GLP- Group D8Intr Group D8oductionOur group had five male members and one female member. Two people were from Delhi, one from Bihar, one from Mumbai and two from south. One of the members did not know Hindi. Three did not have any prior work experience. While five of the members were engineers, one had a background in agriculture. Thus, the group had a lot of diversity in terms of background and experiences.Stages of Group DevelopmentOur group went through the following 5 stages according to Tuckmans model:1) Forming In this stage, all of us were very formal in our group meetings. We tried to get familiar with each other through interaction during breaks between classes and our meetings. When our 1st assignment was due, we coordinated to set up a common time convenient for all. Then, everyone tried to solve the problem independently without asking for much help as no one wanted to be perceived as less capable. As a result, it took us a lot of time in solving the assignment. 2) Storming After some 3-4 meetings, we became reasonably familiar with each other and looked to solve the problem as a whole. But, we encountered several difficulties and had disagreements on various issues. To begin with, 1 member would send out an email for meeting and keep a time according to his convenience. So, the time of meeting always used to be a debatable issue. Thereafter, everyone had a different approach to problem solving and consequently, some members felt uncomfortable the way problem solving was approached. People having prior knowledge of a subject wanted to get things done according to what they have seen. In a nutshell, there were a lot of arguments relating to various aspects.3) Norming As all of us realized that the group is not going in the right direction, 2 of the members tried to formulate some guidelines which would be followed for all meetings and assignments. Taking consent from all group members, rules were formulated on how to decide meeting times and how to go about problem solving. Before every assignment, we would assemble during one of the breaks in class and decide a suitable time for all. This way the group proceeded more smoothly.4) Performing After having established the norms for working, we observed a significant improvement in our performance and efficiency. We began feeling and working as a group. Everyone looked to help everyone else in case of any problem. With regards to deliverables, our group was among the best in the class. But our meetings were not always formal. We used to switch between being a formal and an informal group.5) Adjourning After having spent 3 months working as a group, we developed good friendship amongst ourselves. But having found more compatible people to work with, our group decided to break-up. We did feel a sense of a loss after realizing that we would not be working together again and would have to again get into this cycle of adjustment with the new group.

Analysis in terms of FIRO theoryPhase 1: InclusionThe first 2-3 meetings of the group were functionally about completing some assignments. However, they took place in the library, where discussions were possible. The task-oriented discussions of the group sometimes veered off into general questions such as Which college are you from? Do you have work experience? as group members tried to know each other better and find out points of commonality. Most of the members showed a high level of wanted and expressed inclusion at this point of time. For example, some members who had high expressed inclusion actively tried to involve other members (who, incidentally, had high wanted inclusion) by explaining the tasks/assignments to them and actively asking questions like What do you think of this? or Do you have any suggestions or ideas regarding this problem? Phase 2: ControlTowards the end of the first phase, each member of the group eventually settled into a role related to the task. This was true whether during a two-hour long meeting for assignment, or during the lifecycle of the group as a whole. These roles could generally be classified as take the initiative and responsibility for this assignment or Do not take complete responsibility, but contribute to the assignment. In the case of our group, there were times when almost nobody in the group (except one person, who probably had a high level of expressed control relative to the others) wanted to play the role of a leader. At other times, when the subject matter seemed to be commensurate with the interests or capabilities of all the members, almost everyone wanted to have a say in the decision-making with regards to the assignment. This sometimes led to conflicts. For instance, one member wanted to play a leading role in the marketing assignment, and was slightly upset when something was not done according to her specifications.Phase 3: AffectionIn this phase (the last few weeks of the second slot), all the members of the group became more informal and friendly with each other. They began to develop tentative friendships with each other outside of group-related work. In some cases, they also began to share more personal information with each other. A few members of the group discovered that they had a lot in common, so that their relationship became stronger outside the context of the group. For all the members, this behavior became strongest once it was apparent that the group was not going to be continued into the second slot.

Transactional Analysis

1) Ego States All the members used to switch between different ego states except for the nurturing parent.1 member used his Natural Child state quite often which kept the environment light and cordial and would release any tension. But when other members felt it was wasting time, they would operate from their Critical Parent state and would make sure that time is not wasted. While brainstorming, everyone generally used their Adult state and would gather all facts before analyzing and coming up with any suggestions or alternatives. This was particularly true in context of marketing cases where a lot of thinking and discussion was required to come up with solutions. The female member in our group appeared to operate from Adapted Child state quite often. She was unused to working at odd hours and would not waste time chatting or talking on phone while working on any assignment. One member of our group used his Little Professor state and would come up with nice and innovative solutions.

