Group Dynamics

If you have to work with someone... you might as well get to know a little bit about them! The way group members interact with one another can vastly sway the outcome of the groups project. Will ice breakers increase the effectiveness of the group? No matter what you do, someone will most likely become, in some form or another, the leader of the group. What can the leader do to make the group successful.
I agree with Tuckman and his stages of group development, but even he knew there are always changes, which is why it took him 10 years to update his Dr Seuss-styled stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and the last one, Adjourning. Of course this article was last updated on 8-15-04, so I wonder if Tuckman ever thinks about changing any of them?

I like how one of the group dynamic papers broke down the roles inside the group:

                        Factors which affect members participation.

The content or task of the group- is it of interest, importance and relevance?

The physical atmosphere - is it comfortable physically, socially and psychologically?

The psychological atmosphere - is it accepting, non-threatening?

Member’s personal preoccupations - are there any distracting thoughts in their mind?

The level of interaction and discussions - is adequate information provided for everyone to understand? - is it at a level everyone understands?

Familiarity - between group members- do members know each other from before?

Everyone will fit somewhere in one of those positions, inside the group. During our exercise, what position did you have? We all had more than one position that day. I started out selecting the ingredients, then an observer, then back seat driver, then blind folded chef (I must say my egg cracking skills on the hot pan were superb! Not a single shell out of two eggs!), I helped clean up in the kitchen, while the meal was being distributed around the table.
With our exercise, we already knew who the boss was. Beth is the one who set the rules. Who selected the ingredients; who set the tables; who was in the clean-up crew. No matter how we guided the "chef," Beth always changed the rules, and we had to adapt, no matter what. As the boss, she sets the rules and routines. We just have to abide by them. After she chose an efficiency expert, we had to deal with two bosses, with two separate agendas. Beth wants the product out, Cabana wanted it done efficiently.

Cabana started out great by having everyone wash their hands. That was one thing that we all did at the beginning of our turn as the chef. Beth wanted to know when the product would be done, Cabana gave her specific times that each process would be done, and for the most part, we were able to stick with them. After that point though, I'm not real sure what happened to efficiency. During the exercise, usually only two of the three "guides" would speak at any given time. One person would usually remain quite, especially when it came to actually using the stove. The addition of the heated pan, made the room grow a little more tense. People broke out their phones, whether it was to tape someone burn themselves or watch the team succeed, who knows.

In the end, the eggs were edible, but not by much. If two people could have steered the Chef, I believe that things could have been a little bit better, but Beth had those other plans for us, I think the experiment served its purpose, A project is only as strong as the group. I think that there are always room for improvement? Without diceting the exercise, you wouldn't be able to really understand the true group dynamics and how you could tweak the group and make it stronger.