-

The Small Group Communicators

By:
Josh Ward, Angel Estrada, Allison Garetto,
Luke Belcaster, and Mclain Engel

Presenting:
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

December 13th, 2017

Intro/CAC Summary
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

According to Anderson & Martin (1999), group members are more highly satisfied when

all the members are receptive to input and encourage communication. Small groups are complex

and important to study. They can be characterized by a group of three to twelve people meeting

with a common purpose, sharing a sense of belonging, and ultimately exerting influence between

members (Beebe & Masterson, 2015). Throughout this semester, the Small Group

Communicators have seen all of these in action through our observations of our consultant

group, Colleges Against Cancer (CAC). CAC is a philanthropic student-run RSO (registered

student organization) on campus that aims to raise money for the American Cancer Association

through various events.

CAC consists of forty leadership members, but the members are further broken down into

smaller groups, which is where we observed the communications group. Other committees

include the financial, outreach, and several others. Each committee had a varying amount of

members, but all stayed within the small group amount. Clear leadership headed all of these

smaller groups by the president and other leaders. There is a shared sense of togetherness

between these groups, although a clear sense of hierarchy as well. The communications group

was led by a senior named Akshaya, who provided the group with direction. Overall, many

strengths were seen that propelled the group to achieve their goals. Though in small groups there

is always conflict, so we will examine the biggest noticeable weakness: members getting

overshadowed or dismissed by more vocal members. Their insight was overlooked, so through

the reflective thinking process we want to help CAC utilize their very capable members.

Colleges Against Cancer is a very well-organized club that sets a weekly meeting based

on students’ availability. Along with having a set meeting time, the leaders of CAC come very

prepared for each meeting; specifically, a PowerPoint presentation is made and rehearsed
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

beforehand. This was also taken into consideration when our group decided which solution to

implement. Meetings began with the president of the RSO doing some form of ice breaker, then

getting down to business. After a full group meeting, that was when the small groups met to

collaborate on their designated function. It quickly became apparent that these small groups were

a form of secondary groups, such as a decision-making group, because they worked together to

achieve a goal, which mainly consisted of decision making on how best to communicate CAC’s

goals across campus. Secondary groups do not form to make friends. They are typically used for

a specific function, but CAC members actually became friends and had social mixers too.

Each semester Colleges Against Cancer hosts a major event. In the fall, they do Pink

Week and in the spring they do Relay for Life. This semester we witnessed how they run Pink

Week, which supports breast cancer research. This involved selling shirts on the quad for a full

week and having their members available to answer any questions people may have about breast

cancer. Other than Pink Week, this semester they had various smaller events like kickball for a

cure and dodgeball. They got the student body and Greek life involved to raise the most amount

of money possible. The RSO also got closer throughout the semester by having a few social

events. Their friendship and compassion was visible by their communication throughout the

semester.

The communication small group was comprised of a variety of demographics and ages.

There were six members that all functioned underneath Akshaya. They allowed us to sit in their

meetings, which we switched off on attending. We brought our computers to take notes of our

observations, one of which was the main issue we found with their communication. In normal

conversation, whether making decisions or simply interacting, quiet members were

overshadowed by more talkative members because they could not get their input in or were too
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

shy to speak up. This lack of communication between members can lead to dissatisfaction in

addition to the loss of their valuable input.

Akshaya took on a task role, which keeps the group on track in accomplishing the goal of

reaching as many people at UIUC as possible. She asked the members if they were okay with

certain decisions, but only the vocal majority answered, leaving out the quiet minority. When we

were conducting interviews, Jessie Moncayo, a communication group member, said that she was

satisfied with the way the meeting were being run because she was able to share her thoughts.

Though, another member named Nicole, stated that she felt she could contribute more. She was

one of the group members that was more on the quiet side, which is why she probably felt less

overall group satisfaction.

Akshaya was the group leader because set goals and deadlines to follow. In using this

type of leadership, Akshaya was able to keep the group on task to achieve their goals as people

reported to her each week. Overall the morale in the group was very high, but we believe it could

have been better if each member had taken advantage of the opportunity to collaborate. To

improve group cohesiveness and communication, we began first by pinpointing the exact

problem affecting the group. Next, we followed the reflective thinking process to decide what the

best plan of action was, and how we could realistically implement the solution into the workings

of this RSO.

Identifying The Problem

Our group followed the reflective thinking process in order to find out what Colleges

Against Cancer could improve on. The reflective thinking process consists of five steps:

identifying the problem, analysis of the problem, generation of several possible solutions,

selection of the best solution, and implementation of the solution. We started with identifying the
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

problem. We used SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to figure

out what CAC was doing well and what were some things they could improve on. Typically, the

strength and weaknesses portion of this analysis is from within the organization; the

opportunities and threats portion is typically external.

