providing more than one method to accomplish the group’s goals. The members can present their ideas and suggestions on the best approach to take and then all the members can decide on the best possible approach to take, a decision that may save time, make the process easier and more effective. For this reasons and others, we decided to work as a group of three to address the importance of logistic management to Hi-Beau Company.

            At present, the group is in the performing stage of development. In relation to Bruce Tuckman’s developmental sequence for groups, our group is in the performing stage of the five stages of group development (Hammersley & Reid, 2014). The realization was made after careful evaluation of the progress that has been made since the group was formed to the point it is at now. In the forming stage, the members came together with the common goal of discussing the importance of logistics management for the company. During this time, the members were polite to each other and often spoke politely when discussing issues concerning the group and the task ahead. All the members present were positive and looked forward to working together in order to accomplish the task that had led to the formation of the group.

            After formation, the group entered the second stage which is the Storming phase (Hammersley & Reid, 2014). This stage came with its challenges because the team members had not yet learnt to function as a unit. Even though the group had a common goal, the members had different approaches on how to tackle the issue at hand. Each believed that his approach was most suited and that the rest should follow the others lead. Members also had different working styles which created more conflict. Some members were thorough and wanted to exploit all option before drawing conclusions and this would consume a lot of time. Eventually, the group got to the Norming stage and members slowly begun to cooperate with one another (Hammersley & Reid, 2014). Instead of pushing for an individual’s approach, the members learnt to identify each other’s strengths and used them to eliminate any weaknesses in the group. Members had become more acquainted with each other and this made it easier to approach other members for help. The group finally got to the Performing stage where discussions were conducted smoothly and members conducted their roles well enabling us to accomplish the goals set in the formation stage.

            Due to the size of the group, we decided that there was no need to select one member as a leader but rather be respectful of each other and do all that was required of each member in the group. To enhance efficiency and the success of the group, each member had a role to play. Group member 1 was responsible for scheduling the day and time that the group was supposed to meet. He was also responsible for informing the members a day prior to the meetings. Group member 2 was responsible for securing a venue for the group to meet and ensuring that all the material needed was available. Group member 3 was responsible for taking notes and recording the progress of the group and the conclusions drawn for each session. While each member had a role to play, the members often helped each other and this played a major role in enhancing the effectiveness of the group.

            The group also had a set of norms which were put in place to ensure that every member was satisfied. It was agreed upon that the meetings would start and end on time; that members could talk without being interrupted; that all opinions would be respected and considered; that members ought to respect each other; and that any concerns will be addressed effectively and without bias. These norms ensured that the group remained functional and that members were comfortable (Brushy Fork Institute, 2014). Due to the size of the group and the set group norms, there was no conformity issues faced in the group. Members not only felt respected in the group but also felt free to give their opinions. Since the members were given equal chances to share ideas, there was no pressure to give in to conform to the direction the group took. All the members were given equal status and therefore equal influence on the direction the group would take. This enhanced the group’s cohesion, making it more effective and efficient because every member’s strengths were exploited and put to good use.

            When it comes to decision making, the group mainly relies on the brainstorming technique as it is both efficient and effective. The group members engage in free association where each member generates their own ideas on how to approach the tasks that the group was set to accomplish. These ideas are noted down and later on compiled and displayed in a manner that is visible to all members of the group. Brainstorming is efficient because it leads to the generation of a number of ideas that, to some extent, may be able to meet the group’s goals. It is effective in that out of all the ideas generated, there will be one or more that will be the most creative, unique and most suitable for accomplishing the task the group is trying to solve. This makes it ideal for the group because it offers the best results and will lead to successful satisfaction of the group’s goals (Hwang & Lin, 2012).

            In the process of working together as a group, the most common problem that kept arising was the process conflict. We had some trouble as disagreements kept coming up in regards to who was responsible for certain tasks and what role they played in achieving the main goal. Lack of a leader meant that there was no one responsible for assigning tasks and this led to the process conflict (O’Connell & Cuthbertson, 2009). To address this issue, we decided to assign specific tasks to each group member so that each knew the role they played in accomplishing the overall goal. This helped to resolve the conflict and the group was able to perform well and accomplish its goals in due time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Brushy Fork Institute, (2014) “Establishing group norms” Berea, KY

Hammersley R and Reid M, (2014) “Communicating successfully in groups: A practical guide     for the workplace” Routledge

Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M.-J. (1987). Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria: Methods     and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

O'Connell, T. S., & Cuthbertson, B. (2009). Group dynamics in recreation and leisure: Creating conscious groups through an experiential approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.