Discussion Analysis
The intent of the discussion was not very clear because not all of the group members were prepared for it. Most of them manifested that even if they read about what the topic, they did not think about it, nor about what they agreed or disagreed. They simply "prepared" themselves by knowing about it, but they did not analyse it. Two members who were very well prepared and enthusiastic about it were the ones taking a leading attitude in the discussion. The rest seemed that they just knew about it, but they were hoping the rest would do the job, thus, they had little to say, and they had not a clear intention about in what they agree or disagree. They were not able to support their views. For that reason, they were more open to views, because these members who were not well prepared, seemed happy to accept what the most prepared members brought to the table as already chewed for them. Two members played leaders roles, and they both agreed between them. They were both very expressive, enthusiastic and convincing in what they were saying, and the rest were happy to agree. Following from that, the environment was easy, agreeable, and warm. There was not much of a discussion; it was more of an exposition of ideas, where obstacles were simply mentioned but overcome, not defended. On general basis, because everyone was easy and agreed between them, there was not a time problem, however it could be said that even if it looked productive, and everyone agreeing and open to what the rest were saying, there was not really a possibility of saying that it was productive, or people were opened to different viewpoints. Because ultimately there were not different viewpoints. Everyone agreed because it happened that the two members that were prepared agreed between them, and the rest who were not prepared had no choice than to agree. Preparation is essential for future meetings to increase productivity and outcomes. Even if in this discussion the group cohesion was almost perfect, and I explained the reasons for it already, it might happen next time that if all the members are prepared and it happens that they disagree, group cohesion might not be as smooth. It is important to give roles to members, especially a regulator. In this meeting, there were two leaders, and they both had similar roles. They both seemed to be at the same level, and they related to them very well, not in a competing way. However, as everyone agreed with them, they did show excellent influential skills as leaders, but they did not have the opportunity to show their listening skills simply because the rest of the group easily and quickly agreed with what they exposed. It would be interested to evaluate in a further meeting their reactions if they are presented with disagreements and how they react to them.
Planning a Playground video
Right from the start, David goes straight to action and seems to be an action oriented listener. He brings the conversation where everyone introduces themselves, leading to their personal lives, into the purpose of the meeting, and he does it as a leader and in a nice way. Betty appears to be open to the group, personally and also in her availability to help. She is indeed the only one who proposed ideas, apart from Ashia, and even when her first idea was rejected by Ray, she did not give up and provided another solution. Ashia was prepared, as well as Ray, they searched a bit, and they already came with numbers and ideas about the project itself. They appear both to be content listeners and also action as they as soon as they knew the purpose of the meeting they went to research. Phil did not interact much, but when he did, it appeared as if he did not want to lose any time. It might be a rash assumption, but I would say Phil is a time listener. David was the leader throughout the meeting, and even acted as the mediator between Phil and Ray about the scale of the project and found a solution to the conflict by going half way. He played his role as a leader very well, reducing potential conflicts into a great group cohesion, where even at the end Ray, who seemed the once contradicting all ideas, said a joke. David guided the meeting very well; he oriented the meeting without losing time, towards the topics that had to be considered. He clearly is a time and action listener. He even gave turns to talk so they each had a turn to say what they wanted. All the group members seemed prepared and open to other viewpoints, except Ray, who seemed to be the most conflicting person. In the end, he said a joke, but it was not clear whether he meant it really, or he wanted to send the opposite message. Based on what it was seen in the video, a possible way of managing it in a future meeting would be to ask each to bring ideas and solutions, for example, Ray could have also provided fundraising ideas, as it was also the end of the meeting. He wanted to aim as high as they could, but he did not provide any ideas for it. He only mentioned the difficulties.
Politics of Sociology video
In this video, the group dynamics is not as friendly and effective as in the previous one. There are clear roles, and clear communication types. However, it is a conflicting discussion. Steve is clearly the leader, even though he fails at preventing and stopping the argument and influencing so that an actual decision can be made. The discussion begins with Steve already reminding that the end of the meeting is to make decisions about what courses to keep and which to let go. That is already a leadership trait, orienting the meeting and conversations towards the goal.
Trevor and Ellen are the two conflicting persons in the meeting. Both Ellen and Trevor seem to have their agenda and are not open to other viewpoints. However Ellen has the support of the rest of the members: the teacher and Georgia, while Trevor is alone and he is more close minded than the rest, continually opposing to all the ideas provided. Ellen way of reacting, her tone of voice, and not letting Trevor finish what he was saying makes it worse because both with her verbal and non-verbal language she is making the communication more difficult. There is a moment in the video, that Steve comes back to the conversation, while the rest were discussing about the new course they want to offer, Steve was observing, he reads more than the verbal communication but the feelings in their posture, tone of voice etc., and tries to bring peace again, to step back, and see the bigger picture. However, he does not manage to succeed.
The teacher tries to be the mediator, and he is a content listener. He already has all the information, all the data needed, and he did his research and is focusing on what data says, all the way till the end when he says that students have been voting with their feet, saying that they were saying they do not like the course because they do not come as many anymore.
Steve proposes a concrete idea of Sociology of Time; he tries to help both Ellen and Trevor to step back and see the bigger picture. Obviously, he proposes the same thing as Ellen, but he wants Ellen to step back and change her attitude to try to find harmony. However, he does not manage to do that. When the discussion became an argument, Georgia came on board to try to cool it down. However, again she agrees with the idea of the Teacher and Ellen and so Trevor ends up alone.
Steve tries to show Ellen that if she continues with her number and her attitude it will also provoke that the brainstorming will be limited. However, in the end, everyone already agrees, and the only one who does not agree is Trevor.
References
Planning a Playground Video.
Politics in Sociology.
Communicating In Small Groups