2) Transactions Most of the transactions used to be complementary in nature with Adult-Adult and CP NC being the most common patterns. But in case of conflicts, there were instances of crossed transactions happening.

3) Strokes One great thing about our group was the abundance of positive strokes flowing amongst us. Everyone used to praise everyone else for any commendable work or solution or an idea. This used to give a lot of encouragement to the members and helped in keeping the performance standards high. However, if there was some aspect of a persons behavior which did not seem appropriate to some other member, he/she would not point it out in front of the whole group but would convey it personally. At times, it did not go down well with the person receiving the negative stroke.

4) Time Structuring We used to spend time in the following 5 ways according to the TA: Withdrawal At times, people would not listen to the discussions and would think alone as to what could be a good solution to the problem. This helped them focus better on the task. Rituals Whenever we used to meet in class or for group meetings, the initial 5-10 minutes used to be very predictable involving greetings and general talks related to lectures and quizzes. Pastimes After the work was done, we generally used to engage in conversations on topics of mutual interest. Activities This used to take most of the time which involved solving assignments and making presentations Intimacy As time went by, some members became good friends and used to discuss their problems with each other.

Efficiency and Performance

As our group evolved, we became more efficient and performed better. We observed several things which explained our behavior:1) Punctuated equilibrium As we became familiar with each other, we had a lot of informal discussions and used to make fun of each other. Whenever we used to meet for an assignment with deadline the next day, we observed a certain pattern repeating every time. For the initial half of the period, we would be discussing random stuff and not really concentrate too much on the task at hand. Then suddenly, one of the members would realize that there is not much time left which would lead to a sudden increase in the intensity of work so as to finish it in time. This would be followed by even more intense efforts towards the end when we would realize that things need to be finished fast. This pattern used to repeat quite often.

2) Cohesiveness and Performance Almost everyone in our group had a stellar past academic record and that is why we always had high performance norms which were also enhanced by the intense competitive environment around. Initially, when our cohesiveness was low, we found that our productivity was quite moderate and something excellent. At times, we even felt that we could have done a better job individually than what we ended up with in our group. But as we got to know each other better and our cohesiveness increased, our productivity levels went up and we used to be extremely satisfied with our output. This was well reflected in the grades we got for out group assignments.

3) Time ManagementInitially, the group meetings happened very frequently (since the number of group assignments was quite high in the first few weeks of Slot 1) Often, the group had only one or two hours to complete an assignment. Failing to complete within this deadline meant that the group would have to stay working on the assignment till late, which was detrimental for the individual members of the group. Thus, right from the beginning, it was clear that efficiently managing the groups time was important.Working under time pressure meant that every member of the group had to hit the ground running. In other words, the group expected each member to concentrate on the task at the group meetings. While a small amount of social interaction was inevitable even under these conditions, the group usually turned its focus quickly back to the task at hand once the socializing crossed a certain level. This example of a time keeping phenomenon usually coincided with at least one member reminding the group of the time they had already spent and of their distance from task completion. One important adjustment issue initially related to scheduling group meetings. The group tried to be accommodating and make sure that meetings were scheduled at a time which was suitable for every member. For instance, the members of the group had different sleeping habits. One member of the group was not keen on meeting very late at night, partly because it interfered with her sleep cycle and partly because it made her slightly uncomfortable. The group was very accommodating of this fact and scheduled meetings at reasonable timings. Gradually, the group as a whole came to the realization that meeting physically was not necessary for each assignment/project. Moreover, it was inefficient in terms of time and resulted in process loss. Thus, for most of the second slot, the group decided to do part of its work using collaborative technology. For instance, the group used Google Docs for editing documents together. This was found useful for conducting the virtual equivalent of a brainstorming session. This was useful when members could work independently. For example, the group brainstormed about ideas for a marketing assignment in this manner. E-mail threads were used to give and receive feedback on an idea or decision. Documents created by members were also shared on Dropbox. A further advantage of this method was that group members could work according to their personal schedules, as long as broad guidelines were followed (An example of a guideline would be Everyone please put in your comments on this doc by 12 tonight).

4) Division of WorkRight from the beginning, there was an unspoken decision to let people work according to their areas of expertise. This was generally accepted by everyone because it would obviously lead to less inefficiency in completing projects. This did not mean that the other members did not contribute. Rather, the other members also enthusiastically contributed, but they were willing to have the expert member lead discussions and implementation for the duration of that task.

