Soc 381 Project 2 Developing Group Structure, Tasks, Networks and Leadership

Due: September 21, 2020 , 2-6 typed, double spaced pages. 50 points, 10 points per

question.(opens September 7 closes September 21).

This project will enable students to classify group tasks, understand models of group

development ,identify types of social power , understand leadership and different types of

influence tactics. It also explores the difference between electronic and face-to-face brain

storming and groupthink and group polarization.

The Stangor textbook, Social Groups in Action and Interaction must be used for the

definition of all concepts and theories and course videos in Canvas for videos.
1. Define group structure and group process.

Group structure - the rules that define group norms, roles, and status.

Group process - the events that occur while the group is working together on the task.

Stangor textbook, Figure 6.1 represents a general model of the phases of group

development, beginning with group formation and ending with adjournment. Identify a

group that you were a members in high school and one that you were or are currently a

member in college and apply the phases or stages of group development to each group.

Describe each group in detail.

Stages:

1. Forming and relationship development.

Where a new group of individuals form. It is a continuous process over a long period of

time due to some members dropping in and out. Group members create/develop new

relationships with each other. Exchange knowledge of each other (sometimes groups will do

activities like 2 truths and a lie). Where group boundaries are set. Where group members test

each other to see if the group functions or if certain members need to leave or be replaced.

Sometimes sponsors or mentors are used to help new members adapt to the group. Roles and

subgroups are formed. New groups create the norms, whereas existing groups almost require

new members to conform to the preexisting norms.

2. Storm and Conflict

When group members get to know each other, not every member will get along with all

the other members. Certain individuals may try to reshape the group’s norm, expressing their

dissatisfaction. Sometimes with too much conflict, group members will disband the group
altogether. Many new groups never get past “storm and conflict”. However, by expressing

different views allows groups to develop norms that work for everyone, often the more

successful groups are able to achieve this.

3. Norming and Performing

Where routines and roles are created. At this stage group members may report great

satisfaction and identification within the group, as well as strong group cohesion. Norms (how

the group will solve problems, procedures to follow) are developed. Sometimes these norms will

change or continue to adapt as time progresses and deadlines approach.

4. Adjourning

When groups disband, either because their tasks have been completed or members

become disinterested with the group itself. It can be stressful or sad for members to break up

the group.

Throughout my years I have belonged to many clubs, groups, and organizations; in senior year

of high school I joined the drama/theatre club, where we did Speech and school plays/musicals.

For the first couple of meetings it was us getting to know everyone, recognize each person’s

role in the play (or skit), and play some team building exercises - the forming and relationship

development stage if you will. As we progressed further along through rehearsals, leaders

among the students would form - usually the main acting roles would assume leadership by

helping and directing others what they should do (without stepping on the director’s toes of

course). For my first play, I definitely was a follower, however my second and third plays

assumed a more leading role, by helping others learn the script and develop their character

persona. Of course, some students did not get along with each other and I served as a mediator

by taking that leadership role and redirecting their frustration into productivity. Through acting I
learned frustration can be a very powerful tool to help achieve your goals, a skill that I still pass

on to this day. I would classify these actions as a mixture of storm and conflict with norming

and performing - I see these as constantly interacting and shaping the other. According to the

book, conflict helps shape routines and roles that are best for the group as a whole. However

getting more into norming and performing, when opening night is fastly approaching everyone

gets that uneasy feeling whether they are ready. It is then people stress if they need more work

- slash help others (like I usually did) - or if I need to seclude myself to perfect my own

performances. On the final performing night is when the stage adjourning manifests. It is this

night when the cast party is hosted and set deconstruction happens - where everyone blows off

steam, enjoys each other’s company, reminisces of practicing and performing together. Even

though we all go to the same school, no one likes goodbyes and many of us developed lasting

friendships. From start to finish, those who join acting do so to feel a sense of belonging.

