Group Observed: _Space Survival__ Your Name: Monica Pesci
24 September 2010
Group Communication, Section 80917
Fishbowl Worksheet
After the fishbowl exercises you should discuss the following questionswith your assigned Home group for both Fishbowl rounds. You will have been both a participant (in the Fishbowl) and an observer (out of the Fishbowl). You only need complete the worksheet for when you were an observer, but you should share your impressions as a participant with your Home group. Compare and contrast your observations with how your Fishbowl group was perceived by the observers out of the Fishbowl. You may refer to your class notes and use your text to answer the following questions.Your responses must be typed on a copy of this form, downloaded from the website. Please refer to the grading rubric below for a better understanding of what I expect for responses to the questions below.
- Did the group reach an acceptable decision or complete the task?
Yes, the group finished the task by using collaboration and accommodation in order to make decisions to satisfy all members. Kelly facilitated an environment which encouraged the group to work closely and consider the ideas of each group member.
2. What techniques for decision making (brainstorming, nominal
technique, principled negotiation) etc.) did you observe?
The group used principled negotiation to solve the problem, and this allowed them to compromise answers to their conflicts; Kelly, Sam, and Brendan were interested in why the other members would have issues with certain items that were agreed upon by the majority.
3. Name some of the different roles (task, maintance, individual)the group members adopted? Be specific in your role description. Were they positive or negative influences on the group?
The largest roles of members included Kelly, Sam, and Aman, who all took on task roles. Kelly initiated in the very beginning by jumping in and starting the discussion off. Sam was an information giver and used his knowledge of space as a common sense guide, and he was also a deviant in that he spoke up even after the other members were set on their results. Aman also was an information giver because she informed the group of certain items that would work in space and what wouldn’t, including the compass and flares. Brendan and Brian both took on a maintenance role in way, since they would occasionally harmonize the group when conflicts were too great, such as the unspoken affective conflict between Sam and Kelly over who would be the unofficial leader and also when Brendan suggested a majority rules vote instead of one person taking charge and saying “This is the one!”. No one took on an individual role in this exercise, but the roles of Sam, Kelly, Aman, Brendan, and Brian were all positive influences on the group. Brian maintained peace in the group, where Sam, Kelly, and Aman kept the group running and used logic to make sense of the problem.
4. Who became the leader? How do you know? How was that role defined by the group?
Both Sam and Kelly were in control of the discussion for the entire time. Kelly spoke up first and kept the conversation going, and thus became an emergent leader of the group. Sam then stepped in and while still in the encounter stage of socialization, he shadowed her action of stepping up as a leader. The group simply went along with it, and there were no issues with primary or tertiary tension except for between the two unofficial leaders, most likely because no one else would voice their opposition to the roles.
5. Did you observe the stages of tension (primary, secondary, tertiary)? Examples?
As previously mentioned, there was tension between the group members. No one would begin to speak until Kelly did, with awkward primary tension immediately starting off the discussion. Primary tension arose between Sam and Kelly as Sam began to speak up once Kelly started to take on the role as leader. This also was tertiary tension because if one made a statement, the other would then need to voice their opinions and see how the group felt on the matter. Secondary tension arose between Sam and Aman when they argued over whether to take food or other items, with Sam assuming it wouldn’t take much time and not too much food would be necessary. During the argument, Aman participated in active listening and listened to Sam’s position on the subject, whereas Sam began to get frustrated and responded defensively, seemingly thinking she wasn’t recognizing his view.
6. What communication behaviors (paraphrasing, pseudo-listening, mind assult, assuming meaning, silent arguing) did you observe? Example
Serge began to sidetrack the conversation, and even focused on irrelevancies when the group was still deciding on what items were more important than others. Sam focused on irrelevancies as well, running through hypothetical situations that the astronauts may or may not be in, which was applicable at first, but then became a stretch. Kelly would paraphrase in order to make sure she had the basic points of another perspective instead of not practicing good listening skills. There were not any other behaviors that I could observe from my position on the outside of the group.
7.Did you observe the group work as a system? Name some of the following:
a. Inputs:
Both Kelly and Sam had the personalities of leaders and were somewhat educated on the subject of space and of what materials would or would not be useful. There was a short amount of time for a group process in group communication to work in full, and it was clear that they were pressed for time in the way they negotiated. As far as the environment goes, the members were under pressure from everyone else literally surrounding them and watching how they were working.
b. Throughputs:
Most of the group members remained quiet throughout the discussion; Samantha, Tanner, Eisha, Chris, and Alana hardly ever spoke (if at all). The leaders were looking to get the other members involved, however it came down to them not being willing to share their opinions. Norms within the group were presented by the participating members voicing their opposition to certain decisions and ideas of the others, and no one took complete control over the group. Emergent leaders Sam and Kelly shared a great majority of the influence over the group.
c. Outputs:
The group came up with a final decision through collaboration, compromise and accommodation. Overall, the members were more cohesive than they had been at the beginning of the discussion because they resolved conflicts and were able to work together well. Not everyone agreed completely with the final outcome, however no one seemed overly upset on the compromised result.
8. Was there any evidence or symptoms of “groupthink?” How do you know?
Groupthink did play a role in the group when everyone automatically assumed the life-raft was not important at all after one person mentioned it was pointless without water in space, however no one bothered to consider that it could be shelter or even the tank from it could be used and the rest discarded of. This may have occurred because of their interdependence and the lack of cohesiveness in the very beginning of the discussion.
9. What techniques (accomadation, avoidance, competition, compromise, collaboration) did the group use to manage conflict? Examples?
The group definitely used collaboration in their problem solving by using active listening to communicate differing perspectives and then discussing what to do next. This happened while they were deciding on whether or not dehydrated milk was excess food or if it was just as important as the food concentrate. Everyone compromised while disagreeing over the usefulness of the portable heating unit, and they simply placed it below an item that everyone had agreed was important (the parachute silk). The non-active members (Bill and Sandy) used avoidance by not saying anything, and everyone accommodated when they decided the self-inflating life raft was definitely the most unimportant, because everyone agreed, unlike with all other items. Accommodating and avoidance didn’t help them in their principled negotiation or the formation of the group climate as being open; without knowing the other people’s positions or having them be represented properly, it is difficult to respect the member as a participant.
10. Should the group have done anything different to facilitate a better outcome? If so, what?
If more talk had occurred during disagreements, more people may have stepped in, but the group would accommodate after a minute or two of talking about specific items, such as the necessity of water over food. Their accommodation may have been the cause of several members especially Bill and Sandy not participating, and they may have suffered grouphate from their opinions not being valued as they should be in weighing them against the other opinions. Overall, they came up with a final solution, which was pretty good, but some members were not completely satisfied with that output.
Student uses at least 2 terms or concepts (not just convenient repeats of the terms used in the question, think it through!) from the text in each response / 5
Each response uses the names of those individuals displaying the behaviors / 5
Student demonstrates clear understanding and application of terms used / 10