Running Head: REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS

Reflection on My Learning in Groups and Teams

Jonathan West
Final Exam
Learning in Groups and Teams, Spring 2009
Blog: www.bluesky55.wordpress.com
Virginia Commonwealth University
Dr. Terry Carter
Due: 4 May 2009

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS

As society has become more complex due to technology and other effects of
globalization, the role working in groups and teams to solve problems and concerns in the
workplace and society at large has grown. It is no longer feasible to think that a worker or citizen
can simply learn one or two skills and contribute effectively to their workplace or social setting
without interacting with peers or colleagues. The ability to work effectively in a group or team is
becoming a necessity for a successful career, as well as perhaps essential to contribute
meaningfully towards society.
The old management model of command and control is loosing its effectiveness as a key
motivation for workers to continue in their jobs is personal growth and development and not just
repetitive task work. Work in todays society has become increasingly complex and consists of
greater nonroutine functions with interdependence which are well suited to teamwork (Levi,
2007). Teams are more effective ways to handle this work and therefore are becoming more
common in the workplace and many areas of life. The shift in to working in teams also involves
a shift from a control oriented management towards a facilitative approach to leadership. As a
result of this trend towards a facilitative model of working, it is important to understand many
factors that affect the dynamics of group and team life.
While studying the various aspects and elements of the dynamics of groups and teams in
Learning in Groups and Teams, it was an excellent opportunity gain deeper insight into some of
these principles by forming a team and working on team projects throughout the semester. This
paper will review the essential aspects of teams in the context of the working of the Infrareds
team. Key learning will be drawn out in relation to the team experience together with how this
can be applied to my work setting and personal development. Schwarzs Group Effectiveness

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS4

Model will be used as a lens to view of the work of the Infrareds team and evaluate whether the
team developed into an effective group. The group effectiveness model is based on the three
criteria of performance, process, and personal and the three factors of group process, group
structure, and group context (Schwarz, Davidson, Carlson, & McKinney, 2005). I will use these
factors to examine what I have learned about groups and teams this semester together with my
experience as a team member of the Infrareds.
Group Process
As a part of analysis of group process, I will review two different theories of group
development, Tuckman and Jensens stage model of group development (Levi, 2007) and
Gersicks model of punctuated equilibrium (Gersick, 1988). In analyzing the group development
of the Infrareds there is evidence that supports both of these models.
Group development - Tuckman and Jensens stage model. Tuckman and Jensens model
consists of the five stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Levi,
2007). In the forming stage the members of the group or team get to know each other and figure
out how they are going to operate. At this stage there is discomfort due to unfamiliarity together
with confusion on how the team will function together. Its important at this point in team
development to have a clear purpose, define goals, and plan how the team will accomplish their
tasks. In the early stages of the Infrareds team there was some discomfort and confusion, I think,
primarily due to the fact that we did not know each other well and did not have clear goals and
an understanding of how we would function together as a team.
Many of the models of group development suggest that social relations precede a groups
performance stage. It is therefore important to focus on developing social relations early in the
teams existence. Social icebreaker activities serve as team warm-ups and are crucial to first

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS5

team meetings (Levi, 2007). The shoebox exercise in the first class worked very well as an
icebreaker that helped the red team share something about our personal life with our new team
members. Hearing stories about team members lives definitely helped to develop a sense of
connection and relationship. This was a significant starting point in the development towards
cohesiveness.
The first task of developing a team charter further helped to both get to know each other
and plan how we wanted to accomplish our work. Defining our purpose, goals, roles,
expectation, values, and group norms was also an important step to take in the early stage of our
team work (Levi, 2007). Through this exercise we learned more about each other and also
discussed explicitly our goals, interests in how we would work together and also consider how
we would handle any conflict or challenges. These were the basic elements of the forming stage.
The Infrareds also experienced the storming and norming stages and, in my view, a hint
of the performing stage during our three group projects. Levi (2007) says that the in the storming
phase there are often conflicts and confusion about roles and project requirements. The Infrareds
did experience some role confusion, and on occasion a lack of agreement of direction for the
project or tasks. A few times one or another of the members had strong interests in a particular
way of solving a problem that created some tension in the group for a short time. However, the
storms passed and each time we were able to come to decisions that everyone seemed fully
committed to supporting.
The norming stage is when the group becomes more cohesive, conflict is reduced, and
there is more team confidence. In this stage norms or ground rules have been developed and
social relations are well enough developed to form a group identity. In the performing stage the
group has matured and knows how to operate and can focus successfully on its task. Using

