Groups in Italy (JBIP) While in Italy, we were not assigned groups, but naturally two groups formed.

I would define what I was in as a learning group because we were going to help each other learn about Italy. Also, we started off with seven people, we communicated the goals for the day, and we were interdependent because several group members were not as social, but they were perfect with directions, so they lead and guided us through the cities; on the other hand, group members like me who were social, yet terrible with directions could form quick relationships with the Italian people and they would offer us discounts on numerous items. According to the Systems Theory, we were a system, a collection of interacting, interdependent elements working together to form a complex whole that adapts to a changing environment (Working in Groups, Wynn, pg. 5). In other words, without these functional parts of the group, one half would be lost and the other half would not communicate well with the Italians. Our common goal throughout the trip was to see as much of each city as possible before our time was over. All in all, the group worked well together, but after two weeks together, the group crashed and burned. I liked being in the group, but, as the size of the group increases, the number of possible interactions (and potential misunderstandings) increases faster (Working in Groups, Wynn, pg. 4). One of the main problems that I quickly noticed was people problems. We had all been together with the same group for two weeks and little things started to get on each others nerves, like smacking, the way people talked, the way people interacted with others, etc. In the forming stage of our group, everyone was polite, we all contacted each other for lunch and dinner times, and everything was going. The storming phase was more like a monsoon that hit the group. This phase was the worst because there were numerous conflicts that occurred. I took the role of the feeling expresser because I could feel the tension amongst the ranks, so I had to say, I Know were getting tired of each other, so lets all separate for the day. Also, the once supportive communication climate that existed quickly faded away during the first week and a half. One boy named Christian was an atheist, and we were visiting many Italian churches with several depictions of Jesus and he was getting tired of visiting the churches and the expressed defensive behavior called evaluation by making the critical statement, Im tired of seeing the stupid churches with the same artwork. This offended many Christians in the group because he was not being sensitive or respectful of others religious beliefs. This caused a huge argument, and Natalie served as the mediator/initiator and suggested solutions for both parties. She validated both parties feelings and we all agreed that neither side would make comments about religious beliefs.

I would say that Natalie arose as a leader because everyone knows and loves her and she started off as a democratic leader because she did not mind letting someone else call the shots or taking the lead. By week two, we labeled her as Mrs. Bossy Pants which is another name for an autocrat; she tried to dominate the group by always suggesting what she wanted to do first, and she would become upset when her ideas were rejected. In all groups, people want to feel a sense of inclusion, control, and affection. One of the downfalls of the group was this girl named Emma; she was a leech that always wanted to cling to Natalie, and she

can be labeled as a follower. I would describe her as an underpersonal member because she believed that no one liked her (Working in Groups, 2011, pg.50). At the same time, she could be described as overpersonal because she was too talkative at the wrong times, she was always negative, and she would always listen to others conversations so that she could butt in with an inappropriate comment; she would do anything to feel included or to start a conversation with someone. The way group dealt with Emma was by ignoring her when she spoke, giving her the simplest tasks to do, and we left her one day for dinner (exclusion) (Chapter 3 Lecture). Though this was very reminiscent of the movie Mean Girls and very juvenile behavior, I sat the group down and told them that we had to deal with Emma. Through this, I noticed that one of the group norms was to talk to everyone else about a problem and not the person that is providing the problem. This was tragic because it impeded the group dynamic and it also hurt Emmas feelings. Emma had a problem with Sarah, so Shakira and I both took the role of the encourager to help Sarah talk to Emma so that the air would be clear. Sarah and Emma talked, but the problem was still not solvedshe was still annoying. By the end of the trip, the group got up to 8 people, and it broke off to 2-3 side groups (Chapter 1 Lecture).

From this experience, I have learned that being together with seven other people for an elongated period of time is a terrible idea. Personalities flared, rude comments were thrown around, and everyone grew tired of each other. I have also noticed that I do not do well with larger groups of people while traveling. When I was with two to three other people, I was a lot happier. As a bigger group, we could have communicated our ideas better, such as talking to Emma as soon as she became a problem instead of waiting 8 days to speak to her. Also, we should have stood up to Natalie earlier because calling the shots went to her head and the group was not happy. The individual-group dialectic was unbalanced and it caused people to grow grouchy. Overall it was a fun trip, but I have learned that communication is crucial to the cohesiveness and sanity of a group.

