Clarity of the Intent of the Discussion
The discussion was clear parse since all members in the group participated as per the topic under consideration. In that connection, it was clear that members were in a position to make viable decisions and feasible judgment as outcome of the discussion.
Preparedness of Group Members
Majority of group members were fully equipped with ideas in the discussion. They articulated ideas effectively and comprehensively (Thomas & Harker, 2009). They were fully prepared through prior research on the issues under consideration. However, a small portion was not fully prepared and kept asking questions for clarification.
Mode of Participation
Members did not participate equally in the discussion. This could be noted through ideas articulated by group members. The members who prepared in advance by formulation prior research participated fully. Their ideas were comprehensive and articulate (Trenholm & Jensen, 2013). They dominated much of discussion. Other group members would only try to comprehend what was been deliberated.
Group Members’ Points of View
Group members were not open to similar points of view. This was based on the level of preparedness. Members loaded with ideas would be looked upon by other members on the way forward. Less informed members would only agree on what informed members deliberated.
Overall Climate of the Discussion
The climate of the discussion was moderate. This was facilitated by group leader who put every member on track throughout the discussion. The leader would challenge members to offer concrete ideas. He also controlled members when the discussion went out of hand.
Group Productivity on the Discussion
The group was very productive in the discussion. Through rigorous analysis of strategies and ideas contributed by members, the group managed to achieve goals and objectives (Wood, 2015). Although members had disagreement in the course of the discussion, the group managed to reach a win-win situation at the end. All these activities were achieved within the recommended timelines. This demonstrated ability to use time effectively and efficiently.
Strategies for Future Discussion
I would ensure full participation of group members through sequential presentation strategy. This is where each member is allocated time to present his views. Other members listen, ask questions and reach a conclusion. This strategy will make all members active throughout the discussion hence increasing productivity and outcome per member.
Future Approach to Increase Group Cohesion
I would use subjective approach to make members own the discussion. They will realize the importance of having a discussion so as to deliberate issues at hand. Apart from group leader, all other group members must retain status quo so as to promote group cohesion (Rothfuss, 2008). Therefore, they will suggest ideas without fear of criticism, victimization and stigmatization.
Video Analysis-“Planning a Playground.”
Issues in the Meeting
The members in this group came from the surrounding community where some were familiar while other were peculiar. They had several issues that were subjected to planning a playground. The first issue was to determine the budget. This was important so as to have ideas on what they were really looking for. Some had done prior research on the approximate amount for the playground. For instance, Aisha had conducted a prior research on the previous budget to purchase a playground.
According to Aisha, the playground ranged from 5,000 to 50,000. The members discussed on whether to set a higher amount or lower amount from a baseline of 35,000. After constructive discussion, they agreed to set a budget target of 35,000. The next issue in the discussion was on how to raise the budget. David requested members to provide ideas on how to raise the target of 35,000. It was clear that some members were experienced in such events (Keyton, 2002). According to Phil, it was possible to sell bake cakes as a way of gathering the target. Phil had done the same action in a previous fundraising. It was successful. Again, David and Aisha suggested on foundations to raise the remaining amount.
What did they do well as a Group?
It was absolutely true that the member in the group did excellent work together. First, none of the member demonstrated unnecessary contribution towards planning playing ground. They consulted each other so as to come up with comprehensive ideas (Keyton, 2005). Their agreed on the target through provision of ideas that were backed up with rigid explanations. The target of 35,000 was agreed unanimously. They also did well as a group by suggesting on all possible strategies to raise the target.
Constructive and Deconstructive Conflict in the Group
Constructive conflict arose when determining the budget for the playground. According to Aisha, a playground would cost the group between 5,000 and 50,000. Aisha, suggested a middle figure of 35,000 as the minimum amount. The same idea was supported by Ray. However, conflict arose when Phil suggested a figure below 35,000. David had to intervene by explaining the importance of setting a higher target. Members finally agreed.
On the other hand, deconstructive conflict arose when suggesting strategies to raise the targeted budget. Some members demonstrated having previous experience on such situations (Laura, 2010). When Phil suggested on sale of bake cakes, Ray said it was a good idea but would not raise the required amount. Phil felt the idea of selling bake cakes inappropriate thus creating deconstructive conflict. The conflict style in the group discussion was based on counter attack conflict where a member suggested an idea and other members agreed or disagreed.
