Although the communication between the members was made it was not as effective as it should have been. The body language and facial gestures whilst communicating weren’t correct. The manner in which communication was made was too laid back; there was a definite lack of ‘seriousness’ in the kinesics of the message conveyor. There wasn’t really any recognition of confirmation from the receiver, so there is no way of actually knowing whether the receiver understood the message. This was perhaps our biggest problem.
However, I found that when we communicated via phone & e-mail communication was enhanced/improved. I myself found this to be very strange but I found that by using one of these mediums for communication the receiver understood more clearly, as the work was completed. Perhaps the reason for this was the lack of distortion the group had within itself.
Also when talking to a single group member on the phone I felt that that we were interacting better. The paralanguage was more serious and definite. I found that we completed more work once we changed of medium for communication.
In the future I now know that not only is it essential to have the correct information to convey, but also the means in which we convey it is just as important, as poor communication will lead to a false perception of what has to be done.
Conformity
Whilst undertaking the group project, we (the group) had to highlight a problem/deficiency within the college and then produce a ‘learning resource’ to overcome this.
In order for us to achieve our objective we had to choose a problem and then decide on the ‘learning material’ and what medium it would take i.e. video, brochure etc.
Looking back I can’t really remember any occasion in which any member of the group questioned any idea or opinion. There was never any incident when one group member went against another’s idea.
Whilst in our groups we managed to highlight a problem/deficiency and a decision was made to do a video to highlight this.
When undertaking the group project it became clearly obvious that the medium for our project would not be suitable for what needed to be done. We all knew that we had problems meeting for the time it would take to film the video and that we would struggle to get everyone there at the same time.
The idea of a brochure was mentioned whilst brainstorming but never actually considered. However, we all went along with the video idea, and after two months of planning it was never actually done.
Looking back it was a very naïve decision made by the group. In order for us to complete our project in the allocated time we had to change the video idea to the alternative brochure/leaflet idea in the final two weeks. We managed to do this with great ease and were all able to contribute equally towards the project, with very few problems.
In hindsight I ask myself, Why did I agree to go along with the video ever if I didn’t ever think that it would materialise? I know that I originally thought the brochure/leaflet idea was the better one, so why did I hesitate and not question the decision, which was made?
I now know that I conformed too easily to the ideas of the group and I was a victim of ‘groupthink’.
“ Groupthink is the deterioration of mental efficiency, reality, testing and moral judgements that result from group pressure”
As we were put in-groups for the assignment and we didn’t really know each other very well I believe this worked against us. When we first met to brainstorm possible ideas there was an air of negativity about our first meetings. When ideas for the project medium were put forward it was very easy to conform to what the other members felt, rather than to disagree. The sanctity of the group consensus seriously needed to be questioned, but no one was brave enough at the time. All discussions were half hearted and ideas/input for improvements were minimal. There was a definite false illusion of security within the group, I remember thinking that whatever the group decided to do, would get done in the end, so it didn’t really matter. I just ‘went with the flow’ rather than against it, it was a lot easier at the time as confrontation was avoided. I thought that the idea was unanimous and that all other members wanted to do it, even if I didn’t, so I didn’t say anything.
As I have mentioned, it turned out to be a near disaster. It wasn’t until we realised the video was impossible to do did we change the alternative more sensible idea. I believe that for effective group decisions to be made the group needs to be at ease with each other, which helps to ease pressure and fear of confrontation. Not only should all possible ideas be considered, but all possible outcomes too. That way the group is totally aware of the consequences of a wrong decision. A higher level of encouragement for discussion also needs to be encouraged.
I believe that if we had taken these few steps from the beginning we would have chose the right idea in the first place.
Personality
My final experience is from my own personal life experiences in the workplace.
Whilst working at McDonalds I was constantly interacting/meeting with people. I was able to see/experience the varied perspectives and outlooks, which these people, had, and how they handled any given situation. However whilst working there, there were employees, one in particular, whose perspectives grew to be vastly different from my own.
I am going to investigate why this is so, I am going to attempt to rationalise the differences we had, and why we had them.
In order for me to try to explain, describe and identify the differences between me and my colleagues (or anyone else) I will use the concept of personality, which is the approach many previous psychologists have taken.
Personality can be defined as “ The total pattern of characteristic ways of thinking, feeling & behaving that constitute the individuals distinctive method of relating to the environment”.
We need to understand that each individual is unique and different from the next and that there are many factors, which help constitute towards the creation of ‘their’ personality.
There is an ongoing nature Vs nurture debate about whether or how far the factors of hereditary & environment influence personality. Many theorists disagree on the relative importance of each factor, and how they relate to each other.
Whilst working at McDonalds I noticed many differences between myself and this particular colleague, and our opinions on how to get things done differed drastically. Then again, when I first started there wasn’t really any disagreement between the two of us and he was teaching me how to certain things. But over time I myself had a change of opinion and changed the way I worked.
This change of perspective in the work environment supports some theorist’s views that believe that development occurs through the process of interaction with the ‘external’ environment.
According to Chris Argyris, psychologist and management writer, people will see many changes as they mature.
“An increasing tendency to activity, rather than passivity”
He believes that individuals, over time, prefer ‘doing’ rather than being ‘done to’. This is partly due to experience and growing self of sense.
I agree with him totally on this matter as when I first joined McDonalds a preferred being taught and showed how to do things by someone else. However, over time I felt more independent and secure on my learnt experience and the knowledge I had gained from my experiences.
Argyris’ view has been criticised for being too ‘one dimensional’ and riddled with value judgements i.e. a mature person is better than an immature one. However, I feel that his work helps to support my views that whatever beliefs/personality a person may have changes over time and there is nothing that we can do about this.
This brings me onto my next point, the nature argument.
If my opinion on something has changed due to personal experience, what gave me that opinion in the first place? Was it learnt from a previous experience or was I born with that perspective?
I personally believe that it is a little bit of both. I believe that a person inherits a learning capacity from their parents and that this develops over time. It is learnt experiences and perceptions on events, which help us to mould out personality. I am aware that every person is different and that people form their own opinions on life, I don’t think these are inherited.
Why is everybody different? If personalities were inherited then we would be an exact clone of our parents.
“Human beings, do not behave in, and in response to, the world as it really is…human beings behave in, and in response to, the world as they perceive it”
I think that any manager needs to be aware that every employee has different changing perspectives on life and that these perspectives change over time, there is always the possibility of a ‘personality clash’ between any two individuals.
Perrow, C, Organisational behaviour
Irving Janis, Buchanan, D, and Huzynski, A, (2001) Organisational behaviour, 4th edition
Jenkins, T, Organisational behaviour, 3rd edition, bpp publishing
Argyris, C, Business Basics, 3rd edition
Buchanan, D, and Huzynski, A, (2001) Organisational behaviour, 4th edition