Group Process Journal Analysis and Summary

I. INTRODUCTION

This article is going to summarize and analyze my group process journal, the record of observations and experiences from my viewpoint of our project group for the course of Group Transactions. Summary and Analysis of the journal provide me with opportunities to examine, both theoretically and experientially, the development of our project group as it formed, confronted and attempted to resolve conflicts, evolved from shared leadership among group members to dependence on the group leader, and worked productively over the entire three weeks of the group’s life. By looking back over a series of interpersonal and group dynamics, the process of our group becomes clear, and my understanding of theories and concepts of small group communication is enhanced.

II. GROUP PROCESS OVERVIEW

According theories of group development that considers how groups as a whole change across their full life span, groups as a whole change systematically over time (Arrow, Poole, Henry, Wheelan, & Moreland, 2004). Tuckman maintained that group development follows four fairly predictable stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 74). Though I think our group did not follow this pattern exactly, I can detect that our group passed through several important stages as follows over its three-week lifetime:
First, our group began with an orientation stage. In this initial stage, since group members had not met each other long enough for norms to develop, we just attempted to identify behaviors acceptable to others. In our first group meeting that could be characterized by anxiety and uncertainty, we discussed a very important issue: What topic should we choose for our presentation? I actively proposed three themes: culture, creativity, and meeting. We decided to concentrate on the culture because our group was obviously an intercultural one and we could share many aspects of intercultural experiences. But culture is a general topic, how could we narrow it down and build relations between culture and small group? We had not discussed this question deeply before the first meeting was over because most members spoke softly and tentatively and hesitated to speak about what we should achieve and how.
Second, during the following few days, our group passed through the conflict stage in which group members dealt with issues of power, roles, and cultural conflicts. In this stage, we narrowed down our topic as the Intercultural communication in small groups. We also discussed which theories and what kinds of media we should use. In this process, certain group members began to show more power than others.
Third, after the short conflict stage, our group moved to a stage devoted to the development of trust and characterized by more mature and open negotiations regarding group structure, goals, and the division of labor. At the beginning of this stage, we made an initial schedule and decided to meet more time after class. Furthermore, we made out an outline to visualize what the complete project would look like. We also began to assess group members’ knowledge and identified who was most interested in each specific aspect of the topic. Then we distributed concrete tasks to every member.
Fourth, as group and member identity solidified, the group moved into a stage in which task orientation was high and ideas and feedback were exchanged openly. This stage was marked by energetic collective work focused on reaching group goals. We first worked on our own tasks individually at the weekend. Then we put them together and finished the whole PowerPoint presentation and dispatched the slides to everyone. We rehearsed the whole process of our presentation until the day before the date we gave the presentation. Finally, we delivered a good presentation.
Fifth, the group experienced a termination stage, which evoked the expression of positive feelings. After the presentation, we said “thank you” to each other and expressed such kind of meaning through e-mail to all: “I really enjoyed working together with you.”
Furthermore, the oldest and simplest cycle model proposes that groups swing between focusing primarily on the task to focusing on socioemotional matters that preserve group solidarity (Bales, 1950). This rhythm continued for the life of our group.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS

