Group processes, leadership issues, and concepts relative to groups
As any group evolves from one stage to another, it undergoes transformations which are either structured or unstructured. This transformation is referred to as the group process. While a group has several participants, there are roles that are specific to all the parties that are involved. Of importance are the roles that are relative to the group leadership and the subordinates.
In a group process, the leadership is always supposed to carry out three basic roles; form, storm, norm and perform. This implies that, the strategy that is supposed to be used should be initiated by the leadership; the strategy should be explained to the subordinates through clear channel without victimization or creation that the subordinate is inferior; the leadership should ensure that there is cohesion of the whole group; and, together with all the stakeholders ensure that the strategy is implemented to the expectations.
On the other hand, the subordinate should adhere to procedure, seek clarity, and give relevant feedback in time and using the right channels. When the roles of both the leadership and the subordinate are in place, the performance of the group will always be positive.
Followership
The transformations referred above vary from one occasion to another. In this paper, I dwell on a situation that happened in a group that I am part of. I am a teacher in one of the schools that compose the CarvilleCitySchool District. In the process in the study, the manager of the group of schools, Mr. Porter, had written an email which informed the teachers of the intentioned writing of performance objectives. The email reached us through the principal of our school Mr. Weigand. The case presents the teachers as just followers of a process that is led by the manager and the principals.
Communication
As it turned out, the manager had sent a very brief message in his email which was potentially ambiguous in interpretation. The email reached us and we understood that we had to spend more extra time in school so as to meet the expectation of the manager fro no extra pay. In fact, some of the highly rated teachers in terms of performance immediately started looking for other employment opportunities. Group process requires that the information that is sent not to be ambiguous. Poor communication as evidenced here leads to negative feed back.
Teamwork
The case study in our school leads to recommendation in changes that would assist in maturity of the group process. One the leadership was right in forming the strategy and storming it. However, the way that the leadership used in storming was wrong. The lack of contact and also the assumption of the contribution of the teachers lead to misinterpretation of the motives of the leadership. Also lack of seeking clarification by us the teachers lead to premature behavior of seeking employment elsewhere. The behavior of this parties show non commitment in teamwork. . Quality and quantity of work submitted, and meeting deadlines
Peer evaluation refers to a situation where group members check and rectify the performance of fellow group members. In this case, the principal was responsible of checking the methodology of storming that was used by the manger and instead of using it change and call the teachers top a meeting where they could discuss the issue before they start the implementation process. In this way he could have dealt with the issue of teacher’s wrong interpretation. Also, he could have called for a meeting between him and the manager to discuss the issue. Peer evaluation ensures that the work that is submitted is of the right quality and quantity and that it is delivered in time.
Evaluation of the parties involved
Superintendent Porter, Mr. Weigand, the consultant, and the teachers are the key parties that are involved in the group process. Superintendent Porter, being the reference party in the process does not fair well as per expectations of group process especially in communication and quality of the work. This is shown in his communication using email instead of a one on one contact with the teachers which in itself is prone to misunderstanding. However, he shows teamwork in involving the subject teachers in making the performance objectives.
On the other hand, Mr. Weigand lacks in initiative. Having seen a loophole in his senior, he ought to have taken the initiative of a dialogue either with the manager or with the teachers. However, he is keen in meeting deadlines and that’s why he insists on the expected timings of the objectives. Like his senior, he also overlooks the issue of one on one communication.
On the other hand, the consultant being the professional as far as the making of performance objectives is concerned, shows lack of leadership. It is expected that any professional give an almost fault proof advice to his clients. One of such advice would have been the mode of communication to be used. Up to the point that we have studied this case, his efforts in quality and quantity of work submitted, and meeting deadlines cannot be evaluated since his contribution in those areas is yet to come into place.
The other party-the teachers- lack in followership which is expected of them. Followership requires the subordinates to follow the guidelines that are set in place and where necessary seek clarity. This, the teachers have not done. By rejecting and acting negatively, prior to clarification on matters, they show their deficiency in team work.
