Reflections on the Ideal: Group 5’s Working and Learning Process
Stacey Harker
Royal Roads University
MAELM 501
July 25, 2012
Simon Blakesley
Reflections on the Ideal: Group 5’s Working and Learning Process
When working on the 501/510 combined assignment, my positions were not substantially different from those of the group because our learning processes for the assignment occurred simultaneously and developed symbiotically. This ideal situation was easy to achieve because we approached the assignment from the same point: we are all skilled communicators with little to no prior knowledge of the subject assigned. We also had a common goal that was set by a respected outside source. Further easing the process, the group was motivated to succeed because everyone would have equal share in the reward for a job well done.
Because our levels of prior related experience appeared evenly distributed and we had never worked together before, social barriers to revealing our individual modes of problem solving were negligible. Some members of the group expressed ideas more impulsively than others, some were more skilled listeners, some more easily teased the main idea from the nest of knowledge that we were building, and everyone professed a different degree of strength in writing. The group was receptive to our idiosyncratic strengths in communication, and everyone was engaged and contributed ideas and analysis to the assignment because consensus was repeatedly sought and achieved. These processes were facilitated by our willingness and ability to acknowledge individual social and intellectual strengths and weaknesses. This honesty created trust, confidence, and self-reflection in the group’s ability and made appropriate, equal and effective delegation possible.
It is unrealistic to expect to have many opportunities to be employed to lead a group that is as cooperative, skilled, and motivated as Group Five, especially if achieve a task assigned by an external body. In my experience, working groups are generally more diverse in their needs, desires, and attention. Regardless of which groups I may lead in the future, it will be my goal to recreate Group Five’s learning environment. If perception and acknowledgement of strengths can be paired with an environment of trust secure enough to confidently reveal weaknesses, communication can achieve a higher level of accuracy and thereby set the stage for innovation.
In our group’s process, I became more acutely aware of my own communication style. I noticed my tendency to propose ideas without having fully thought them through. This meant that several times I was responsible for leading people away from the meaning of the text and the prescribed outcomes. I expressed some regret for my verbal impulsivity this with the group, but they credited my behavior as a necessary part of the thinking process. I agreed but must admit that I was astounded to find that sound debate and logical reasoning had lured us away from the very facts we intended to represent. I have become aware that my tendency to flesh out ideas verbally could prove more problematic if I were in a stronger leadership role. Thinking things through with peers is one thing. Repeatedly leading a staff on an intellectual wild goose chase would offer neither the motivation nor the reliable and trustworthy environment that made our group’s interactions so rewarding.
Finally, our group’s process made clear to me the importance for everyone to listen not just at the beginning but throughout. A particularly empathetic member of our group regularly checked in on how everyone was doing. In my keen focus on the destination, I can lose sight of the journey and am prone to assuming that everyone else is equally invested. Encouraging everyone to be heard throughout the process is something I need to work on, not only because it creates more inclusive discussion, but because it is common courtesy.