1. How were our group formed?
Before the group formation, I ever thought we would form groups by ourselves. However, under the instructor’s direction, four groups were formed by lot. Our group comprised three multigenerational Canadians (Theresa, Gaetano and Christine), a new immigrant (Tina) and an international student (Jane). Now I think the instructor’s way to compose groups is right. “Research on classroom groups found that by a nearly two-to-one margin, students reported that their worst experiences occurred in groups they had formed themselves” because “our tendency to be attracted to people like ourselves may result in a group that is too homogenous to approach a complex task effectively” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 69).
2. How did we manage group relationships?
It is generally the case that establishing good interpersonal relationships in working groups is the first step to group success. Our experience also demonstrated that good working relationships help a group be more productive in the long run. During the three weeks, we took lots of time to establish trusting relationship and to improve group cohesiveness. Finally, we developed mutual respect and became a cohesive group. From a relational point of view, we succeeded.
In reflecting of the communications in our group, I realize that self-disclosure is really a useful way to improve relationships in groups. Before focusing on the task, we introduced ourselves briefly and reviewed information such as name, hometown, and occupation. This kind of self-disclosure is vital to minimize the primary tensions (anxiety and tension that occur when a group first meets and members feel awkward and uncertain how to behave in the group (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 360)). Running through the spring term, everyone in our group provided a large amount of self-disclosure about our biographical information, unique experiences, families, personal attitudes and ideas, and private feelings and concerns. The more we shared, the more we became comfortable with one another, the more we trusted each other, and the more the group became cohesive and productive.
Another important way to establish and maintain trusting relationships in our group was creating symbolic convergence. According to the symbolic convergence theory, a group develops a unique identity and feeling of cohesiveness through the sharing of fantasies or stories that are often chained together and have a common theme (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 126). The following example may help illustrate this point. In the second stage, when we tried to narrow down the topic, group members held different opinions. I observed secondary tensions (conflict among group members, over group norms, roles, and differences of opinion (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 361)) emerged in our group. At this time, sharing stories played an important role in managing the secondary tensions. Through sharing stories about our personal intercultural experience, we not only reached consensus on the issue but also experienced relational satisfaction.
3. How did we handle the cultural diversity?
As mentioned above, a host of multinational cultures were represented in our group. Culturally diverse groups often have difficulty establishing satisfactory norms because of differences in cultural expectations. Such groups require extra effort in group building and maintenance (Nagar, 2005). In our group, we adopted the norms framed by the dominant Canadian culture in which we operated and what we have learned in former similar groups. In a newly forming intercultural group, “there are a number of shared cultural assumptions about group life that ease the process of formation, and enable the group to work ”(Smith & Berg, 1997). In addition, according to the structuration theory, groups create a number of their own constrains and capacities, at times quite inadvertently. It suggests that people develop norms in new groups to structure their behavior based on those of previous similar groups they participated (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 49).
Homogeneous groups (members who hold similar or comparable views, ideas, values, and orientations) may have an easier time in the forming stage and the storming stage, but a more difficult time in the norming stage and the performing stage where diversity of opinion is an asset. Conversely, heterogeneous groups (members who hold diversified or disparate views, ideas, values, and orientations) may have a more difficult time and may get stuck in the forming and storming stages, but a less difficult time in the norming and performing stages (Kass, 1996, pp. 69-70). In retrospect, I feel that as a heterogeneous group, we had more trouble at the outset because the cultural diversity presented real challenges to our group development. Apart from an obvious difference such as language, the different cultures of the individuals significantly impacted the act of communication both in terms of its transmission and its reception. We used a cooperative approach to manage our cultural conflict: learning how to study together and discovering member's unique cultural contributions. The solutions of the case study we talked about in our presentation, such as being flexible, avoiding stereotyping and making negative judgments, and reducing uncertainty by asking questions, could be observed in our group dynamics. Through these efforts, we did manage this kind of polarity well over time. We all gradually developed an awareness of cultural differences and handled them properly. Our group became more and more productive and everyone in our group provided a real strength.
4. How did we deal with status, power and roles?
Status differences in our group were not clear across the group’s full life span. In the first stage, roles were ambiguously defined and group members were not familiar with their roles. Since the second stage, group members started to explore a variety of possible roles. For example, Theresa performed roles of opinion seeker/giver, coordinator, encourager and harmonizer; Gaetano played information giver and elaborator roles; Tina acted as information seeker/giver and encourager; Christine acted as procedural technician and self-confessor; my role in the group focused on initiator-contributor and evaluator-critic. I detected that some showed task leadership behaviors, such as initiating and coordinating; some showed process leadership behaviors, such as mediating and encouraging. It reveals the functional leadership perspective that leadership is a set of behaviors that may be enacted by any group member (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 325). At the same time, I noticed that certain group members began to show more power than