Week 4 - Discussion 3 - Nonverbal Comm

I found the section on nonverbal communication to be interesting. I think the notion of different movements, signals, and facial expressions can mean different things depending on the culture. Smiling and laughing at certain times may be interpreted differently depending on the person/culture. Eye contact is a big one too.

I found the last paragraph to be the most interesting though - the idea that despite all of our differences in verbal and nonverbal communications, there is an underlying idea of what a good leader is and how we should act socially. Laughing, smiling, listening intently - All of these have a powerful meaning across cultural divides and prove the many theories that we all communicate on a human level, despite our religious background, language we speak, geographic location, etc. Kind of like we have an "international language" that we are all programmed with, I would assume throughout years of social interaction (whether it's passive or interactive) as well as media and learned behaviors through books, movies, tv, school, church, etc.

Week 4 - Discussion 2 - White Men of Privelage

The “white men of power” concept suggests that white males are generally given powerful positions in groups and are often found at the top of power hierarchies. I agree that this concept applies to today’s world in many ways. Even though we live in a very diverse area, a lot of business leaders still fit the description that the concept suggests: white males!

I think the concept is a stereotype and certainly doesn’t apply to every business, but most groups follow the pattern. The book suggests that most minorities report different work experiences, notably in hiring and promotions. I think that attests to the reason why the stereotype persists: we stereotype based on looks, race, ethnicity, clothes…And make assumptions on that person based on our learned stereotypes. We are likely to be quick to write off the possible talents and opportunities that a person can bring.

Just as a side note, I was listening to a podcast from the guy who made the movie Supersize Me and he was talking about an experiment he did, or one of his documentary friends did, where they applied for various jobs using fictitious “ethnic” names and then fictitious “white” names. Even though they sent the exact same resumes, the people with the white names received more callbacks than the people with the ethnic names. Just shows that it’s not only physical first impressions that can lead to stereotypes – even a name can cause a person to jump to conclusions!

Week 4 - Discussion 1 - Diversity

In my opinion, valuing diversity in groups definitely does not come easily. As the book explains, we all have learned stereotypes that usually focus on certain negatives instead of positives. In fact, they can even manifest negatively even though they are positive. For instance, my friend once told me he was upset because he got in a group with a bunch of "nerdy Asian kids who were overachievers." At first I laughed but then I realized, wait, isn't it a good thing that they are hard working and study a lot and want to do good?? I guess to him it was a negative because they raised the bar and wanted perfection, whereas perhaps he just wanted an easy A or B.

I also liked that the book mentioned "token" representatives of groups, and perhaps that is why we do not value the diversity or look beyond the stereotypes (whether they fulfill them or not) and instead look at the positive contributions he or she has to make.

Some ways we can value diversity is to perhaps bond more with our group members. If they have different cultural values, ask them about them so you can understand and appreciate them more and connect more to the person. Also, look at the positive side of things. Have someone who is an overachiever? Know that you can count on them! Have someone who may drag their feet in one area but have certain interests in another area? Assign them to what interests them.

Week 3 - Discussion 3 - Groupthink

I found the topic of cohesiveness (and subsequently, groupthink) to be something we can all relate to. When reading this chapter I know I especially thought of my high school friends. There was a certain cohesiveness that brought us together – music we all liked, hobbies (video games, concerts, movies, music), the fact that we were all kind of “outsiders”. While it is our background and the things that we all enjoyed that brought and kept us together, it is that cohesiveness that also caused problems. Sometimes groupthink crept in and all of the group did – or did not – want to go along with what was happening. I found myself on the wrong end of this because a lot of times the entire group wanted to do something that I did not want to do. I can especially remember one occasion where everyone wanted to walk to the corner store in the dead of winter when it was snowing out. I ended up slipping on some ice and getting a really bad knee injury and had to go to the hospital the next day. I didn’t even want to go in the first place!

I think this concept can be applied to a lot of bad decisions you hear about college sports teams, too. I know the SJSU hockey team just got in trouble for alcohol consumption after a game. I remember the De Anza baseball team (some members) got in trouble for possible sexual assault at a house party. Sometimes, when some members of the group, or just one powerful member – eggs the other members on because they or he/she wants to do something, others follow and get in trouble because of it.

Week 3 - Discussion 2 - Functions of norms

Norms in groups have many functions. Simply put, norms help the group identify itself and get the job done. It also sets the standard as to whether or not people fit in the group, and it overall represents the group's purpose and values that make it a specific group.

When I took a comm class in jr college, we had a group project that was our final project. One essential norm in school group projects are that everyone does their part. Someone usually takes notes, someone collects email addresses & phone numbers, someone does a powerpoint or visual, etc. But everyone contributes.

