my favorite topic

my favorite topic that we discussed this past semester was synergy.  i am surrounded by a lot of team atmosphere things like sports, teaching, and school groups.  Within in these fields it is very important to build synergy.  a lot of times we focus on a lot of individual accolades that we forget the team concept.  Because of that, a lot of my sports teams and groups don't really mesh well.  What this class has taught me was to do a lot of team building exercises and how to develop stronger problem solving   It also taught me that it is very important to solve these problems because they can help build the bond of getting a team closer.   So, now i will try to develop these tools with my groups and try these exercises to see how much better we could develop as a team.

negotiations

in problem solving, negotiations is a big part.  Most people have a hard time trying to come to an agreement. The thing about negotiations is that people need to sacrifice on both sides in order to get things done.  But, i think that most people don't want to give up anything.  for example, in a group project, you might have only  a certain amount of time to say what you need to say in your presentation.  so, at times, you need to cut out stuff to make the time manageable.  People might have a different opinion about what is important to cut out and what isnt.  it's important that people know how to compromise and learn how to give a little to get a little.  in some cases, especially in some that i have seen, groups dismantle because they can't come to agreements on both sides.  a real life example, was when the referees were on strike.  the referee's were trying to bargain with the owners on how much they were going to make.  in the end, both couldn't comprise on what to give up, so they split.  in the end, both sides were hurt.  the fans were upset at the nfl and the referees were out of a job.  it's real important that both sides know how to give a little but without having to lose a lot.

5 cultural barriers to creativity

1)  language

2)  rules

3)  laws

4)  family

5)  habits

i feel that language is the most common cultural barrier to creativity.  people are sometimes ashamed of their accent that they don't say anything at all.  I know that in filipino culture, they get teased a lot by filipino americans all the time.  they call them FOBS.  They get ridiculed for their language barrier that it may affect them from sharing.

another problem i could see are rules.  rules can play a big issue because in asian culture, we view silence as being respectful.  We tend to not speak out because as students must stay the role as students and we must obey and listen.  it is weird for most middle eastern people to come to america and speak because in some cultures they weren't allowed to voice their opinion.  in ways, it would be illegal to do so.  so , if you have one of those exchange students, a rule barrier might take place in effect.  

Lastly, family might be a problem as well.  sometimes the way we are raised has a lot to do with how we interact.  some people have are taught at home to speak their mind while others are taught to be quiet.  

Example of Creativity

An example of creativity that i have used in the past has to deal with my karate students.  When we train, we usually go through the same process.  We warm up, we stretch, we drill, then we spar.  Now, what we do is not only usual, but also can be very mundane.  So, what i like to do to mix it up is cross train.  I'll take some of the drills that we do and combine it with some track and field work outs to create a totally different work out that not only consists of our regular routine, but a new workout that hasn't been done yet by them.  What ends up happening is we get essentially two workouts for the price of one.  This allows the students to get a variety of a workout and be introduce to other ways of conditioning.  I think this is important in a sport aspect because sport-specific drills are only good for just that, your exact sport.  At least when you add a different dimension to your workouts, you incorporate other muscles that you may not usually workout, thus creating a better workout.  Now, i am not saying your whole routine every time should be a cross train, because it is important to work the basics and fundamentals for your sport, but every now and then you should add that little something-different to bring a different focus to the group.  Sometimes, when it's repetitive, we may get bored.  So, mixing it up is good every once in a while.

Manipulative Verbs

"When we decide to alter, multiply, eliminate, divide, or transpose, we are using manipulative verbs to change the way we view a particular process.  Changing a verb can alter the sense of a statement and can have a dramatic effect on preconceived meanings."

I use manipulative verbs to help create a better relationship with my group.  It's a good way to help motivate a group and encourage them.  A couple of words from the list would be words like; unify, integrate, modify, add, and symbolize.  Words like this can help create a healthy dialogue within the group.  For instance, If we take your idea and UNIFY it with this idea, we can create an even better idea.  Or, i think if we ADD this to your idea, it might be better.  And, we can INTEGRATE this idea into your idea.  All these words are words that are positive in helping create and encourage more ideas.  If we just straight up tell them, no, your idea isn't good enough, you may lose a member in your group.   It is important for people to keep each member of your group engaged and have a positive attitude, we can create better synergy within the group.  it is up to the leader to keep the group in check and make sure to keep people who are negative towards the group in check when being negative towards another group member.

