Elyse Sandberg

Professor Cooper
Group Dynamics
19 February 2015
Junior Class Council Case Study

Description of group:

The junior class council is made up of 13 members. There is a president, vice president,

business manager, two event coordinators, two dance coordinators, a graphic designer, chaplain,

and an administrator. The purpose of class council is to work with the class president and vice

president to coordinate and plan class-specific events, programs, and chapels. They meet every

Friday at 3:10 in the SAO. They sit around a rectangular table with the President and Vice

President at the head of the table. They dont have assigned seats, but they each sit in the same

place every time they meet (Appx B). The president leads the meetings, facilitating discussion.

The goal of their meetings is somewhat unknown from observing. They seem to talk about

numerous different things, all having to do with planning a future event. There is not much

structure at all to their meetings, including when they start and the order they talk about things

in. It appears that they discuss whatever anyone might happen to bring up next.

Strengths of the group:

The meetings have a lighthearted feel to them in that members joke around with each

other freely. The members appear to be friends, which seems to have positive and negative

effects. The positive effects of this are that most everyone would feel comfortable contributing to

conversation if they wanted to, and ideas are tossed about freely. This creates an open space for

creativity to take place, which is a large strength of this group.

Another strength of this group is their ability to make decisions. This group is not afraid to

argue with each other over an idea. The strength in this is that through this process of arguing,
the idea is formed into a better idea because the group members offer their own opinions and

recommendations. They are also able to come to agreement about decisions because there is no

stubborn member who refuses to agree with the majority of the group. This is something that

aids them greatly in being able to accomplish their goals as a group.

Problems in the group:

While there are strengths of this group, I observed many problems as well. The problems

all culminate under a couple larger problems, and that is a lack of group respect, and a lack of

group accountability due to a bad case of social loafing. The lack of respect comes in because

this atmosphere is very lighthearted, causing members to joke around with each other freely.

There is a lot of sarcasm within this group that ultimately shows a lack of respect for each other,

and a lack of respect for the president (the leader). Some members talk over the leader and dont

respect or obey what she tells them to do. Specifically, this happens with the three guys who sit

furthest away from the leader, directly on the other side of the rectangular table, and each play a

disruptive role in the group. They prevent group goals from being accomplished, and seek to

serve their own goals instead (which is often to draw attention to themselves). They make jokes

with each other that often distract and discourage the rest of the group. This causes the group to

get distracted very easily, and also causes meetings to be somewhat chaotic. The leader attempts

to settle them down, but the boys disregard her for the most part. Not surprisingly, they each

scored high on the last section of the Bales Interaction Analysis, proving that they play disruptive

roles in the group (Appx A). The vice president is a male who sits right next to the president. He

does not contribute much and doesnt back the president up, which only hurts the situation more.

He scored very low on the Bales Interaction Analysis in most every section, because he simply
does not contribute much to the meetings (Appx A). Since he is in a place of leadership, this

hurts the group largely.

There is also a lack of group accountability due to the large problem of social loafing. The

social norm in this group seems to be the less you look like youre trying, the cooler you are.

Many members come late to the meetings, and some members do not show up at all, without

previously informing the leader. Members have their feet up on the table, and are often on their

cell phones for much of the meetings. Many times, they will come to the meetings not having

done the tasks they were expected to complete since the last meeting. An example of this took

place at a Friday meeting when they were discussing final details for a class worship night that

would take place the coming Tuesday. During this discussion, the leader discovered that nothing

had been advertised for the night yet, because no one had taken enough ownership of the event to

think of that (Appx C). This is a recurring problem in this group. The leader will delegate

responsibilities to the members, but members consistently will act as loafers, not taking

leadership or ownership over their projects. This leaves the leader to end up taking most all

ownership and responsibility of events, which is called social compensation. With the social

loafing that happens due to members not viewing tasks as meaningful or important, the leader is

forced to socially compensate in order to ensure that tasks are completed.