others. Especially, the senior in our group, Theresa, began to show the referent power (the power of interpersonal attraction) and the expert power (the influence someone has over others because of greater knowledge and information) (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 361). She was well liked in the group and could provide helpful information and expertise to others, which made her possess the ability to get other members conform to her opinions. She offered praise, encouragement and understanding to us and mediated disagreements among group members. Even though everyone exerted influence more or less in our group during the whole process, I think that our group evolved from shared leadership among all group members to dependence on one group leader after the second stage. As a participating leader (a leader who is driven primarily by concern for relationships and a need for all group members to share in decision making (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 324)), Theresa played an active role in supporting group communication, collaboration and coordination.
5. How did we manage group tasks?
1) Sharing information by using cyberspace. Groups that have less information are less likely to arrive at a better solution or outcome. “Structuration theory provides a general framework that explains how people structure their groups by making active use of resources” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 49). It reminds that we can use available resources more effectively to achieve goals. In addition, functional theories explain how communication functions to help group accomplish tasks and review procedures to maximize group effectiveness. Group can use computer and Internet to enhance their interaction by expending opportunities for communication beyond the walls of the meeting room (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 52). In order to pool our information and ideas as early as possible in the process, we not only encouraged every member to present information and ideas in the face-to-face meetings but also used electronic resources such as e-mail and WebCT to share all kinds of information related to the group project. In the three weeks, we posted 11 messages on WebCT, and I received 13 e-mails from other group members altogether. I found that it was very useful to first share our initial research findings and ideas via Internet, which allowed plenty of time for group members to review others’ suggestions and contributions before group discussions instead of just compiling the facts and data before we make final recommendations, thus developed high-quality decisions and solutions.
2) Making decisions and solving problems. According to Hirokawa’s functional theory on group decision-making, there are four steps for effective decision-making: a) Groups first begin by identifying and assessing a problem; b) Groups then gather and evaluate information about the problem; c) Next, groups generate alternative proposals and discuss objectives to be accomplished; d) Finally, objectives and alternatives are evaluated in order to reach consensus (Hirokawa, Gouran, Julian, & Leatham, 1993). In most of our decision-making processes, we followed this pattern. For instance, when making the decision about the case study, we first discussed whether a case study was necessary to our presentation and what kind of case study we should use; then, we began to search and collect related information of the issue at hand; third, we considered alternative proposals for the case study; finally, we moved to a discussion of the alternatives based on our situation, assessed the positive and negative implications of each alternative, and then converged on one option.
As for the decision-making method, our group usually made decisions by consensus. But I do not think we always reached true consensus. “A group may suffer from groupthink if its members consider themselves highly cohesive and take pride in getting along so well with one another and providing support and encouragement for members’ ideas (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 186).” Sometime this was the case in our group. After the conflict stage, we became a group of pacifists, who enjoyed the harmony prevailing at our meetings. We sometimes just appeared to reach consensus and did not pay much attention to the phenomenon of groupthink. For example, after negotiated with every group members, we decided to meet at 8:30 o’clock on one holiday’s morning. However, when I chatted with one of group members, we complained: “Why they were so excited about meeting so early?” and “I want to have a good rest on holiday.” I also think this phenomenon confirm the concept of the spiral of silence, which suggests that individuals remain quiet when they do not think their opinion is popular (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p. 290). Though this theory is mainly focus on the effects of mass media on public opinion, I think the spiral of silence also occurs in small groups. When we attempted to avoid isolation, we did not respond hypersensitively to such kind of trivialities.
In addition, we adopted a functional problem-solving approach, which assumes that to achieve a group goal, group members must perform certain activities or communication functions (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 358). For example, during the whole group process, our group tried to overcome all kinds of barriers to satisfy task requirements and maximize group effectiveness. We conducted research and gathered information about our topic, made thoughtful comments relevant to the topic under discussion, and listened to and evaluated the opinions of every group member. All of these functions were essential to accomplish the task.
6. How can we improve our performance?
1) We should develop clear ground rules. As talked above, though we adopted the norms based on shared cultural assumptions and what we learned in other groups, we did not have enough discussions about the rules for our group. So these norm expectations only provided skeletal guidance for our behaviors. We did not know “how long should our meetings last?” and “who is going to organize the agenda for our meetings?” We should establish explicit ground rules to help us stay organized and get our work done.
2) We need spend more time on planning before leaping into action. In line with research results, groups that do plan ahead tend to perform better (Harper & Askling, 1980; Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996). Though we set an initial agenda after the conflict stage, we did not follow it strictly. We did not develop a structured plan or action chart to accomplish the task. We should give ourselves interim deadlines when each step should be finished and who will do what by a specific date.