A couple of years ago, I belonged to the League of Women Voters (first in Sioux City then in

Ames) and I dived head first into organizational activities. Within my first year, I became an

active serving member on the Executive Board, where we deliberated on group policies and

activities - my department was in charge of organizing local, county, and state debates during

election years. As mentioned, I was initially recruited into the Sioux City chapter and I learned

the ropes of how the organization functions. (To this day, I still miss the Sioux City chapter.) In

the class book, the stage forming and relationship development sometimes consists of new

members adapting to the group’s pre existing norms and procedures, which I did within my first

six months. Once I got comfortable with the organization’s policies and proceedings, I took the

initiative of running for one the vacant Executive Board positions, which served a passageway

to me developing my own leadership and organizational skills; I tie this with norming and

performing. One of the League’s proud policies is to inform voters without applying any political

bias, a policy I greatly admire. Without going into great detail, there was one particular event
that the League participated in (the anniversary celebration of the 19th Amendment) - which I

looked forward to and attended. Within one-to-two hours into the event, however, it became

clear that it was a political rally for (what I classify as) extreme sexists who believe men should

not serve in politics. As a man and of the opposing political party, I found this event offensive

and realized that I was the only one having issues with it. As an executive board member, I had

an obligation to report my personal feelings about the event (whether they were good or bad).

The other members who attended expressed great satisfaction from the event’s message,

which they have that right as an individual, I expressed my personal feelings and many of the

group members were surprised. However, this storm and conflict opened an honest and

healthy discussion of what events the League should (and shouldn’t) participate in. It ended with

me forming my own subcommittee whose mission was to determine what events we can

participate in and main unbiased (a proud moment in my life). When I moved to Ames and

joined the local, I didn’t have the same drive as I once had in the Sioux City chapter. Some of

the policies were different, there was less diversity (I was the youngest active member by 10

years), and some of my leadership skills were viewed as ineffective. The dynamic was different

and I felt it would be best to leave altogether, factoring into the adjourning stage.

Briefly describe the article, “A Review and Critique of Partner Effect Research in Small

Groups” and discuss one way that the article relates to your high school and/or college

group.

The article A Review and Critique of Partner Effect Research in Small Groups focuses on

various techniques to gage a group’s process, what motivates the individual in the group as well

as the whole group. There are two effects that stem from this article, the partner effect - the

changes in self cognition and/or behavior as a function of what other group members say and

do - and the actor effect - the affiliation among various cognitive and behavioral phenomena
within an individual. A particular section of the articles sticks out to me, it talks about comparing

oneself to the rest of the group as a whole. When I expressed my opinion about the political

event to the League Executive Board members, I was doing so to determine if I, myself, was

wrong for thinking the way I did. Had I stayed silent I would have either succumbed to a different

way of thinking or I may have even lost interest in the group and left.
2. Based on Stangor textbook, Table 7.2 Types of Power , list and define the six basic

types of power. Based on your personal experience, list the groups in your life in which

you have experienced at least two types of power. List the two powers and provide

examples.

According to Table 7.2 Types of Power in the class book, there are six types of social power.

The first is reward power - the ability of one person to influence others by providing them with

positive outcomes - such as bosses gratifying an employee of a job well done. Coercive power

is next - the ability to dispense punishment to others - where an employee is demoted due to a

failure, or by friends teasing another. Legitimate power - power that is successful because

members of the group accept it as appropriate - such as elected officials. Referent power -

power that comes from identification with the powerholder (a technique that produces

acceptance rather than compliance) - AKA, a child imitating a someone they look up to. Expert

power produces power that is based on expertise, such as an electrical engineer determining if

the insurance company should cover expenses due to electrical failure. Finally, informational

power - the ability to use information to persuade others - such as a teacher.

It is fair to say that I have experienced all six types of power that I just described, however, two

do stand out. As a lab teacher for ISU, I have definitely experienced information power

because I have the correct answers or the means of finding the correct answer. My students

also have a sense of fear, or rather respect, for me since I also control a portion of their grades -

such is reward and coercive power.

3. Define leadership .Google the leader of Nigeria, Germany, Brazil , Canada and

Australia. Based on what you read, rate the leaders (1 low-5 high)on these important

characteristics: 1. Personality, 2. Ability, 3. Skills, 4. Expertise, 5. Knowledge, 6. Motives

and 7. Values . Select two leaders and use Table 7.3 Influence Tactics,Page 168 and

select two influence tactics that you think each leader uses or could potentially use.