The initial step of this process is finding out what the strengths of the group are. We

noticed they had a set leader, Akshaya, who operated in a democratic and organized fashion. We

also noticed that the majority of the group participated and was not hesitant to speak their mind

on issues. Next we moved on to the weaknesses portion of the SWOT analysis. The first thing

we noticed in this regard was that while there was a vocal majority, there was a silent minority

that was consistent through every meeting we attended. Another major weakness we saw was

that the meeting times were short. Having a meeting to attempt to make decisions on an event

where they only meet once a week for about a hour could cause them to be less productive. One

thing Allison noticed from being part of a different subgroup of the organization is that the

election process for leadership isn’t fair and is often decided through the executive team, leaving

the rest of the organization voiceless in this decision. The last potential weakness we noticed is

each year they do similar things, so it is easy for them to get into a rut and not listen to new

ideas.

The next two steps of SWOT analysis are opportunities and threats. The only major

opportunity we could think of was to have more members in each subgroup. This would help

them generate ideas through each other, making more ideas heard, and would make the silent

minority less afraid to speak out. The major threat for this organization is that they get their

support and funding through outside donations. This means that in order for them to remain an

organization, they must fundraise and collect donations.

Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

By using this SWOT analysis, we concluded that quiet members are getting

overshadowed by louder, more talkative members. For example, during our second meeting

observation, each of the small groups circled up and competed against each other to decide what

the theme for Relay for Life would be this year. They set a timer for five minutes and had each

of the small group leaders write on a dry erase board the ideas that their team came up with.

What we noticed from this is while there were three or four people actively participating, there

were still two or three people sitting off to the side in each group not vocalizing their ideas. We

thought this might be an issue, because if they are trying to find the best theme idea, having

everyone’s input is important.

Analysis of the Problem

In order to analyze the problem, our group used force-field analysis. This type of analysis

is a visual way of looking at the forces acting on the change, often followed by looking at the

pros and cons of making a decision. We identified the current state of affairs as one where the

members in the majority have the most say in discussions and the ideas of the members in the

minority are not vocalized or taken into consideration. We also identified that the goal of

Colleges Against Cancer should be to have a climate where all ideas are heard, including the

ones that are supported by members in the unheard minority. The main restraining force that is

currently preventing the group from achieving this goal is that there are short meeting times,

which means that not everyone in the group has time to put forth their suggestion. A short

meeting time also leads to the group making decisions quicker and not necessarily considering

all possible options.

Conversely, one driving force that is helping the group achieve this goal is the multiple

lines of communication present between the members and the leadership board. In the first
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

meeting that we observed, we saw that the members can contact the leadership board through

email, social media, on the phone, or in person. Another driving force that is moving the group

toward this goal is the clear leadership roles in the group which lead to more overall structure.

During one of the meetings we observed that Grace, the president of the RSO, was well spoken

and the members always listened to what she had to say not only because of her legitimate power

but also as a result of her referent power. The leadership board of the group is also open to new

ideas and change, which means they are constantly looking for ways to improve the group. To

conclude the force-field analysis, our suggestions will consist of ideas that increase the driving

forces of this goal, especially the forces that relate to the multiple lines of communication and

clear leadership.

Generation of Several Possible Solutions

After figuring out that Colleges Against Cancer had an issue with hearing all voices in

the group, we generated some possible solutions. We used traditional brainstorming to come up

with most of our ideas and gathered in a small circle where all group members could be clearly

seen and heard. We let members of the group speak their ideas freely and used the method of

consensus to decide which solutions would be most pertinent. We did not assign a gatekeeper,

but we all actively encouraged each other to participate and speak our minds. We evaluated the

ideas by majority decision, however this typically turned out to be a decision by consensus.

One solution we came up with was for the group to have a new brainstorming technique.

We thought the use of the affinity technique would allow the less talkative members of the group

a chance to have their ideas heard. This technique is where group members write their ideas on

post-it notes before sharing them with the rest of the group. Ideas are then grouped together

based on their similarities. Another technique we came up with was the use of electronic
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

brainstorming. This is a fully anonymous way of generating ideas through electronic

communication. This would allow the group to compile ideas using a computer program

designed specifically for this purpose, a Google document, or any other electronic way of

communicating such as GroupMe. Either of these brainstorming techniques are not only useful

for generating ideas; they also allow for low pressure situations where those in the quiet minority

of the group can speak freely and be heard in equal proportion with the majority without having

their voices overpowered.

Another solution we came up with was the use of surveys as a way to rank ideas prior to

meetings. This is another fully anonymous way of generating ideas. Surveys can be sent out prior

to meetings or passed out at the meeting before it begins. Once members fill out the surveys, the

leader of the group can look them over to gauge what people are thinking and what new ideas

have been brought up.

The last solution we came up with was for the group to assign a gatekeeper to each

committee. A gatekeeper is a maintenance role that gives the responsibility to a person to get less

talkative members to speak up. They encourage those who are being overpowered to participate

more, while also limiting others who contribute for long periods of time.