The difference between cmc and f2f

there is a lot that differentiate between cmc and f2f.  CMC allows people to be more open and gives people more confidence and the willing to talk without the added pressure of stage fright or being shy.  instead, it allows people to hide behind a screen and able to think about what they can say so that it becomes a carefully stated sentence.  some people can't think that quick on their feet so they freeze up when in front of their group.  also, cmc allows people to pick and choose times they can meet without having to move from the comfiness of their bedroom.  on the other hand, f2f is great because first it is more traditional. from the beginning of our lives, we as kids have to go to elementary, middle, and high school. so we are used to having that interaction, so we have at least 13 years of experience in that. second, it allows groups to become more in sync with each other and allows for group cohesion, therefore making better judgement because there are more heads to think about it.

anoynominty, group size, proximity

How does anoynominty, group size, and proximity influence participation and communication in cmc groups?  I think group size in cmc is not a big factor like all the other ones.  i say that because there are plenty of things that can reach to the masses.  First, we have chat rooms that allow everyone to be "there" at the same time.  Second, people can now video chat and video conference with the group.  So, with technology we can bridge the gap between distances.  people from all over the world can have a conference through the internet.  Proximity is also not a big issue again because of technology.  as long as people have an internet connection, a webcam, and fast internet service, people can meet and discuss anywhere.  The downfall with any of these uses is that we miss out on face to face interaction.  as we try to bridge the gap between distances, we may never achieve that because nothing replaces having someone there.  We can measure body language and mood when we are in the same room.  But, we may not be able to gage that with cmc.  Therefore, we lose a lot of chemistry and synergy that we could get when being in f2f. 

Social Networking Through Facebook

i believe facebook can be a positive outlet for most people.  "Use of Facebook is known to positively influence an individual's social-psychological well-being, self-esteem, and sense of satisfaction with life."  Facebook can be a great way to communicate to the world.  But, i think the use of facebook has changed.  People use facebook to air out dirty laundry as well.  People will discuss how unhappy one might be with their relationship towards anyone, or how bad they are being treated.  I also believe people on facebook are fake with what they write one their as well.  we all have friends on our facebook who seem have these philosophical perspective of life and act totally different in person.  I have friends who go on and put how they should act and have these ways of life and how to act in life but act totally different in person.  it makes them look fake.  i have no problem when people want to post things that are positive, but people need to stop acting like they have the secret keys of success to life.

faking attention

An example, according to the book, of faking attention is when a teacher tells the class to "pay attention!" and the class tries to or fakes paying attention in class.  I think this is such an important thing because at one time or another we all do it.  We often give the nodding of the head and the nonverbal cues to make it seem that we are paying attention but we really aren't.  This happens all the time during practices for sports teams. We might discuss a play or go over the game plan, and you ask "does everyone get it?"  Of course everyone says yes, but by the time the game comes, they are lost on the court.  I've seen it happen all the time.  Then, you have to call a timeout and rip them for not paying attention to the pre-game instructions.  There is nothing more frustrating for a coach then a team that doesn't listen.  The only real way to fix this, and any of these problems about listening is to just LISTEN.  Yes, a lot of it has to do with interest, but when other people are counting on you to do the right thing, then it even comes more important to pay attention to instructions.

Interpreting the message

The most recent problem i had was interpreting the message.  There are times where i feel that people are trying to convey a message to me but i interpret it another way.  An example of this was when i was coaching.  At halftime of a basketball game that, my team was down by a lot.  We were playing without enthusiasm and without passion.  So, my halftime speech went a little like this; "Guys, what are you doing out there?  You guys aren't playing up to your potential.  We practice hard and shouldn't be down by this much. I want you to start playing more physical.  Start banging down low.  I want you to play with fierce and guile. None of this weak stuff.  Hustle and make a play!  Take it into your own hands and make a play and win!"  As my team was pumped up to play the second half, they totally got mixed messages.  As soon as they got on they were pushing the other team throwing elbows.  I had to bring my team back and ask them, "what are you doing?"  They replied, "we are being more physical, coach."  I didn't mean in a sense of playing dirty, but that was how they got the message.  As the game progressed, i had a kid start taking all the shots, and the team was getting frustrated because he wasn't sharing the ball.  Again, i had to pull him to the side and ask him what he thought he was doing.  he replied, "coach, i'm trying to bring back the team. even you said, 'take it in to your own hands.'"  There was a mixed message out there.  They were all taking things a bit to literal.  They didn't know that i meant to work as a team and that when i meant play more physical, i meant that they should play harder on defense.  totally my fault on trying to convey a certain message.