Discuss one way that your discussion of these leaders relate to two course videos (e.g.,

What it takes to be a great leader, promotion of gender diversity in leadership, or other

video related to this topic on Canvas).

Leadership - the process of influencing others to effectively obtain group goals.

The leader of Nigeria is President Muhammadu Buhari, it seems he has good ideas, knows

everything there is to know about how the Nigerian government functions, provided bailouts

funds, agriculture is booming, and opened better trading opportunities. However, many describe

his leadership skills lacking, to say the least; he is slow to make decisions or policies, his current

policies are affecting the economy positively lightly (however he inherited a bad economy and it

is in a much better condition than it was before; just not good), and some see his governance as

not reflecting of what is needed in the present. I see the president using tactics like exchange

or rational persuasion when he provides bailouts and because he is slow to judge/rule (I see

him prepping on how to rationalize why he is right, but in a slow manner). As the video The

Promotion of Gender Diversity in Leadership was playing and me listening to the speaker, I see

President Buhari’s lack of decision making greatly hurts him. They talked in the video about

taking advantage of opportunity when available and the president does not, or rather no longer

seizes and acts swiftly and decisively. The video Game Theory explains possible motivations as

to why a person chooses their actions. Overall, I see the president being a “cooperative player”
due to his nature of wanting to build a better tomorrow for his people. My rating is based on

mostly how the citizens view their leader but also my own belief of them as:

Personality = 3

Ability = 2

Skills = 3

Expertise = 5

Knowledge = 5

Motives = 3

Values = 4

Prime Minister Angela Merkel is the leader of the German government and it seems she is a

very likeable person. She makes thoughtful decisions and very rarely believes she made a

mistake, implemented positive policies for the German debt crisis and energy productions

(eliminating nuclear energy), and she seems to have controlled and reduced the spread of

COVID-19 back in early 2020. She inspires others through her actions but not through words.

She is a poor public speaker, doesn’t really connect with others (except for the ones within her

inner circle), and many feel taking on various refugees with providing them proper care (i.e.

food, water, suitable living arrangements, education, jobs, reassurance) (some view her action

as prejudice. That being said, the refugee crisis is improving. She seems to use the tactic

consultation a lot based on what she always thinks before she acts; she makes sure to get the

perspectives of every side before ruling. In addition to that, after she makes a decision it is final

and will rationalize why her decision is the best and what steps led her to that decision, I see

this as being rationally persuasive or even apprising. The speaker in the video The

Promotion of Gender Diversity in Leadership brings up a few points that resonate with Prime

Minister Merkel (excluding the fact of being the first woman serving as PM). She seems to

promote diversity amongst her citizens through the acts of opening the borders to refugees and
listening to all points of view. In reference to Game Theory, PM Merkel is definitely a

cooperative player due to her beliefs of strengthening diversity and her “helping thy neighbor”

attitude. My rating:

Personality = 1

Ability = 4

Skills = 5

Expertise = 5

Knowledge =5

Motives = 4

Values = 4

The leader of Brazil is recently elected President Jair Bolsonaro and it’s hard to say what kind of

a leader he is. It seems he doesn’t vocalize inspiration to others, but is very honest with his

opinions and open to discussion. The ongoing investigation of corruption within the highest

levels of the Brailizan government and it seems the President isn’t doing help to aid the fight in

stopping corruption. He disapproves of the LGBTQ community. Yet every website I read says

they prefer Bolsonaro over the previous president. My rating:

Personality = 1

Ability = 1

Skills = 1

Expertise = 3

Knowledge = 3

Motives = 3

Values = 2
Justin Trudeau is Canada’s Prime Minister. He does not inspire confidence when public

speaking. There was the black face scandal that many view as racist. He hasn’t kept his

promise of providing a clean water source to every citizen, nor has progressed with the issue of

returning seized land areas. He approved the Keystone Old pipeline, many environmentalists

are opposed to this and it as a contribution to pollution. He does believe in listening to his critics

and finds neutral ground. He promotes diversity and that one person’s achievements should be

shared to others so they may also gain the benefit. My rating:

Personality = 4

Ability = 3

Skills = 3

Expertise = 4

Knowledge = 3

Motives = 3

Values = 4

Australia’s Prime Minister, and government leader, is Scott Morrison. Many citizens view his

response to COVID-19 as being a “job well done”; he took extra precautions in an effort to

combat the spread. He did it by listening to scientists and experts. However during the massive

fires that swept the country, many felt he didn’t do enough and ignored the opinions of the

experts. Many view him as being a reasonable and thoughtful decision maker. He is a good

public speaker and inspires others. My rating:

Personality = 5

Ability = 5

Skills = 4

Expertise = 4

Knowledge = 4
Motives = 4

Values = 4
4. Based on Stangor textbook, Table 8.1 Classifying Group Tasks, list and define each

task (e.g. divisible, unitary,additive, compensatory, disjunctive, conjunctive,etc). Provide

an example of a group for four tasks. Briefly discuss one way that the article,” Team

Roles : A Review and Integration relates to group tasks. Include a discussion of the

videos; build a tower, build a team and five stages of team development.

According to the textbook there are five classifications of group tasking that a group may follow.

The first classification is task division, where a task can be divided up into smaller subtasks or if

the work must be completed as a whole. Divisible task is a task in which the work can be

divided up among individuals, such as my senior design group. Our project requires all sorts of

disciplines (i.e. electrical, software, computer engineering, and others) and we have divided up

the workload by our respective strengths - this is one of the IEEE Code of Ethics that many

practicing engineers follow. Unitary tasking is a task in which the work cannot be divided up

among individuals. The second classification is task combination where individual members’

contributions are added together. Additive tasking is where the inputs of each of the group

members are added together to create the group performance. My senior design team and I

divide up the work, however, everyone has the right and opportunity to express their ideas

(regardless if it relates to their respective disciplines). In fact, one of my software engineering

team members suggested a good idea of how I should design their circuit. Compensatory

tasking - in which the group input is combined in such a way that the performance of the

individuals is averaged. As a technician specialist for my work I am tasked to repair as many

client devices as possible. For example, if my coworker repairs 10 devices but I only repair 2,

then our boss will see that we collectively repaired 12 devices without recognizing my

coworker’s vast contribution. The third classification is group member performance -

performance based on the abilities of the best member(s) of the group in comparison to the

performance of the worst member(s). Disjunctive tasking - where a group’s performance is

determined by its best member. Going back to my previous example of me and my coworker’s

performances - our boss would see we completed 12 devices, thus, assumes we both me and

my coworker are great at our jobs where (in this case) I barely contributed to the grand total of

completions. Conjunctive tasking - where the group’s performance is determined by its worst

member. The fourth classification is task assessment - the observation of the group creating a

product and how their output is measured. Intellective tasking - tasks that involve the ability of

the group to make a decision or a judgement. Maximizing tasking - a task that involves

performance that is measured by how rapidly the group works or by how much of a product they

are able to make. The fifth classification is task clarity, deciding if a task is deemed correct

especially when the decision is not that easy to make. Criterion tasking - where there is a clear

correct answer to the problem being posed. Judgemental tasking - when the correct answer

isn’t clear.

In reference to the video The Five Stages of Team Development and my senior design group,

very often do we collaborate with each other, brainstorming ideas, so a judgemental task may

turn into a criterion task through group norming. So far, there hasn’t been any hostile behaviors

which, I think, is due to a strong sense of leadership and unbiasism that emanates from 2-3

members, therefore, allowing every member’s voice to be heard. In particular, one member has

assumed the role of leader where they initiate and control discussions as well as setting

deadlines. Other members are then in charge of PR (i.e. keeping open communications

between the group and our client), recording discussions, laying out design plans (i.e. one for

hardware and one for software). These roles were assigned to those who aptly expressed

interest in certain areas, a key factor that is mentioned in the article Team Roles. The video

Build a Tower mentions that groups consisting of engineers are the most productive and

effective at designing and building a marshmallow tower due to their understanding of physics,

yes, but more so of their ability to design working prototypes and continuously improving upon
such designs. Though my senior design group is still newly formed, I can’t say how much time

we have spent on open discussions and research into designing the best prototype. Even

though the work is divided up based on disciplines, every member is free to discuss ideas

(whether relating to their discipline or otherwise) and it ultimately turns a divisible task into

additive then back to divisible. The bottom line is, an effective group does not follow a singular

tasking method, but rather combines and morphes them together to where scrutiny and failure

are important building blocks to the road of success.

