Group Interactions and Dynamics: Research Paper

Group Interactions and Dynamics
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Group Interactions and Dynamics
Groups have become a significant component of learning and interactions in the fields of education and psychology. The shift towards more collective approaches against individualistic approaches has been cemented in empirical studies and experiences that have showcased the implications of groups in coping and learning behaviors among individuals. Poor management of workload, dissatisfaction among group members, poor communication, and interpersonal conflicts have consistently been cited as challenges in group applications. Importantly, every group differs in structure and philosophies, aspects that can influence their overall performances. This paper will explore group behaviors in the Blue Group (BG), whose transformation from the beginning of the unit to the end can be assessed through various empirical indicators. The analysis grounds its inputs in the contact theory with group interactions and dynamics assessed through various stages of group development in a culturally heterogeneous group. The contact hypothesis is applicable in an intergroup contact study where the focus is on African-American students and their automatically activated racial attitudes toward white students. Thus, increased interaction with members of different groups should allow individuals to gain information about other groups and reduce hostility and prejudice. An insightful understanding of group dynamics and interactions should encompass transition from lack of trust and poor communication at the onset of the groups to mild and ethnically-charged cohesiveness in the last stages of group development, bearing BG experiences through specific developmental stages.
Group Members
BG consists of five members, with each member having a distinctive role to play in the development of the group. The group is racially heterogeneous, with three Caucasian and two African American members. The first member is JK, who is the leader and the facilitator in the group. The second member of the group is FY. FY is the creative director. The group also consists of CT as the coach. The last members of the group are KG and LK. KG and LK are members of the group. KG and LK manifest no defined roles, and they can be used in any role if the need arises. All the members of the group must work individually while also fostering the overall group objectives. BG manifested challenges in group interactions at the initial stages. The development was much positive, with members showing interdependence in a demonstration of the inputs of contact theory. However, the integration of the whole group was not optimized.
Contact Theory
Interracial relationships have been used as indicative of the social factors in multiracial engagements. The functionality of groups depends on the social distance between the members. That is, factors such as dissimilarity and rejection or the feelings of similarity and closeness normally define the interactions within interracial groups. While there are increased race relations in various social platforms such as marriage, questions are still raised on how race still remains a factor in determining the closeness among individuals from varying ethnic backgrounds. GB is a representation of dissimilarity and rejection as well as similarity and closeness stemming from ethnic differences, thereby making an ideal learning platform for interracial group relationships.
The intergroup hypothesis is one of the most dominant theories in understanding group dynamics in interracial relationships. The contact hypothesis was proposed by Allport in 1954. Allport noted that positive intergroup effects occur in groups with four conditions. The conditions are supported by social and institutional authorities, common goals, intergroup co-operations, and equal status. This theory has been employed to understand how diversity plays in groups; societies that are characterized by inputs from diverse ethnic groups are faced with challenges of equal representation in group activities. In most cases, individuals from minority ethnic groups, such as African-Americans, are viewed as inadequate in taking vital group roles.
There are different elements of the contact theory that are worth exploring when assessing the team dynamics, especially where members emanate from diverse ethnic groups. First among the factors is equal status, members of a contact situation should not have an unequal hierarchical relationship. That is, people should merit positions of leadership in teams as longs as they showcase the attributes to deliver the necessary results. When members are judged based on their cultural attributes, they can be demoralized, and their overall inputs in group activities can be hampered. Before and during the contact situation, group members must ensure that evidence on equal status is documented. The second factor that groups must emphasize is co-operation. Co-operation implies working together among members in non-competitive environments regardless of their ethnic attributes. Co-operation in groups has been assessed in studies that have indicated that groups that cooperate perform and achieve more positive results as opposed to those that do not cooperate.
Common goals and support by social and institutional authorities are the other factors that affect group dynamics in contact theory. Common goals refer to the ability of members to rely on each other to achieve the goals of the group. In every group activity, emphasis must be put on collectivism. Unfortunately, some group members anchor their perceptions on other group members on prejudice that they cannot accept their roles in group activities. Groups also operate on the necessity for equal status. Each member must be treated with an equal expectation that they must partake in the group activities to help achieve the group goals. Ultimately, there should be institutional authorities that explicitly sanction equal participation in group activities. In the assignment, the outlines were clearly stated and emphasized the need for cultural diversity in the groups. Still, aspects of prejudice can be traced in any group that constitutes more than one cultural group. Part of the reason why some individuals may opt to behave properly is that they stand a chance of facing sanctions if their behaviors are not acceptable at the institutional level. Proponents of contact theory insisted on the need to enforce institutional inputs in the pursuance of cultural diversity within learning settings.
Dynamics and Interactions through Group Developmental Stages
Task and Maintenance
Roles of members have grown and become more conspicuous through the different stages of the group. Information, JK was the automatic leader. JK was authentic and seemed visionary from his actions. He also expresses himself effectively besides having a good relationship with each member, even from the beginning. Bearing JK’s dominance, the group’s leadership position was barely subject to the power struggle. At the norming stage, he marked the aspect of unity among the members. JK maintained the group’s synergy in agreements and conflicts. At the closure, everyone understood that JK was the right leader and facilitator the group could ever have.
JK played notable roles in the group. JK’s primary role was to provide a sense of direction to the group. Through JK, members know the group and its objectives, both short-term and long-term. JK created and enforced the ground rules in the group besides motivating each member to partake in pursuance of the group goals. JK also doubled as the facilitator for the group. As a facilitator, he was a primary contributor to the decision-making process. The facilitator also ensures that the team has all the necessary resources in its pursuance of the objectives. JK’s roles and impacts barely changed in the course of the group.
FY was the creative director who...