Magic Maze The purpose of this activity was to have, participants work together to figure out the correct path through the maze (Handout). As a learning experience, I think the purpose was to see how well we could all combine our expertise/knowledge to successfully complete a task using our verbal and nonverbal skills. I particularly hated this activity because I am not a good visual learner and the color pattern was very confusing for me to learn, so I could not learn the correct pattern of the maze. I tried my hardest to focus, but I let those who knew the pattern step up, but I was ready to dive in and try to help my team to success. Though I was the first person to attempt the maze, I went pretty far in the maze and my teammates cheered me on. Early on in the activity, Raylene and Nina emerged as information seekers to refresh themselves and everyone else on the rules of the game. As the game went on, one of the norms that formed was, when a wrong path was made, we tried to regroup verbally when no one was on the mat. This wasted a lot of time, and was probably a reason why we did not complete it in the allotted time. Nina emerged as a leader because she remembered the path, and when differences of opinions came up, she proved her point by referring to the guidelines stated in the handout. Though we did not finish in the given time frame, Professor Dunn offered us an extrinsic reward of extra credit points. After this little boost of motivation, together we completed the maze, and we all felt a sense of competence once we were done. According to Belbins Team-Role Theory, an implementer is, *a person+ that transforms talk and ideas into practical action, develops action plans for group members (Working in Groups, 2011, pg. 56). I would describe Nina as the groups implementer because she studied everyones wrong and right moves through the maze and she led us to victory. When Raylene and Kate had different ideas on where to go in the path, Nina quickly explained her logic with examples of the previous wrong moves that group members had done. Overall, I feel like our group functioned well because those that knew more stepped up, while the rest of us who were unsure provided input. The decisions of the groups were first made by trial and error, and then they were made on the right/wrong moves made by group members. From this activity, it is evident that Raylene and Nina are extraverts according to the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator because they, love to talk, *are+ outgoing, expressive, and may dominate group discussion (Working in Groups, 2012, pg. 78). All in all, I felt very satisfied with the group because though we did not complete the task in the allotted time frame, we did not get defeated, but we kept going and finished strong. As a result, I have learned that when I do not know how to do something, I let those who know more speak up and I fade into the background. For the next activities, I will try to speak up more in areas where I have expertise. As a critique, I feel like the group could have focused moron the task at hand and not get caught up on the little senseless details that did not apply to the game. Also, we need to be cognizant of the time.

Lost on the Moon The purpose of this activity as stated in the directions are, to rank the order of the items in terms of their importance (Handout). As a learning experience, I felt like the purpose was to overcome the differences of opinion and to limit the extroverts (those who like to talk first, then think, may dominate group discussion, and are talkative*Working in Groups, 2011, pg. 78+) and letting the soft-spoken introverts have an chance to speak, and be heard. The outcome of this activity was that we all agreed on an order and according to NASA, we had an average chance of survival. Of course, Raylene and Kate were the first ones to start talking, and they emerged as leaders for this activity. They were great leaders because they were open to ideas and they challenged some of the ideas with valid points. I noticed that they were quickly running out of coins, so they developed a group norm of raising their hands/shaking their heads so that they could ration their coins/ideas. Another group norm that emerged was explaining your knowledge of outer space before one delivered the order of their list (i.e. Ive watched Apollo 13 and.. or I dont know much about space, but).

