Elisha Moore
Instructor Nancy Fraleigh
Communications 4-L01
February 17, 2015
A Case Study Analysis
When a group forms together they all must have a common purpose. In the case study video, I observed a small group consisting of five members planning a successful communication seminar: The Executive Committee of the Student Chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). By watching this group interact it was clear that each group member brought something unique to the table. There were many individual ideas and comments taking place, yet they were still able to focus and accomplish something as a whole group. They demonstrate group purpose, group ethics, inputs, throughputs, outputs, open system, interdependence, feedback, shared meaning, synergy, listening, and nonverbal messages.
It is important to notice the size of a group and the environment the group is in when trying to achieve a goal. Group members become interdependent on each other and their environment. This video takes place in a medium size room in a quite area. The size of the room allows them to sit closely to each other and converse face to face, while also increasing their ability to listen more actively. The isolated area prevented any outside noise or disturbances allowing them to stay focused on the task at hand. During disagreements, they were comfortable enough to speak up when necessary. For example, when Deidre misunderstood Kevin’s comment about notifying the students with a brochure, she mistook it as cutting out the faculty. Chris then clarifies that Kevin suggested a different method of reaching out, not to exclude the faculty. These group ethics allowed them to communicate in a respectful manner while still being able to speak their opinion. They were active listeners in a way that encouraged them to hear what was said, process it, and respond to it using critical thinking.
This group had the opportunity to work in an open system. An open system allows free exchange of information between all members of the group vs. a closed system which has limited flow of information. An open system has its flaws, for example the leader loses some control by giving the other members a say in what happens, but it benefits greatly with group decision making. In the video, their leader, Lori, is constantly encouraging the group members to think of some ideas and solutions to the task. She even asks for others’ clarification giving them a moment to lead and elaborate on their plan. By doing this she is giving each member an equal say and it allows them to build off of each others’ ideas. This begins their flow of inputs, throughputs, and outputs.
The material that was brought at the beginning of the group meeting would be considered the inputs. What group members bring to the table such as skills and personalities would also attribute to the input. Deidre is skilled at designing and uses that skill to make the brochures. Kevin’s positive personality keeps the conversation exciting. Resources are considered input as well. For example you might ask a group member, “How much time do you have to meet?” Or, “What information did you bring?” Kevin came with plenty of information from the previous year’s seminar and the group was able to evaluate what worked and what did not work and they were able to make changes from that feedback. The throughputs are what happen during the meeting. When Tony left the room to go make copies for everyone he helped focus and organize the flow of the meeting and the notes Chris volunteered to write allowed them to go back and evaluate their progress. Lastly the outputs are the achievements the group has made. They made a list of their target audience, they raised the cost from $2 to $5, they decided on brochures, and they were all satisfied with their progress for that day. They also made a list of things they will do on their own so their next meeting has more inputs to start with.
In the video they go