5. Define decision scheme ,groupthink, and group polarization .Google jury trials, city

council and board of regents. Based on Stangor Table 8.2 Decision Schemes, list and

describe one decision schemes jury trials, city council and board of regents would use.

Based on Figure 8.2, list and describe two symptoms of group think each group might

develop. In which group is group polarization due to diffusion of responsibility most

likely to occur? Explain your answer . Briefly discuss how the article,” Group Cohesion :

Then and Now” relates to one of the concepts.

Decision scheme - a rule that predicts how groups will combine their opinion together to reach

consensus. As mentioned in my answer for question 1, I once served on the Executive Board

for the League of Women Voters in both Sioux City and Ames (they operate very similarly to a

board of regents and city council proceedings), and have participated in many discussions,

many group decision makings based on majority vote, relating to the decision scheme of

majority wins. Why? There are roughly 20 members that serve on the board, each one with

great and brilliant ideas. At times we brought in various experts, or individuals who inform the

board with inside knowledge or alternative viewpoints. The article Group Cohesion talks about

how commonalities among group members positively affect group decision making. Many

boards develop a strong group cohesion and consist of members from similar backgrounds,

such that only a few viewpoints are discussed (hence why expects sometimes sit in during

meetings). Despite a lack of diversity, however, several members do bring up opposing

arguments, or go in search of them, so the group may discuss and validate the majority’s ruling

or otherwise. Such thirsts for validation often serves the board well and, at times, have even

swayed opposing members. A standard meeting consists of topics as “old business” (i.e. past

and current projects) and “new business” (i.e. upcoming projects). For example, when

discussing if the League should host an event, open discussion is encouraged, then two people

“beg the question” followed with a “second” signaling to the group it is time to end deliberations
and make a final decision. Whatever the majority rules is the final say for the League as a

whole. Sometimes the opinion of a couple of board members is all that requires for a motion to

pass (known as truth-supported wins), usually these rulings have members form

subcommittees (consisting 3-6 members, a mixture of board and non-board members) for

further deliberations. This decision scheme also applies to jury deliberations - they sit and listen

during trial proceedings, retreat to an enclosed room and discuss all the facts they are

presented with. In some cases are only required to rule based on the majority, such

proceedings push the majority in persuading the minority why they should vote in favor of the

majority. Some cases require unanimity - where every member rules in favor of the majority

otherwise a verdict cannot be submitted.

Groupthink - a process that occurs when a group makes poor decisions as a result of flawed

group processes and strong conformity pressures. For a jury, the head juror often pressures

their fellow jurors to make their decision as quickly as possible. This stress of time emanates

from the judge which then trickles down to the head juror into the other jurors. In many cases,

the head juror is also affiliated with the majority and attempts sway the minority jurors,

sometimes it is projected as being forceful. By using forceful tactics it may prevent the opposing

jurors from swaying, thus, produces an illusion of unanimity. Some jurors are unable to cast

their vote until they gather more information from further court proceedings; such falls under

little search for new information or incomplete information. For a city council or especially a

board of regents often lacks diversity among its members ultimately affecting their search for

knowledge from all viewpoints. Many members belong to other groups, interested parties, and

depending on their ruling may shape with such interest groups, also affecting a member’s ruling.

Group polarization - a tendency for group members’ opinions to become more extreme as a

result of group discussion. In jury proceedings, for sure, if the evidence is strongly against the
defendant then many of the majority members will become more aggressive with their

reasonings. With such aggression, especially when coming from the majority, results in the

opposing side succumbing to the aggressor(s).