Listening

I would say selective attention is the most troubling some for me.  There would be times i would sit in my group or team, and someone would try to voice an opinion about what we should do differently.  There were times where i would hear the first 2 or 3 sentences and then say to myself, "What the hell is this guy talking about?"  I would then ignore him and phase him/her out.  I feel that if we don't share the same ideas, or their ideas aren't even close to my ideas, then i wouldn't listen.  I guess i am very dominant in my ideas and that my ideas are pretty good.  But, if there ideas are way off, then i tend to not care for their input.  A way to solve this problem is to try to analyze and break down what one person is saying, and try to get the main message from the speaker.  I think that i dismiss people to soon and that i should really hear them out first before i tend to pass on their opinions.  Another way of solving this problem would be to ask questions and have them explain things that may not make sense, or maybe even challenge their ideas.  So, maybe their ideas conflict or our outrageous.  You could ask them to how they came up with that idea or how it is helpful, in a respectful manner of course.  But, i think the very first thing is to try to get a deeper understanding before you tune them out.  

Humor

i think humor is a key part to a lot of healthy group and team communication.  First, it starts off as a great ice breaker.  it allows the group members to feel more at ease and comfortable, instead of feeling like you're dealing with a hard-ass.  Second, at times there may be tension that might going on within a group, so laughing off something could be an alternative to taking the serious route.  Lastly, humor is great because it's a good tool to use to help get messages across sometimes.

on the other hand, humor can be a device that distracts the group.  there might be times when you have those class clowns or those comedians who try to make everything into a joke.  the problem with that is that people may view that person as obnoxious and someone who is cooperating with the group.  I'm pretty sure we have had those people in our groups throughout our life time that just try to be overly funny, and instead of being an asset to the group, they become just an ass.  I think it is important to have a balance of humor and seriousness.  It helps people calm down and sometimes we may look for that person to kind of set the mood or tone with the group when times are rough with the group.

Proxemics and chronemics

Proxemics is the study of how we use space to communicate.  chronemics is the study of the use of time.  I think there are universal rules to these concepts.  For spacing, i think standing too close too people, no matter in what culture, would cross some sort of personal boundary.  For example, have you ever been in an altercation where things get real heated?  Ever been to a club or play a sport where you feel you got violated in someway?  Maybe you brought a date to the club and a guy starts to try to hit on your girl. Or maybe you are playing a game of basketball and somebody fouls you hard and you take it personal.  Well, i've seen and been in these types of scenarios and the first thing i see is the person who was violated come up really close to the person and gets in their face.  That example their is an indication of anger and violation has occurred and that maybe a verbal or physical confrontation will occur.  Of course, the person who is in their face feels violated because that person is disrupting his own space of comfort.  In chronemics, i think everybody values time, but maybe not as much as western society does.  In America, like the book says, "time is money."  But i think punctuality is key in all societies.  I'm pretty sure in developed countries, most or all businesses have an open and closed times.  In accordance to group, time is key.  I used to hate it when people would come to my practice late.  The players would be distracting to the practice that is already going on and they missed part of practice, in which a coach values every second of practice because every second is viewed as time spent learning.  so, yes, i do  think time has universal rules.

2 principles of nonverbal communication

1)  Our nonverbal communication affects the quality of our relationships.
      If there is one thing i know about relationships, it would definitely be about nonverbal communication.  I call out my past girlfriends and players i used to coach on nonverbal behaviors i didn't like.  For instance, if i complained to my past girlfriends how i didn't like something, they would roll their eyes at me.  I hated it!!!  It made me feel disrespected, as if they were to say, "i don't do that," or "who cares that you don't like it," or "whatever."  It made the quality of our relationship bad because i felt the respect was being given off in both directions.
      Another example would have to be with my kids that i coach.  If ever i scolded one of my kids for making an incorrect play, i could start to see shoulder's slump and eyes starting to tear up.  Then, on top of that, they don't run as hard or try as hard and you could read the body language on how my coaching has affected them.  The quality of our relationship turns sour because the kid feels like i'm picking on him or that i don't like him.  In return, he's not going to show me any respect towards me.  So, i have to learn how to get my point across without having to kill his spirit.