Selecting the Best Solution

There were three major solutions we as a group came up with to suggest to Colleges

Against Cancer. We evaluated each option by making a pros and cons list. The first option was

to use a new brainstorming method as opposed to traditional brainstorming, such as electronic

brainstorming or affinity brainstorming. The first pro we came up with was that this would be

anonymous. This is helpful because it creates an environment where people can speak their

opinion without having judgement associated with them directly. The other major pro was that it
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

was a quick activity that would provide instant feedback. This allows the meeting times to

remain productive, but keeps the meetings from lasting longer than they have to. The major con

we found for this option was that while the anonymity of this method is helpful to allow the

people who want to participate to actively speak their mind, it also offers an easy way out for

people who are participating but aren’t passionate about doing so. People who are already

actively participating could simply stop and nobody would know.

The second option we came up with for our client group was implementing a survey to

get feedback. Similar to the first solution we discussed, the first pro we came up with was that

this method would be anonymous. But again, this acts as both a pro and a con, as sometimes

people use the freedom anonymity provides as an excuse to stop contributing ideas. A major pro

of this solution is that it doesn’t take place inside of the scheduled meeting times. This allows our

client group to discuss the results of the survey inside of the meetings without using valuable

time to answer questions. Something else unique about this solution is that it produces organized

results. If the executive team were to ask these questions directly in meetings they would have to

figure out how to organize the results themselves, but instead the survey would set up clear

organizational systems before the results ever reach the team. The last major pro of this method

is that it is very easy to implement in the week to week life of the RSO. They could easily make

the survey using Qualtrics and send it over email a day or two before the meetings each week.

Along with the pros, there are some cons that we noticed with this solution. In addition to the con

associated with anonymity, another thing we noticed is that this would require a lot of

preparation outside of class. Using this method requires about twenty minutes each week to

come up with questions to ask the members and to look at the results of the survey before each

meeting. The final con we discovered is that this solution would require the most work from
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

individuals outside of meetings. By implementing this, each member would have to spend a few

minutes each week before the meetings giving their input on each question.

The third option we found to suggest to our client group was to assign a gatekeeper. This

method requires the least amount of work for members besides the gatekeeper. However, this

method also requires a significant amount of work from the gatekeeper and requires them to be

outgoing and know how to prod people for their opinion without seeming pushy. This is why we

suggested that the gatekeeper be reassigned each meeting.

Implementing the Solution

Since Colleges Against Cancer has a clear leadership structure, a conversation would be

had with the president, Grace, about implementation. During this conversation we would

highlight the issues we saw along with our suggestion for remedying the issues. Our suggestion

would be centered around sending out a survey for big decisions within the group because we

believe that creating a survey and sending it out would increase participation from all members

and keep the process organized. Implementing a survey also requires little effort so the structure

of the group wouldn’t have to change drastically. Judging from sitting through previous

meetings, the group seems to be reliant and good with technology, so that is why a technological

solution might be a good idea for them. They utilized different web platforms such as tiny url,

powerpoint, microsoft drive, and calendars. Since the current leadership maintains organization

via technology, implementing the solution is feasible for the upcoming semester.

We would also inform Grace that she can gain access to Qualtrics through LAS for free

as long as she has an @illinois.edu account. Having access to this specific platform for free

would help with the implementation of the survey. In addition to the solution we decided on, we

would let Grace know about our other solutions in case she chose to implement a combination of
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

them, which would include electing a gatekeeper or a leader to facilitate decision making, much

like the Delphi technique. The implementation of this solution would require the executive team

to find and elect leaders within each committee for this task.

Conclusion

Our group, The Small Group Communicators, spent this semester observing Colleges

Against Cancer. This RSO seems to have a very organized, fun way of operating in their weekly

meetings. After gathering information from our three observations and interviews, we did the

reflective thinking process. First we started by doing a SWOT analysis to figure out what main

problem CAC was encountering. The only major issue we observed in our client was that when

they were brainstorming, they had a vocal majority, meaning there was also an unfortunately

silent minority. We thought this was an issue because in order to get the best ideas, it helps to get

as many opinions as possible. Next, we analyzed the problem to try to figure out what would be

the criteria for an effective solution. Third, we generated three solutions for this problem: a new

form of brainstorming, surveys to acquire feedback from group members, and having them

assign a gatekeeper. We evaluated these solutions by looking at the pros and cons for each

option. Finally, we decided that it would be best if we did a mix of these three solutions since

each solution wouldn’t be too hard to implement. We suggest that Colleges Against Cancer finds

a gatekeeper to obtain a balance between the quiet minority and the vocal majority, uses either

electronic brainstorming or affinity brainstorming to allow anonymity when developing

solutions, and sends out a survey a few times a semester to see how they can adapt to best serve

their members.
Colleges Against Cancer (CAC)

References
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal

aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups.

Communication Reports, 12, 21-31.

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2015). Communicating in small groups: Principles and

practices (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.