Continuing with that story, the one member violated the norms we had established greatly when she decided she wanted to go to Las Vegas for the weekend before the project was due. She missed all her emails and the powerpoint slides that everyone needed to review, and on Sunday night she emailed everyone from her cellphone frantically asking for someone to call her and explain it over the phone. We were all upset that she violated the norm of doing roughly equal work in a school group project, and that she wanted people to work around her schedule instead of going by the agreed upon times that worked for everyone.

Week 3 - Discussion 1 - Group Norms at SJSU

I don't really have a big group of friends at SJSU but I do see norms all over campus, and they seem to repeat themselves as I look back at my recent school years (high school, junior college). Of course there is a lot of generalizations going on here, but I see girls hanging with girls, cheerleader types hanging with jock types, asian kids hanging with other asians, history nerds hanging with other history nerds, etc.

In my group of friends at home we certainly have norms too. We make fun of each other without getting offended, we use foul language, we make really bad jokes, we talk about work (a lot), etc.

These norms can all be identified by repetition and remembering what happened when someone gets out of line or doesn't fit in. For instance if you are shy you will not fit in the group. If you want to talk about school all the time or sound pompous and correct grammar or word usage, you won't fit in the group. It's kind of loose, and that is the norm.

At SJSU, if you dress a certain way you probably will or won't fit into certain groups.

Week 2 - Discussion 3 - Dimensions of Group Success / Systems

I thought I would use this opportunity to discuss an aspect I found interesting - the dimensions of group success (p 21). As you can see by the chart, there are different levels and zones of being successful and unsuccessful. As you can see in group 4, the "successful but doesn't understand" grouping, there are more important things than just simply success. The author describes the group as being unlikely to be successful next time, lucky to succeed, and unsure why they are successful. Certainly these are not good group dynamics for success - Anyone can win once, but to win often is the true meaning of being a successful group. As the author explains, understanding and using strategies for success help reduce chances of failure, again ensuring success.

The section continues to say that this is part of why groups are considers living systems - dynamic and changing and adapting creatures that learn and interact from situations. It is important to remember this when you're in a group, instead of stifling creativity and success by thinking, "oh I'm in a terrible group and we're going to do bad".

Week 2 - Discussion 2 - Entropy & Equifinality

Entropy and equifinality can definitely impact small groups in negative ways. Entropy generally means that the group stops moving forward and is stuck in one place. The example that the book gives is that there is too much focus on rules and regulations and so everyone is concerned with falling into order, or perhaps they are mad because they are stifled by the rules and regulations. I know this happens a lot at my work because we have to do certain things that sometimes become a huge burden. For instance at one point we lost shifts and had to attend special training classes on Sunday mornings at 8am if we didn't sell a certain number of a specific appetizer (an appetizer which, by the way, was completely nasty). The whole team was impacted negatively because there was too much focus on this one thing, and people quit or didnt want to work shifts because of it.

Equifinality can also hurt groups but sometimes help them as well. The book gives the example of weight loss via sports training or cardio or diet and exercise. Indeed there are more ways to succeed than just working together, but in group settings, often times working together insures success in the long term. I thought this was great when our classmate mentioned a group project where everyone inputted individually instead of working together. Going back to the weight loss example, you may lose weight with just diet or exercise, but long term results come from a combo of both.

Week 2 - Discussion 1 - Interdependence & Interrelationships

In small group functionality, there are vital roles that must be maintained and kept in order for the group to be successful. While often times these roles are interchangeable and not necessarily clearly defined, they must be fulfilled in order for the end goal to be achieved. Everyone plays off one another, and the group functions as a whole thanks to its different parts.

When parts of the system do not function well, simply put, the group does not function properly and often times is held back or does not achieve success, or at least streamlined success. Essentially, it has to work harder to achieve that success.

Two examples in my life are in work and school. At work, we have waiters, bussers, stewards (dish washers), prep and line cooks, and management. If the waiters do not take the orders properly, then the cooks get the wrong order and make the wrong food and the guests are unhappy. Similarly, if the cooks take too long or make a mistake, then the waiter has to wait longer and again the guests are unhappy. Management also has its tasks - if they do not tell us that a specific food or wine is out, or if they don't maintain a properly staffed floor or kitchen (commonly in the restaurant business they try to have as few people on the clock as possible), things can go wrong all over the place.

In school I have worked in groups a lot. With college groups often times people try to communicate via email or text and there is a lot of times when 1 or more members don't communicate promptly, or do their part that they are assigned. It usually leads to someone doing more work. Similarly, someone can take on too much of a leadership role and be too controlling, which, as the book states, can stifle creativity (p 27).