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS6

norms that have been developed, there is collaboration, collective decision making and
cooperation (Levi, 2007).
In my view the Infrareds evolved into a cohesive group with limited conflict, good social
relations, and team confidence that characterizes the norming stage. I think towards the end of
our semesters work we progressed towards the performing stage. With the help of an
understanding and practice of the Skilled Facilitator approach developed by Roger Schwarz
(Schwarz et al., 2005), the dialogue of the team developed into a collaborative effort to complete
the final tasks at hand. The social relations in the group also evolved to where the team enjoyed
being together and actually had moments creativity and fun while accomplishing our work. We
have not yet experienced the adjourning stage of group development, but I do hope we will have
the opportunity to meet and review and evaluate our work before we disband.
Group development - punctuated equilibrium model. In addition to Tuckmans stage
model of group development, the Infrareds exhibited characteristics of Gersicks model of
punctuated equilibrium (1988). In the punctuated equilibrium model the first half of the allotted
project time is a period of stasis that is characterized by the first meeting for the project. There is
then a major transition near the midpoint of the project timeline when old frameworks and
patterns are discontinued, new perspectives are developed and remarkable progress is made
towards the deadline.
It seemed that for each of the projects the Infrareds followed the punctuated equilibrium
model of development. At first it was disconcerting to think that the first phase of our project was
not so apparently productive. However, even though there was not as much activity, the ideas,
concepts, interests proposed at the first meeting seemed to ultimately contribute towards the
completed project, even if the original ideas were modified or changed. Perhaps this first period

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS7

could be considered a rumination where initial ideas are predigested and during the transition,
these ideas are reviewed and revised to send them to the second period to be fully digested with
all the energy and value extracted and contribute significantly toward the completion of the
project.
Conflict management. Conflict is where there are opposing or contradictory interests
(www.dictionary.net, retrieved May 3, 2009) and is a normal part of the existence of groups and
teams. Often there is an effort to avoid conflict. However, if we understand that conflict is a
normal part of group life it is important to consider how to manage it. Conflict can be considered
to be healthy as well as unhealthy to the working of a team. Healthy conflict is focused on task
issues, legitimate differences of opinion about the task, differences in values and perspectives,
and different expectations about the impact of decisions (Levi, 2007, p. 113). Unhealthy conflict
is about competition over power, rewards, and resources; conflict between individual and group
goals; poorly run team meetings; personal grudges from the past, and faulty communications (p.
113). Conflict changes over a teams development. Initially, there is little conflict and then there
is conflict over norms, roles and status issues. When the team focuses on the task, there is
conflict about how the tasks should be done.
There was a variety of conflict that took place in the Infrareds team, primarily healthy.
The majority of conflict was over legitimate differences of opinion about the task, differences in
values and perspectives, and different expectations about the impact of decisions. On a couple of
occasions there was tension in the team when members were focused on their own solutions and
seemingly not willing to consider alternatives. There were a couple of ways these issues were
resolved. One way that the tension of conflict was that some time passed and team members
(perhaps after some reflection) were willing to detach from their idea and be open to consider