Some group roles that emerged was the blocker, which was Kate. I thought she was a blocker because she was playing the devils advocate (though needed at times) and it seemed as if she was getting a little mad or annoyed when her ideas were not accepted; this is a people problem which is one of the disadvantages of working in a group. I became the follower because I have little knowledge about outer space, and I was, listening attentively to everyone else and I was accepting the ideas of others (Group Maintenance Roles Handout). The main task problem that existed is that we did not develop a process. According to Edwin Locke and Gary Gatham, *they+ emphasize the setting of group goals and methods to accomplish those goals (Working in Groups, 2011, pg. 35). We wasted a lot of time going through our individual list and that allowed room for us to get off task. Simply establishing a clear process (which Kate attempted) would have set us on a path for success. From this activity, I have learned that I do not really place myself into the activity, but I think very surface level. For example, most of my list was off because I was thinking that I was still on earth. Also, I learned that stronger personalities make me grow quiet because I do not want to step on anyones toes or look foolish by saying something stupid. I do not know why I feel this way when one of our group norms is that everyone is open to ideas and we all had the same number of chips/opportunities to speak in this activity. Because I am growing quiet, I will try to speak up more because the ideas that I have in my head were not as stupid as I thought they were because someone else voiced them out loudand some ideas I had in my head proved to be brilliant. As whole, we need to establish a clear process and stick with it, which will save a lot of precious time and prevent senseless arguments that could occurs. Also, I think the extraverts need to take a step back, quit talking, and allow others to speak up.

A Whole New World The purpose of this activity was to select a well-rounded group of 18 people who would come aboard the rocket ship through collaborative decision-making. As a learning experience, I feel like this activity was going to see who was going to voice their opinion(s) to make a case for specific people that they wanted. The decisions were made by going down the list and seeing which candidates each group member had or did not have on their list, and we had discussions on why the candidate was selected. This activity had the opportunity to go awry because people could have used aggressiveness instead of assertiveness to voice their opinion, but I am glad that it did not happen. The outcome for this activity was that we came up with a group of individuals with useful job history, youth, those who are older in age and fertility that would help repopulate the earth. From the start, we knew that we wanted to have a process, but that went awry. We did not go around and state what criteria made us choose specific candidates, and we ended up utilizing a lot of time that could have been saved if we came up with a list of criterion to weed out certain candidates. One of the norms that have developed from these activities is that we start from the end of the table where Raylene and Kate are sitting; sometimes it happens naturally, but most times they are usually the first to speak, so they end up starting the activities. Another norm that developed is just casually speaking out when you have something to say, no hand raising was necessary in this activity. A supportive climate creates a setting in which members feel free to share their opinions and feelings (Working in Groups, 2011, pg. 143). I felt that Raylene did a great job of exhibiting both problem orientation (seeking a mutually agreeable solution) and provisionalism (offering ideas and accepting suggestions from others) [Working in Groups, 2011, pg., 142). When she was making a case for Tommy, the anti-government, survivalist, no one really wanted him to come on board, but she was very open in hearing ideas and she ended up changing her mind when the group was unaccepting of him. Also, she could be called a coordinator because she was drawing connections between what different group members were feeling when it came to choosing Kim and Sister Mary Clare. Victoria served as the tension releaser when she made a joke about fertility. I served as the compromiser because everyone else was so set on having Hiyo on board, but I did not understand how a blind boy could be useful. I just agreed to have him on because I did not want to waste any more time on trying to prove my point when everyone else had valid points. We could not agree on whether or not to bring Sister Mary Clare and this caused a conflict. Everyone voiced their opinion, and after much discussion, we still did not come to conclusion; we put her on hold and we came back to her and other members whom we could not come to a clear decision on. I felt like our team talk was pretty great because we came to make decisions and managed conflicts by using a collaborative effort and everyones voice was heard, and if we could not reach a decision, we used negotiation tactics by making a case on why or why a candidate should not come on board. At the conclusion of this activity, I was happy with the group of individuals that we choose. It was obvious that we all had personal constructs on why we chose certain people; some looked similar to ourselves, some were attractive, some had the same religious belief, etc. From working with the group, I have learned that in decision-making situations, a standard for the process has to be developed. Also,

criteria for which everything must be applied to will make the process fly by faster. Raylene suggested that we start with a process, but we started discussing criteria and we did not clearly form standards. For the future activities, I feel like we should take more time discussing the process and standards, and this cause the actual activities to fly by.