Another large problem is that the leader does not enforce consequences for any of the above

behavior, and no one in the group appears to care deeply enough to keep each other accountable,

leading this group to often be unsuccessful in their efforts. The leader of the group scored highest

in every section of Bales, excluding the negative reactions section (Appx C). This is because the

leader is the only one really keeping these meetings moving forward and somewhat productive,

asking many questions and giving much feedback (again, social compensating).
 On the Bales Interaction Analysis, this group scored a relational ratio of about 2 positives to

every one negative, not meeting the recommended 3:1 ratio. They scored a task ratio of 1 give

for every 1 ask, also missing the recommended ratio of 2:1 (Appx A). These numbers match with

the problems of this group. The task ratio is accurate as the leader has to do a lot of asking to

keep the members on task and contributing at some points, and the relational ratio is accurate as

there being a few problem members who play disruptive roles that increase the negative side

of this ratio.

Recommendations:

As seen in the last section, this groups problems largely have to do with the lack of

respect and lack of accountability due to social loafing/social compensating. I believe one thing

that would largely help to change this atmosphere would be to transform the role of the vice

president. In order to do this at the meetings, the president needs to be more respected. The VP is

the most immediate person who could help this change to take place. He is a male, which may

make him more respected by some of the members, specifically the three boys who play

disruptive roles. The VP needs to back the president up when she attempts to keep the group

under control, productive, and respectful, as well as when she tells these disruptive members to

behave. By transforming the role of the VP to be more of a leader in the group, there would be

drastic changes seen in the atmosphere at their meetings. This would help the group to be more

respectful of the president, as well as bring some accountability from the VP into the group that

would work to decrease social loafing.

The lack of accountability and the problem of social loafing within the group must be

further addressed in order to improve this groups dynamics. I believe the best way to go about

this is for there to be more strict rules in place, as well as consequences implemented if these
rules are broken by the members. These rules include things that will reduce the tendency to be a

loafer, such as being on time to meetings, coming prepared beforehand, no use of cell phones

during meetings, and respecting all members at all times. In our textbook, In Mixed Company,

Rothwell talks specifically about the importance of shutting off technology during meetings to

prevent interruptions (231). This will also encourage members to come prepared to meetings,

because they wont be able to look anything up once at the meeting. Further, if any of the above

rules are broken, the president and VP should enforce consequences. This will, hopefully, help to

change the social norm of the group from the less you seem to be trying, the cooler you are, to

the more you try and contribute, the more respected you are. Rothwell refers to this as

establishing a group responsibility norm, defined as, emphasizing individual responsibility to

the team and the importance of every member contributing a fair share to the successful

completion of the task (104). By transforming this social norm, the group will not only be held

accountable by its leaders, but also begin to be held accountable by each other. This change of

the social norm will also help members to, collectively and individually, take more leadership

and ownership in and out of meetings.

A more specific and tangible recommendation for this group would be to use the nominal

group technique. As mentioned in the strengths section, this group has a lot of creativity and

many great ideas. The problem lies in that they struggle to respect their leader and stay on task in

meetings (due to a few disruptive members), therefore often not being able to contribute as many

ideas as the group may have. By using the nominal group technique, each individual in the group

will have a chance to contribute any ideas they may have, giving the group more opportunity to

hear from everyone and build off each others ideas. By the leader facilitating this, she will gain

the respect and authority she deserves. This will also decrease the power that the members who
play disruptive roles have on the overall atmosphere. I believe that with this approach, this

groups strengths will be maximized, and their weaknesses will be minimized. If done well, the

leader will be more respected, members will be held more accountable by each other, and there

will be an open space for the groups creativity to flourish.

If these recommendations were to be implemented by the junior class council, I believe

they would see an increase in levels of respect and accountability at their meetings, and

ultimately, more success in their efforts as a group.

 Works Cited

Rothwell, J. Dan. In Mixed Company: Communicating in Small Groups and Teams. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004. Print.