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS8

other ideas. Another approach that really seemed to help on the spot was to shift the focus from
solutions to interests and ask team members to explain their reasoning and intent behind the
solution they were advocating.
I also noticed that there was some conflict over power. For one project the team leader
appointed was quite directive in his/her language and often used the imperative voice. This was a
challenge for me (and others also expressed this later). I found myself reacting and getting
defensive and this resulted in some tension in one of the meetings. This was a different way of
working than I was used to, especially in a team where all were considered as equally
contributing. It was insightful to study the types of power as well as the paradox of authority at
this time in our class.
Levi (2007) states that there are different types of power: personal or soft power, and
positional or harsh power. Personal power originates from an individuals personality or
characteristics and includes information, referent, and expert power. Positional or harsh power is
derived from an individuals official position in an organization and is of three types: legitimate,
reward, and coercive. Usually, team leaders have less legitimate power than traditional managers
and thus often rely on expert and referent power to influence the team. The most effective use of
power is when groups are given more power and control over their work and is called
empowerment. Empowerment has four main dimensions: meaningfulness, potency, autonomy,
and impact. Workers who are a part of empowered jobs have increased job satisfaction and
motivation and an increased confidence in their ability to perform a task.
I found that when the leadership in the Infrareds was more autocratic and less facilitative,
I felt less respect for my perspective and also less motivated to contribute. In one instance in our
team work, I think the project leader had the intention of making decisions and giving directions

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS9

in the interest of efficiency (this is an inference). The project leader did not explain their thinking
or consult the group to see if there were differing points of view or ideas. For small decisions this
did not matter so much. However, some decisions were made in this way that impacted all of the
team members. I noticed that when language was strongly directive or perhaps even unilateral in
nature the energy and motivation in the team decreased.
Later, when the team discussed some of our processes, we found that there were cultural
contributions to this way of expression and perhaps was not intended the way I had originally
assumed. In the particular team members country and mother language, it is common to express
things in the imperative although important how it is said. In my own reflection about this
situation, I found that I was making high level inferences due to the language being used and did
not test my inferences. As a result, I reacted defensively and there were unintended negative
consequences that affected the group energy and motivation.
It is also interesting to consider power from the perspective of the paradox of authority.
Authority can be understood to be derived from an authorizing process that is dynamic and is
therefore built or created. In a group, members can authorize someone to perform things on their
behalf. It is the willingness of the members to accept the activities of authorized individual as
an expression as parts of themselves that creates authority in the group (Smith & Berg, 1987, p.
134). It is the process of authorizing that creates the opportunity for individual contributions to
have an influence on the work of the group and in the larger context of the group's interaction
with the world at large. Authority is closely connected with empowerment. One develops power
as one empowers the others. Taking power and using it often for ones self deprives others of the
scarce commodity. However, if one obtains power and uses it to empower others, the total
amount individual and group power is amplified. So the work of those who have or create

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS10

power is to create the condition in which others can move toward their own empowerment
(Smith & Berg, 1987, p. 135). The risk and challenge of empowering others is that by giving
another authority, one may be deauthorizing oneself. One of the essential tasks of a group is to
learn how to both authorize oneself and authorize others without assuming that, if one person in
a group has authority, others cannot have it too.
In my experience with recognizing authority in the Infrareds, I discovered the value of
the paradoxical view. I learned that if I have issues acknowledging authority in others at times, it
could very well be connected to my own issues of authorizing myself.
Decision making. There are advantages and disadvantages with group decision making.
A group or team brings more varied experience and resources to a situation than are available to
an individual. Also, by sharing their knowledge through group discussion or shared media, new
ideas can be generated that one person would not have developed. Group decision making also
motivates group members towards better decisions and performance. Members are also more
committed to decisions in which they are involved and will more likely help put them into
action. Group decisions are superior to individual decisions when groups combine their resources
to make decisions or solve problems. Groups can make better decisions by sharing resources
when there is a group with diverse viewpoints, good communication and tasks or problems that
are too complex for an individual to handle (Levi, 2007).
There are many approaches teams can use to make decisions. Generally there are three
main approaches to decision making that a team can use: consultative, democratic, or consensus.
These range from leader based decisions to those made with full participation of the team. In
consultative, the leader consults with the team and then decides. With democratic there is voting
with majority rule. With consensus there is full participation (Levi, 2007). It is important to use

