In this Small Group Analysis (COMM 3220) assignment, I analyzed the characteristics of communication within a small group that I was not affiliated with. This assignment provided an opportunity to determine the strengths and weaknesses of an small group's communication.
Brian Ingram
November 24, 2008
COMM 3220
Group Analysis Paper
An Analysis of Hobgood Elementary School ESP Staff Meeting
Introduction
The group I chose to analyze is Hobgood Elementary School ESP (Extended School Program). There were 13 people present at the staff meeting: the Site Director, Assistant Site Director, Secretary, Caller, and 9 staff members. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the events and issues at hand for the month. The meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes and was very productive. It was scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m. and began on time. At the onset of the meeting, the agenda was distributed. Each of the points on the agenda was discussed in order. The Site Director facilitated the meeting. The meeting ended at 6:45 p.m.
Verbal Communication
The Site Director facilitated the entire meeting. He discussed each of the points in order. He used clear, direct, non-evasive language. He was well aware of his audience and used language appropriate for the group. He devoted an appropriate amount of time to each point with out belaboring them. The climate was very supportive and everyone seemed to be absorbing the information as it was provided. It was very apparent in this meeting that the Site Director had less communication apprehension than the staff by the quantity and quality of his talk (Chapter 4).
Non-Verbal Communication
Non-verbal communication such as: personal appearance, facial expression, vocal expression, and physical expression can often times speak louder than verbal communication (Chapter 5). It was very clear who was in charge by the seating arrangement in the meeting. The Site Director stood at the end of the table, the administrative staff (Assistant Site Director, Secretary, and Caller) sat closest to him, and all other staff members sat in the other available seats. The staff members seemed to be receptive, but uninterested in what was being discussed. Some staff members even sat in a slouched position and checked cell phone messages during the meeting.
Norms
Leaders should strive for balance of participation (Chapter 3). While that did not seem to be the case for this group, the leader being aware of his group seemed to still result in a successful meeting. The nonchalant attitudes of the staff members appear to be the norm for this group. Even though they seemed lackadaisical about the issues at hand, everyone had a positive attitude about what was going on and what was being asked of them. The values of the group were clear cut from the start until the outset of the meeting. These values are the students, their wellbeing, and the education of the students. The staff and administration both value the students.
Power
Power is the ability to influence and/or motivate others (Chapter 8). Some power is given based on position (legitimate power), while some is earned based on experience and knowledge (expert power) (Chapter 8). An example of given power would be the Site Director. He has power based on his position and the authority that comes along with it. An example of earned power would be Senior Staff Members. Senior Staff Members are staff members who have been with the organization 2 or more years (Murfreesboro City Schools Employee Handbook). They earn power because they have been around for a while and typically have learned quite a bit while being employed by the organization.
Cohesion
Group cohesion refers to the following factors: high levels of interaction, friendly/supportive communication climate, desire to conform to group expectations, the use of creative and productive approaches to achieving goals, and satisfied members (Chapter 7). The group in general seems to have good chemistry. Everyone is on the same page about operating procedures, discipline issues, and other matters relating to the students. The group does a good job of avoiding group think, just because one?s peers feels one way about a subject does not mean that everyone else has to agree. This seems to be the general attitude of the group.
Decision Making Style
Decision making style refers to: passing judgment and choosing between alternatives (Chapter 9). The group seems to use a hybrid of decision making processes based on the situation. Since each situation is different in this organization, this seems to be the best option for this group. They group seems to be most partial to using the democratic and negotiation processes when making decisions.
Sense of Group Autonomy
Group Autonomy has a lot to do with feeling ?apart? or feeling included. According to Keith Thomas, intrinsic group motivators include: a sense of meaningfulness, sense of choice, sense of competence, and a sense of progress (Chapter 11). The self-image of this group can be described as a friendly, productive work unit. Group members are effective as both independents and team players. This can all be connected back to strong leadership.