2)  research suggests that women and men differently decode nonverbal cues
     I have to totally agree with this.  I love to study about how men and women pick up on each other.  It is so fascinating that people come up with all these theories about the signs that each other give to signify that they like each other.  For men, they say that if a women laughs and touches your knee, that she considers it flirting and she likes you.  So, men jump on that, but all a women might be giving off is that she's friendly.  A women might think a guy likes her because a guy may usher a woman in by stroking the lower back as she comes in.  There are so many "codes" that each think they give off, but it's just quite different for everyone.  I personally don't think there is a universal guy/girl code, even though plenty think there is.  Or maybe im wrong hahahaha

verbal interaction and content analysis

Another interesting topic that I found in this chapter was the verbal interaction and content analysis. “The verbal interaction analysis the number of times members address on another…Content analysis is used to analyze the type of comments made.” (pg 256) I think this a very good strategy to use because it makes sure that people are participating and we know who they are participating with. There are so many times we get stuck in a small group and there are cliques within that group. So, within that clique they are the only interacting with each other. What that does is that it divides the group and may cause friction, dismantling group chemistry and cohesion. By now, you all know I love basketball, lol, so here’s another great example from basketball. There are 5 people on the court at one time per team, and so if I only pass the ball to 3 people on my team, the other 2 will feel left out. Now, because those 2 people aren’t happy not getting the ball, their motive for playing defense won’t be positive. So, they get this attitude of, “why should I play defense if I’m not going to get the ball.” I’ve seen it in middle school, high school, college, and pros. So, when you relate this to small group discussion, it’s important that we make everyone feel important and that we all participate with each other.

Outline and discuss the guidelines for providing observer feedback

Guidelines for feedback

• Avoid generalizations such as “good job”
• Focus on behaviors that can be changed
• Don’t debate or argue with the group you are evaluating 
• Don’t micromanage the group (don’t go into every detail)
• Remember your role- you’re an evaluator 
• Give positive feed back
• Be clear and concise
• Clear and concise
• Compliment in public, criticize in private

I think these are great guidelines for giving good feedback.  I think the most common of all the feedback guidelines is generalizations.  So many times when asking a person how you did or what you felt you did wrong, they always say, "nothing."  That almost never helps.  I always look for comments like, "It was good, but you could have done this."  Probably one of the most things that can bring down a group in these guidelines would be people who micromanage and are negative about that.  At times, when observers are trying to give you feedback, and it all happens to be negative, as a listener we are kind of waiting for the positive.  But, we never get it because they are so busy criticizing us.  Probably the hardest part for me out of all the guidelines would be remembering my role as an evaluator.  Sometimes i'm so caught up with what the group is doing that i forget that i am suppose to be an outsider looking in.  Probably the most helpful of them all would have to be focusing on behaviors that can be changed.  Usually, when we can pinpoint those things, it makes the group a lot stronger because we have pointed out the weaknesses.  I think in general, these are very good guidelines for feedback, and probably i think people just need to keep it positive but give some real input.  

Why use a consultant or an observer?

"When appropriate, consultant observers not directly involved with the group work can provide excellent insights.  Recognizing this is as an important source of growth and development, corporations systematically offer evaluations of a specific team's process by outside observers to help the team develop." (Harris & Sherblom, 248).

I believe it is very important for a group to have an observer.  Sometimes, in order to know what is really going inside of a group (meaning chemistry of the group, productivity, etc) you need someone on the outside looking in.  At times, people on the inside don't recognize what is going on within the group because they may not either want to say anything or they are blind to see it.  An example would be my basketball team.  The team is filled with players and coaches.  During practice is where we try to build our chemistry amongst the players and be disciplined by our coaches.  When it comes to game time, that is where we have to show everybody what we do in practice.  The observer would be the fans, maybe even more particular, would be possibly a parent who comes to all of your games.  

During the game, we have to show that the practices help build the chemistry and we our disciplined when our coaches coach us.  So, when we do yell at each other during the game, or we don't do something our coaches tell us, the fans/parents notice it too.  So, when you get home, as the parent/observer might say, "hey, you guys looked like a well-oiled machine," or say "you guys looked like you had no idea what you were doing."   That feedback is important to us players and let's us know that we have to fix something internally.  Maybe a fan of the game might give even more insight as far as strategy or pointers.  