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS11

the decision making rule that generates the level of commitment needed (Schwarz et al., 2005).
The main criteria for choosing a decision making approach are quality, speed, and acceptance.
When problems are simple, the issue does not require action from most of the team, or the
decision has to be made quickly, it is preferable to make individual decisions. Generally,
decision making approaches that include participation and group discussion lead to higherquality decisions, especially if problems are unstructured or complex. Group decision making is
slower, so the importance of the criteria of speed may be an issue. When acceptance is important,
decisions should be made by consensus (Levi, 2007).
Decision making in the Infrared team was primarily made by consensus. There were
occasions when there were simple decisions or time was a factor that a consultative approach
was used. A specific example is on the 12 Angry Men paper. After everyone contributed to the
draft, the team decided that I would do a final run through to check for flow and connectedness
and then hand it over to another team member (IF3 Infrared 3) for final editing and formatting
to APA standards. Then, if IF3 had any questions she could call to check with me, if she had time
(I was the team leader on that project). After IF3 finished the final copy, she then sent it around
to everyone for a last quick review. This seemed to work well for the situation, except IF2 and
IF1 both felt like they wanted to contribute more.
Facilitation. Group facilitation is a process where a person who is neutral in regards to
content is selected to help increase the effectiveness of the group by improving its process and
structure. Process is in reference to how a group works together and includes how they make
decisions, communicate with each other, solve problems, and how they handle conflict. Structure
is in reference to recurring group processes, for example group roles, group membership, goals,
or group norms. Facilitation skills can be used in a variety of roles: facilitator (content neutral,

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS12

process expert), facilitative consultant (process expert, content expert), facilitative coach
(process expert, involved in content), facilitative trainer (process expert, content expert), or
facilitative leader (process expert, content expert). Content neutral means that one facilitates
without sharing ones opinions about the groups issues, and therefore does not influence the
groups decisions. The Skilled Facilitator approach is an approach to facilitation that is a valuesbased, systemic approach to facilitation (Schwarz et al., 2005, p. 4). Some of the key features of
the Skilled Facilitator approach are explicit core values, ground rules for effective groups, the
diagnosis-intervention cycle, low level inferences, the group effectiveness model, and a systems
approach.
The Infrareds team experience of facilitation according to the Skilled Facilitator approach
evolved throughout the semester. In the beginning I would say the group exhibited characteristics
of the unilateral control model when there were differences of opinions or perspectives. I think
this was primarily due to lack of understanding, experience, and practice rather than intention.
When in psychologically threatening or embarrassing situations we usually revert to the
unilateral control model without being aware of it even if we espouse different values (Schwarz
et al., 2005). Since I had the opportunity to learn about the Skilled Facilitator approach several
years ago, I was able to use some of the ground rules in our early team meetings although, at
times, I still found myself reverting to a unilateral control theory-in-use. The ground rules that I
found particularly helpful were: use specific examples; explain your reasoning and intent (could
you share your thinking behind that?); focus on interests, not positions; and advocacy and
inquiry.
As the team progressed through the semester, learning about various aspects of group
dynamics and was introduced to the elements of the Skilled Facilitator approach, we began to

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS13

practice more skilled dialogue which led to more effective discussions, higher quality work, and
personal satisfaction. Particularly, we began to explain our reasons for statements, inquire about
others interests and their thinking on a particular topic.
Intra-team dynamics. In my view the inter-team dynamics of the Infrareds contained the
elements of support, open communication, trust, full participation, empowerment and feedback.
While at the beginning the trust was not very high because we did not know each other well and
had not worked together so the dependency and interdependency was low. There was, however,
an openness to learn, willingness to participate fully, and an interest to do the best possible. As
we began to trust each other, we also began to authorize each other to take responsibility for our
respective tasks. This empowerment led to high interdependency and a greater sense of group
identity and accomplishment.
Inter-team dynamics. I did not notice a high degree of inter-team dynamics. Some of our
team occasionally reported on what the other teams were posting on their wikis, particularly on
the first project. Since what we were doing was quite different from the other teams, this caused
a bit of hesitancy in our group. However, we did continue on our chosen path. I also did not
notice any overt competition or negative attitudes or interaction with other groups. Although
there was no explicit sense of competing, the mere presence of three other teams did seem to be
an underlying motivation to make greater efforts to perform successfully, especially when it
came to the class presentations.
Group Structure
Leadership. Leadership is a process in which a person influences the progress of a team
towards reaching a goal which is not necessarily resting with just one person. Leadership is a set
of functions or a process which may be carried out by many of a teams members. When a leader

