This paper analyses the group dynamics of the Nursing Executive Council (NEC) of Grady Memorial Hospital. The analysis was based on the observation of NEC meeting that was held Wednesday 4, February 2014 at the administration boardroom between 11 am and 1pm. The meeting was facilitated by Rhoda Scott who is the Chief Nursing Officer at the hospital. The analysis was conducted for purposes of understanding power and influence within the council and also council’s norms and roles.
The formal meeting of NEC members was convened to deliberate on issues relating to quality, growth, service and stewardship. Each member of the council knew his/her role during the meeting. Hence, the council was in the performing level of group development. Performing stage is characterized by group members who have established their roles and are focused on tasks (Borkowski, 2009). Each item on the agenda was tackled in a systematic and exhaustive manner. This was an indication that emphasis was put on goals. NEC members consist of chairs of all practice councils that exist at the hospital. They include Ambulatory Practice, Critical Care Practice, Long Term and Rehab Care Practice, Maternal-Infant Practice and Emergency Practice councils. The council is headed by the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) of the hospital. The CNO and representatives of the councils are called voting members. The council also consist of ex-officio members who may be invited to offer advice on specific questions.
Robert’s rules of order were used to guide the meeting. Roberts’s rules are standard guidelines for facilitating meetings and discussion (Hardina, 2012). The meeting was called to order by the CNO who was the facilitator. The meeting began at 11am and ended at 1pm as was indicated on the agenda paper. The members who had arrived by 11am continued with the deliberations once the quorum was confirmed. There was no backing up to accommodate late comers. The members spoke openly and freely without interruptions. Those who were not given the opportunity to speak listened attentively to the speakers. All the people in the meeting switched off their mobiles and there was no instance of phone distraction during the meeting. The facilitator reminded the members to focus on issues and avoid personal attacks. The time keeper ensured that the members who were appointed to speak did not exceed their time limits. On the other hand, Felicia Thomson recorded the proceedings of the meeting. When the meeting ended, the members agreed to speak in one voice concerning the resolutions of the meeting.
The meeting adopted a U shaped sitting configuration where the members sited on the outer side of the arrangement. The facilitators sat at the head of the table. The U shaped arrangement allows the facilitator to take control meeting (Fulton-Calkins, Shumack & Stulz, 2013). This configuration is preferred in meetings where key decisions have to be made with the guidance of the chair. Indeed, NEC meetings involves decision making. Therefore, the arrangement was the most suitable. The note taker and time keeper sat on the left and the right side of the facilitator. Consequently, the facilitator was able to coordinate the activities of the meeting well by consulting and directing the time keeper and the note taker. The U shaped configuration also allowed members to see each other directly. This arrangement promoted open and genuine discussion and interaction. The members did not hide their feelings and outward reaction from other members. Moreover, the configuration enabled the facilitator to speak to and access members without straining. This was due to the fact that all members were visible to her. In addition, U shaped arrangement ensured that the presenters were seen by all the members. Consequently, members followed the presentations without interruptions.
The task roles dominated the deliberations. Task roles are those roles that help group members to accomplish agreed goals (Kirst-Ashman, & Hull, 2012). The facilitator played the role of initiator, coordinator and clarifier. She initiated triggered discussions on issues listed on the agenda paper by explaining the issue to members and then inviting the presenters. Many times, she was seen seeking clarification from the speakers on behalf of members after noticing members’ facial expressions. She also coordinated the activities of the meeting by assigning members tasks. The members on the hand, acted as information providers, clarifiers, and questioners. They presented their views on different topics, asked questions and sought clarifications. The not taker played the role of the summarizer and recorder of the proceedings. The maintenance roles were executed by both the facilitator and other members. The facilitator encouraged members to contribute ideas and appreciated members who spoke during the meeting. The other members supported members’ views and suggestions by giving positive remarks about them. One member appeared to be playing individual role by opposing almost all proposals that were tabled before the NEC members.
The NEC meeting was very successful because all the agenda items were exhausted within the located time. This was an indication that the council was task oriented. Members gave well researched presentation on issues. Meaning, the purpose of the meeting was conveyed to the members before the meeting was convened. All resolutions were passed with very minimal opposition. This showed that the council was very cohesive.
References
Borkowski, N. (2009). Organizational behavior, theory, and design in health care. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Fulton-Calkins, P., Shumack, K. A., & Stulz, K. M. (2013). Procedures & theory for administrative professionals. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Hardina, D. (2012). Interpersonal social work skills for community practice. New York: Springer Pub.
Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H. (2012). Understanding generalist practice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