5) Social LoafingAt times, some members took the presence of the group for granted. While these members did relatively well in individual assignments, they tended on occasion to not contribute to the group, knowing that someone else would pick up the slack. This resulted in suboptimal performance by the group sometimes.

Group Tasks and Processes

1) ControlIn general every member of the group had their own sources of personal power, derived from the different kinds of knowledge and skillsets they carried. At the same time, during the group discussions, members of the group appeared fairly open to feedback from other members, even on their own area of expertise. Thus, positive power dynamics were generally observed within our group. This led to an emphasis on problem-solving and few power struggles.

2) Decision MakingIn most of the groups discussions, a tendency was seen to accept an argument or assertion only if it was backed by logic. The process of decision making was fairly typical. That is, the problem was defined, options were generated and discussed, and their consequences were evaluated in terms of the criteria that the group had set. Sometimes, minor conflicts arose because there was a lack of clarity regarding either the problem itself, or regarding the criteria for assessing the problems solution. In such cases, the problem was usually resolved by discussing the options or criteria once again.Silent members were encouraged to participate in group decision-making processes to a fair extent. This had mixed results. For instance, one member who was assumed by the others to be a silent member during the first few weeks of the slot proved to be full of ideas during a later assignment.Generally, the group was satisfied with the expert member in a particular domain having the last word, as long as he/she demonstrated why his/her option was correct in the face of questioning and feedback from the other members.

3) Conflict ManagementThere were no major conflicts during the groups lifecycle, but several minor recurring ones that caused some stress for the members. Sending people for presentations was one fairly serious source of conflict. There were minor disagreements regarding a marketing assignment on buying behavior. Some people wanted to go to the shop on the weekend, citing a higher footfall and thus easier observations, while others preferred the weekdays since there was another assignment due on the weekend. The disagreement was resolved in favor of the weekend, with everyone agreeing to do the other assignment beforehand. In general, these minor conflicts did not interfere greatly with the groups cohesion. Generally in case of conflicts a third member of the group would act as a mediator and their recommendations were followed.

4) Helping membersWhile each member had his/her own strengths, there was an emphasis on sharing knowledge, so that no member of the group felt left out. For instance, one of the members was very good at the Excel assignments due to his unique background and skills. Even if the other members did not initially understand the assignment to the depth that he did, this member would solve the assignment and spend some time explaining his work, so that the group as a whole was benefited. Generally, too, the group members had a strong sense of shared responsibility towards each other.

5) Attitude towards innovative ideasInnovation was encouraged in our group and any new idea or a perspective was welcomed by all members. Every idea was evaluated objectively through discussions. In fact, in one of the marketing assignments, the group had decided a particular structure for a report but changed it completely after one of the members came up with an innovative idea of presenting the report.

Other Observations1) Effect of group sizeIt was observed that the group generally tended to more efficiently when there were three to four members present, than when all six were present. Also, for assignments in some subjects (WAC and PS, for instance) the group was expected to divide itself into two subgroups of three members each. The subgroup members found it easier to engage with each other and worked more efficiently on their tasks

2) No Likeability BiasMembers did not really care that deeply about personal compatibility because they realized that the quality was what mattered. If somebody was able to deliver, all members wanted to work with that person if the opportunity arose for example, they wanted to be a part of his/her subgroup.

3) GroupshiftA tendency was noted on the part of the group as a whole to take riskier decisions than they would have as individual members. For instance, if the same Managerial Computing assignment had been an individual one, the group members would certainly have started on it earlier in time than they did for the group assignments.

4) Making squares exercise in classThis was one of the exercises where we got to evaluate the understanding and cooperation among our members in an unusual setting. Our group ended with only 2 squares. This was primarily because all of us were more involved in trying to make our own squares rather than helping others make their squares. We discussed the reasons for dismal performance of our group after the session and made it a point to always keep an eye on the other members need along with ours so as to deliver our best performance. In short, it made us realize the importance of cooperation and its correlation to performance.

Key Lessons for Slots 3 and 4The following are some applications of the insights we gained from our academic group, which we would possibly find useful not only in our future academic groups, but also in general.1. Decrease the frequency of physical meetings, since they distract from the task and allow too much socialization at the expense of the task2. Avoiding unnecessary criticism, since this usually turns into a blamegame and distracts from the main task3. Listening to silent members, since they often have inputs which might be useful. Silence may stem from a lack of familiarity with the language or social milieu, not a lack of innovative ideas.