IV. MY PERSONAL LEARNING PROCESS

My personal learning objective that I would like to concentrate on with the project group is to apply group theories and concepts from the course into group interactions, to gain a practical understanding of them, and to improve my communication skills and performance in multinational/multicultural groups. My experience and acquirements have been partially reflected in Section II and Section
III. In the following part I would like to present some supplements of my acquirements.
1. I acquired some new communication skills
Speaking: Chinese culture encourages self-effacement, whose impact is that most of Chinese are not used to speak up in front of others. If no one is asking, then we’d rather keep silent. But in the new cultural setting of our group, it would be unfair to others when they contribute to the group while I keep silent almost all the time. Also, I understood that increasing my level of activity in the group could increase my power and influence. Thus, I tried to express my opinions, wishes and concerns actively during group meetings. For example, when I was aware that our group was suffering from groupthink, I tried to play the role of devil’s advocate by voicing objections and potential problems after considering the negative aspects of a suggestion. I also found that withholding ideas and suggestions might lead to groupthink. So I tried my best to express my thoughts and feelings honestly. I feel that I made many efforts to save the group from groupthink and helped us reach genuine consensus. In this process, I learned many skills about how to make a meaningful, informed contribution to a group and how to provide frequent and thorough feedback on the contributions of other group members.
Actively listening: Though Chinese culture encourages people to listening instead of speaking, we usually think of a speaker actively conveying a message and a listener passively receiving it. In this learning process, I realized that listening is an active process and active listening skills are important for me in a multicultural group setting, even when I believe I have heard and understood the received information. So, I made great efforts to cultivate the skill of interpreting the message according to the sender’s code system rather than my own and tried to make sense of both the speaker's words and feelings by considering his or her nonverbal cues (gestures, tone of voice, and facial expressions, and the circumstances), asking appropriate questions, and paraphrasing his or her content and feelings. Now, as an active listener, I also can help create meaning during the communication process.
2. This experience enhanced my understanding of cultural differences
In distilling the whole process, I found a basic principle very useful to help me work effectively in a culturally diverse setting: Take cultural differences into account and check assumptions when interacting with people from other cultures. People from different cultures carry out transactions differently. Adler described three cross-cultural communications barriers: a) cross-cultural misperception—learned, selective, culturally determined perceptual patterns; b) cross-cultural misinterpretations—categorizing situations from your own country's perspective and applying it to others; and (c) cross-cultural misevaluation—using your own culture as a standard of measure or selfreference criteria to judge another (as cited by Appelbaum, Shapiro, & Elbaz, 1998). At the beginning, I was really inhibited by cross-cultural communications barriers located above. I assumed my way of organizing work is the 'normal' and best one and bothered to understand of the cultural attitudes and behavior of others. For example, when we discussed the outline, I was dealing with an emotional obstacle in accepting the inclination of the three Canadian group members to approach problems in a linear fashion. Because of my Chinese cultural conditioning towards monochronic time use and expectations, I thought it would be more comfortable and efficient to work on multiple tasks simultaneously. I started to think how to work with people who did things in such a strange way. After talking with Tina and other group members about my feeling, I did get a much better understanding of this problem. I realized that Canada ranked very high on the monochronic index. So applying this to our group, they had a strong tendency to work on a single task at a time. After that, I became sensitive to the culture of others and sought to understand others before forcing my ideas and opinions on them.
As for the next steps in my learning process, I am going to continue practicing the four steps to handle cross-cultural differences addressed by Pooley as follows: First, identify and be aware of what constitutes 'normal' behavior for me; Second, understand the factors that have determined what my counterparts in different countries regard as the norm. Third, know how people from other cultures perceive my own culture. Fourth, learn to adapt, while remaining true to my own values (Pooley, 2005). I would, and frequently should, make a conscious effort, in a non-patronising fashion, to alter my communication styles when working in a culturally diverse setting.

V. CONCLUSION

Take a stroll back I feel that free and open communication was the foundation of building our group as a highly cohesive and productive one. In our group, communication distributed equally among group members. We always used supportive rather than defensive communication style and conforming rather than disconforming responses. We exchanged message openly and thoughtfully in both physical and virtual environments. Through communication, we expressed affection, revealed similarities and differences, negotiated group roles, and resolved conflicts. Through communication, group members performed key functions that enhanced group problem-solving and decision-making. In short, through communication, individual needs were met and tasks were accomplished.

VI. REFERENCE

Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2004). The temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research, 35, 73-105.
Appelbaum, S., Shapiro, B. & Elbaz, D. (1998). The management of multicultural group conflict. Team Performance Management, 4, 211-234.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-495.
Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2005). Communicating in small groups: principles and practices. New York: Longman.
Harper, N. L., & Askling, L. R. (1980). Group communication and quality of task solution in a media production organization. Communication Monographs, 47, 77-100.
Hirokawa, R. Y., Gouran, D. S., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1993). The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: A critical analysis. Communication Yearbook, 16, 589-612.
Kass, R. (1996). Theories of small group development. Montreal: Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, Concordia University.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication (8th edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Nagar, B. (2005). Reflecting on cultural considerations for team development in major urban settings. Organization Development Journal, 23, 17-25.
Pooley, R. (2005). When cultures collide. Management Services, 49, 28-31
Smith, K. & Berg D. (1997). Cross-cultural groups at work. European Management Journal, 15(1), 8-15.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Social cognition research in small groups (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.