Group and organizational dynamics defines how an individual or group manages and applies communication within a group. The synergy of a team is collective, yet each person is unique to him or herself. Simply stated, synergy meaner working together. The indicated is inclusive of synergistic decision making, which is a model that consists of two aspects: problem solving and interpersonal relations. When a cohort works together, they often produce greater and more effective solutions. The individuals in a group need to actively listen to all involved prior to making a cession.
When discussing problem solving, a balanced or rational structure is used to reach a resolution. When a group gathers to solve a problem, they will use a structure for problem-solving. Normally that would consist of choosing an idea, identifying the problem, analyzing, finding and evaluating the solution and then selecting the best solution. In reference to social interactions, the indicated aspect is the way an individual relates and treats others during the problem solving process. When there is support among team members, the competition and manipulation is at minimum.
In order to be successful, all individuals need to work together and be respectful of everyone’s views. However if there is aggressiveness within the discussion, problem solving becomes fragmented and difficult to resolve. Group members need not debate an individual’s idea until viewpoints have been expressed. If one does criticize another member because of what they have said, it would hold up the process. By analyzing both of the above perspectives, I was able to associate them to the Desert Survival simulation and inclusive of relevant learning opportunities.
The intention of rational problem solving is to encourage members of a group to slow down, think through the problem, and evaluate courses of action. Often he or she will have the tendency to Jump to a conclusion versus being reasonable. Often synergy occurs when one person comes up with an idea that stimulates another idea or thought from a second person, then third and so forth. Members of a cohort should first determine the process to be used to resolve the issue. The next step would be analyzing all aspects of the situation. In order to keep the group focused on the mission, one must take note of all facts and results.
Once a resolution is determined, the cohort will need to finalize a course of action. One may feel that problem solving is easier said than done. Often times, there is more than one course of action needed to resolve the issue. When this results, a member of the group will usually need to be an advocate and ask questions of others. When the aforementioned occurs, a cohort will usually determine which options to rule out. Once the group develops a course of action, they will discuss any hindrances, unfavorable effects, and how to prevail.
The interpersonal process is the second characteristic of the synergistic decision making. It is the method of actively listening and clarifying, supporting and building, and confronting and differing. When active listening is not prevalent it is very noticeable. If members of a cohort are debating or interrupting each other they are not listening. In this instance fundamental information can be lost. When members off group are supporting and building to other members it is definitely visible. The relationships developed amongst the members of the cohort to be supportive and actively listen to all involved.
The particular actions will encourage open communication, as well as allow all views to be resented. The more opinions and perspectives that are expressed, the more successful the resolution will be. Therefore, the interpersonal aspect of decision making is Just as if not more important than the problem solving aspect. The Desert Survival simulation was a project assigned to the class to assist in learning and experiencing synergistic decision making and how it relates to everyday situations. The simulation was a plane crash that occurred in the Sonora Desert.
The particular crash occurred in mid-August at 10 in the morning, in which the pilot and co-pilot perished. The remaining passengers survived. For the purpose of this discussion, the survivors are referred to as Team Alpha. The above-mentioned consisted of Jennifer Butte, Laura Dixon, Miriam Opera, Shawnee Richards-Sims, Kyle Command, and myself. Due to the extent of the damage, the survivors had no ability to communicate for help. Upon engaging in the simulation, I found myself taking a proactive initiative in coordinating a conference call with all the team members.
I initiated the conversation in an email form as well as the open forum that was established for this activity. Once I was able to obtain all cohorts availability, I recapped the time and date in the open forum. In addition, a request was sent to the teacher Richard Lamentable to secure the time slot. During the conference call for the Desert Survival simulation, we opened our discussion with introducing ourselves to the group. Once we concluded the introductions, we began our discussion of the simulation activity.
I asked the team if there was any member that would like to keep track of all the information and take lead in the discussion. All involved suggested that I document the information. First, the cohort needed to choose whether to remain at the crash site or venture out into the desert. Although some felt we should stay where we were, as a team we concluded to venture into the desert. Next, the team discussed the priority level of each salvage items. Throughout the discussion, individual members of the team would compare the team rank to individual ranking of each item.
Often times if there was an item that an individual felt should be next, they would discuss their point of views and why they chose a specific item. This allowed us to cohesively discuss what item to rank next. Many team members commented that the team answers made more sense than some individual answers. As stated on page 12 of Small Group and Team Communication, the author states “As this group process continues, something emerges that is new, creative, and unique to the group and the interaction.
In such an interactive thinking process, it becomes impossible and irrelevant to attribute the final solution or any set of ideas to a particular individual. ” I believe as a team we had many learning values. We were able to discuss and result in a group solution for all of our survival items, we learned o trust those in our cohort, and we were able to cohesively work together to complete the project. Throughout the activity, the team used both the problem solving and interpersonal aspects of synergy. I feel these aspects were used fairly equally.
Members of the team sought the opinion of all individuals, inclusive of active listening, supporting, and confronting. If a member did not agree on a point of view, he or she would openly express his or her differing view. The aforementioned time to express their views. On page 13 of Small Group and Team Communication, the author states “Group members must take on leadership functions to plan ordinate, and organize their activities, assess their performance, motivate other members, and build a positive team atmosphere. In the indicated situation, I feel the cohort was open to changing conditions, able to identify mistakes, and able to develop common understandings. Team Alpha also utilized rational problem solving process when completing the simulation. Each time we determined what salvage item was next, there was a process of which item, why that particular item, is it beneficial for survival, and why is the chosen item more important than another item. When a cohort works together, they often produce greater and more effective solutions. This is inclusive of problem solving and social interactions.
When a group gathers to solve a problem, they will use a structure for problem-solving. Normally that would consist of choosing an idea, identifying the problem, analyzing, finding and evaluating the solution and then selecting the best solution. In reference to social interactions, it is the way an individual relates and treats others during the problem solving process. When there is support among team members, the competition and manipulation is at a minimum. However if there is aggressiveness within the discussion, problem solving becomes fragmented and difficult to resolve.