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS14

is rotated or elected, they usually have limited power and serve mostly to facilitate the group
process. A designated leader with organizational power can be helpful when structure is needed
and the task is complex, when there is significant conflict in the team, or when someone is
needed to manage the connection with other parts of the organization. A team leader is different
than a manager. A manager is authorized to make decisions, whereas a team leader acts to
facilitate decision making (Levi, 2007).
As an alternative to a designated leader, there is the option having a self-managing team.
In a self-managing team there is no leader with authority from the organization and decisions are
made by consensus. The leader acts to facilitate the decision making process instead of managing
the group. There are two types of leaders in self-managing teams: power building and
empowered. In power-building leadership, the leader is an active, democratic-oriented person
who teaches the group team skills and guides team-building efforts. The leader provides
structure, helps coordinate the team, and encourages and rewards good performance However,
the leader retains control over team behaviors and long-term strategic direction (Levi, 2007, p.
169). Empowered leadership is less involved. The leader serves as a facilitator but does not
control major decisions or the teams work process. This kind of team is really self-governing.
As a part of our original planning, the Infrareds assigned each project a different team
leader. These were mostly nominal roles. However, the actual working of the team fit more in the
definition of a self-managing team. Leadership also changed according to tasks. If someone had
a keen interest in a task, they would take responsibility for completing it or at least putting a draft
together for the team to review. There was a sense of mutual purpose, responsibility, and
accountability which each team member took seriously and this had a very positive impact on the
morale of the team.

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS15

Group Context
The group context was provided by the classroom structure and professor. The overall
mission and vision of the purpose of the team was clearly given in our first class and course
materials. The professor and university setting also provided a supportive culture including
information and feedback. In addition, we receive training in the various aspects of team
functioning and had the opportunity to consult with an expert when needed. All of these factors
were not as prominent as some of the factors in the group process or group structure area,
however, they contributed significantly to the team becoming an effective team.
Personal reflections on other facets of the Infrareds team work
Challenging aspects of performing as a project team. The most challenging aspects of
working together as a project team were going through the forming and storming stages where
there was lack of clarity about roles and goals and we still did not know each other so well. It
was also more challenging when conflict situations surfaced and we did not have the guidelines
of the core values and ground rules of the Skilled Facilitator approach and tended to operate in a
more unilateral way.
My role in the team and how it evolved over time. I think a key role for me was serving to
facilitate the group process as well as to offer alternative perspectives and analysis on aspects of
content. I was nominated to lead the first project and found this to be a bit of a challenge because
the other team members seemed intent on getting the tasks done, while I was interested in the
process. I also was trying to see that each team member had an opportunity to be heard if they
had something to say. When members had different ideas and wanted to push forward with a
solution that one or another had proposed, I asked what the interests were and what they thinking
was behind their proposed solution. This seemed to be a new process for most of the team and

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS16

they were impatient with me about this at first because it seemed to take more time. I became a
bit anxious and felt some pressure to give in to the orientation to task, but I felt it was important
for me to go slower and get clarity on our goals for the project. I also felt it was important to
reach consensus on the decisions we made affecting our direction, which we agreed in our
charter we would try to achieve were possible, especially important decisions.
There was one instance very early on in the first project where one team member made a
suggestion and the other two members immediately discounted it quite abruptly without trying to
understand what the first team member intended. When I asked the first person to share what
their interests were and explain how they were thinking to use their suggestion, the other two
team members were a bit astonished and seemed to realize they may have reacted too quickly to
discount the idea. We eventually used this idea in our project. I think this was an instance where
giving a team member the opportunity to share their viewpoint in an atmosphere of curiosity
really helped the person feel like a valued team member. It was also at a crucial timing in the
team development that a sense of openness to share was experienced.
While having quite a bit of experience working in teams, facilitating, and even leading
teams, I wanted to serve as a regular team member and not make too much of my experience and
rather really learn more about all of the aspects of team dynamics. I feel like this worked OK and
I could contribute and help facilitate at times when needed. When we did the pink elephant
exercise my co-team members commented that they actually appreciated how, in the first project,
I asked them to explain their reasoning and inquired about their interests. They said at first it
seemed like it would take too long, but later they saw how it helped the group. I was surprised
and delighted to hear this because I had not known if my approach were appreciated.

