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. 

Considering the Alternatives

I think sometimes leaders or groups don't evaluate all possible alternatives to every gameplan.  Too often we think that there is one and only one possible solution for all problems.  Sometimes at my job, we are put in certain circumstances that we face as a group.  For example, we didn't know if we should kick out a kid for his actions that he caused at our program.  A participant brought a BB gun to school, and one of our staff members saw it.  After program was over, we had to talk about the repercussions.  Immediately, our thought was kick him out of our program.  That might have been the easiest decision to make, but the punishment may not have fit the crime.  So, we talked about how he was as a student in our program and if this was a new behavior or if this was a continuing behavior.  After coming to the conclusion that he was not a major threat and this was his first offense, we thought of other alternatives for him.  We could have suspended him from our program, we could let this slide and give him a warning, or we could talk to his parent.  After our meeting, we decided that although he was a pretty disruptive kid, this type of behavior was unlike him.  He was just trying to show off to his friends.  But, this was a pretty serious case because there is no tolerance for that in our program, and in the end, instead of kicking him out, he was suspended by us and the school.  It worked out because he really wasn't a nuisance.