Conflict Management

In the book, it talks about how conflict management is important to maintain group cohesion and chemistry.  The book talked about how different groups have different strategies for solving problems.

"Western Cullers, truth resides in logic and debate...Asian cultures is about maintaining harmony...Native American children raised in tradition that emphasizes harmony with nature and the importance of the group over the individual learn better in a noncompetitive and cooperative environment...[Mexicans] are taught to believe in cooperation...North American students value individual success." (83)

Being of an Asian descent, I can tell you that it really is about maintaining harmony.  We were always taught to be obedient and non-argumentative.  We could do not talk back and we couldn't really voice our opinion. We really had to just take it.  We were taught that instead of causing an argument and confrontation, that we should just keep our mouths shut, especially towards  authoritative figures.  As I grew up, I still followed that but I also learned how to be have more confidence in standing up for myself instead of always complying to them.  I learned how to respectfully disagree with someone and to voice out fact and reason and get into a constructive argument.  I learned most of this from jobs that taught us how to manage conflicts in the work force, and I just used it in real life.

Does valuing diversity come easily?

I do not think that valuing diversity comes easily.  People are so used to the familiar that they tend to stay away from being mixed and diverse.  We tend to group off with the same, because if feels comfortable and easier to relate to.  An example would be at school.  Usually, people tend to gravitate towards their own kind, but that doesn't necessarily just race.  People may be attracted to age, language, or sex.  It's very rare to see a group of kids come together (specifically middle or elementary) where kids will socialize and have a group of friends that's mixed with boys and girls, spanish only speakers and english only speakers, who belong to different economic classes.  So, to say that valuing diversity comes easily, it would be a hard sell.  It doesn't just happen in schools, but in the work force as well.  Diversity comes easier in work because we don't really have a choice of who we work with, so it becomes easier to talk to them or form groups.  But, people in the Bay Area usually have a diverse group of friends, so it's not like we live in a totally segregated society, because diversity is actually very common in the most of this area.

A suggestion i would make to enhance a groups ability to value diversity would be to do more team building exercises, that allows people to have to work together.  Instead of focusing on exterior values such as race, sex, or physical build, it requires you to use your inner strengths.  I think people tend to judge people on what they see on the exterior, that they forget that what makes people valuable to a group is what they can bring internally.  I think that when we use team building exercises, we can build stronger bonds and have more trust in people and then maybe we could value diversity a little bit more.

White Men of Privilege

White men of privilege is where society feels that the economic systems and power are in heavy favor of White males.  It is to believe that in America, the privileged upper-middle-class and middle class hold all the economic wealth and power and are viewed to be the "Top Dogs" in our society.  They are usually the people with the high-end jobs, living in the suburban neighborhoods, driving nice cars and living a comfortable lifestyle.  

Having lived in the Bay Area all my life, it is definitely a place of diversity.  I live in Mountain View and I grew up in a pretty urban area, filled with mixed races, and most people living in nice houses and apartments.    It wasn't until high school where i realized that there was a big difference of successful white people to people of color.  I went to Mountain View High School.  I grew up with average people whose parents had average jobs; some blue-collard and some white-collard jobs.  But, when high school came around, kids from Los Altos Hills and Palo Alto also came to our school.  These kids were driving BMW's and Mercedes  to school, living in 2-3 story houses.  These parents worked in Fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft and Oracle and Google.  I did noticed that mostly all these kids were of White-European descent.  I cannot speak for all of the Upper-Middle Class, but most were White or Asian.  You can sprinkle in a few blacks, but honestly no Latinos.  

Do I believe that there is "White men of privilege"?  Honestly, yes.  Through my own experiences, I noticed that these guys definitely held the power in the society and community.  Can I honestly say it is fair?  Yes and no.  I believe it is fair because not of parents I know are second-generation wealth that has been passed down to them.  These guys have worked for their keeps.  On the other hand, there are a lot of opportunities that White men get that some people of color or gender get.  I've seen well qualified people not get a job over a White person.  I agree that there is a Hierarchy of power.  I will really start to believe that this would be a big problem IF the amount of Colored people increase (which it will and has) and there is a small percent of Colored people that would be considered Upper-Class or even Middle-Class.