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS17

In a sense I felt like an outsider or deviant at first because I was interested more in having
an effective process in addition to the content of our projects and the other team members did not
seem to share this interest. However, over time as we learned more about team dynamics and
skilled dialogue, my role also changed from intervening in a facilitative manner to supporting
other team members in their facilitative efforts.
Lessons I have learned that I can apply to my work setting. Some key points that I have
learned about working with groups and teams that I can apply to my work setting are: It is
important to spend time planning and have clear purpose, goals, and roles and put these in the
form of a charter. Social relations are important and not just useless time spent, although there
needs to be a balance with task. It is important to realize that a group evolves over time and that
there are different ways of looking at group development. It is helpful to have explicit values as
well as group norms or ground rules. Conflict is normal and can be healthy and bring higher
quality decisions. Look at things from a systemic point of view. Looking at group life from the
perspective of paradoxes can add a valuable insight. And I also have a better understanding of
the core values and ground rules of the Skilled Facilitator approach as well as more conscious
efforts of putting these into practice.
How have I changed my beliefs, values, or assumptions about the purpose and functions
of groups and teams. One key assumption that I had about working with groups and teams is
that conflict is negative or unhealthy. I now see that there can also be healthy conflict. Actually,
that there are legitimate differences in opinion or differences in opinions or viewpoints was not
so new to me. I would not have called this conflict. Previously, I had a sense of the value of
groups and teams, but now I have a much clearer picture of the essential elements and factors

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS18

that influence the successful functioning of groups and teams and feel I could convey this much
more easily to others.
Behaviors I would like to work on and how I intend to monitor my performance. I would
like to have a deeper understanding about the underlying principles of the ladder of inference and
gain greater insight and awareness into how I make untested inferences and assumptions. I think
to do this I will first need to review the material in the Schwarz fieldbook. I also will make
efforts to be more conscious of my theory-in-use and reflect on crucial or difficult conversations
that I encounter to see the steps I make up the ladder of inference. I will keep record of this in a
journal or perhaps blog. I think that I often make untested inferences, especially in more
emotionally charged situations and as a result there are often unintended consequences. If I can
become more aware of this perhaps I can shift more towards using the mutual learning model as
a theory-in-use on a more consistent basis.
Conclusion
I thoroughly enjoyed my experience with the Infrareds and the whole class of Learning in
Groups and Teams. I think that I can say that the Infrareds worked effectively as a group
according to Schwarzs three criteria for group effectiveness: performance the services met or
exceeded standards, process the group enhanced its ability to work together, and personal
members experienced growth and development (Schwarz et al., 2005). One of the things that I
found very effective in this class was the learning within learning taking place. We were studying
about the dynamics of groups and teams and various aspects of group facilitation while we were
simultaneously in our teams practically experiencing many of the same issues. This learning
within learning was a powerful experience and I think helped immensely to gain deeper insight
into the theories and principles being studied. I will carry with me many of the practical and

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS19

valuable insights I gained to my future encounters with the many groups and teams I will surely
encounter.

REFLECTION ON GROUPS AND TEAMS20

References
Conflict. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913), Retrieved May 3, 2009, from
http://www.dictionary.net/
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamics for teams (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwarz, R., Davidson, A., Carlson, P., & McKinney, S. (2005). The skilled facilitator fieldbook:
Tips, tools, and tested methods for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and
coaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, K., & Berg, D. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.