How to Handle the Situation Differently
Considering that the main purpose was to plan on playground in terms of budget and strategies to raise the target, I would hold two discussions, the first discussion with members of the group would review the main focus (Richard, 2013). Then I would tell members to research and write a proposal on strategies applicable for the playground. In the next discussion, members would submit their proposal. In the discussion, we would compare the proposals and determine on appropriate approach based on those proposals.
Video Analysis-“The Politics of Sociology.”
Issues in the Meeting
The meeting tried to liberate issues on which curriculum to be followed. Some members in the meeting were suggesting elimination of some courses from the curriculum. Others were clinging on the idea of adding more course in the curriculum. The discussion in the meeting took a different direction when members started raising reasons on either to eliminate or add some courses in the curriculum.
The other issue was based on how course could attract members. Sociology of time was one of the courses the members suggested to be added in the curriculum. According to Steve, he urged the members to decide on which courses to be added and eliminated from the curriculum. He said it was important to attract new members by making the curriculum stronger (Bob & Dismondy, 2010). This would be achieved by considering a bigger picture on which courses to be added or eliminated.
What did they do well as a Group?
The members in the meeting were raising ideas that were supported by rigid facts. As a group, they did well by having a comprehensive discussion on which courses to be added or eliminated from the curriculum. Every reason to eliminate or add a course was backed up by a genuine reason (Grummit, 2007). Thus, the members were raising ideas so as to strengthen their curriculum. It was a good indicator that the group took the curriculum with a lot of consideration so as to add relevant and educative courses. The platform would as well enable them to determine the courses that would be eliminated due to lack of attraction to students.
Type of Conflict in the Video
There are two types of conflict that can be drawn from the video. First, we consider constructive conflict. This is based on ideological differences and opinions of members though either way the ideas seemed valid (Beebe, 2007). For example, some members wanted some courses to be added while other wanted some courses to be eliminated. For example, Trevor was on the idea of retain sociology of time but the Teacher was on the idea to allow the course to evolve to something else that would attract other people in the curriculum.
Again, deconstructive conflict was also demonstrated in the meeting. Some members were really dominating the meeting with static ideas. They could not accommodate ideas from other members. For example, Ellen told Trevor to stop living in the past because he was too rigid to his ideas. At that moment, Trevor demonstrated deconstructive conflict by arguing members to uphold integrity of individual’s position.
A Clear Leader in the Video and what do to better the Group
Georgia was a clear leader. He demonstrated this aspect by arguing members to reach a conclusion without having unnecessary arguments (Adams & Galanes, 2014). Georgia would improve the group by controlling members who wanted to use authoritative approach to determine which courses to be added or eliminated. Moderation is key in a discussion.
How to Handle the Situation Differently
To avoid the conflict in sociology politics, I would hold two meetings. The first meeting would involve notifying the members on the issues at stake. Then, members would do research on which courses to be enrolled in the curriculum. In the next meeting, members would vote on courses to be enrolled. Based on majority vote, the decisions would be made to avoid conflict and unnecessary arguments.
References
Adams, K.L. & Galanes, G.J. (2014). Communicating in Groups: Application and Skills. McGraw-Hill Education.
Beebe, S.A. (2007). Communicating in Small Groups: Principles and Practices. Pearson.
Bob, S. & Dismondy, M. (2010). The Juice Box Bully: Empowering Kids to Stand Up for Others. Early Learning Foundation.
Grummit, A. (2007). Capacity Management. Van Haren Publishing
Keyton, J. (2002). Communicating in Groups: Building Relationships for Effective Decision Making. Mayfield Pub Co.
Keyton, J. (2005). Communicating in Groups: Building Relationships for Group Effectiveness. Oxford University Press.
Thomas, P. & Harker, L. (2009). Stop Picking On Me (A First Look At Bullying). Barron’s Education Series.
Trenholm, S. &Jensen, A. (2013). Interpersonal Communication. Oxford University Press.
Wood, J.T. (2015). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. Wadsworth Publishing
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download