Saturday, September 27, 2008
Group Communication
SO, what do you think of this group dynamics?
The size of it seems pretty ok, large enough for different ideas yet small enough for equal participation. They also seem extremely comfortable with the person in charge; in fact, they don’t even listen to her. However, with the source of distraction removed, they revert back into getting down to work.
For people out there who actually watch 30 rock, you will know that OCCASIONALLY, such meetings are actually productive! They have in Liz Lemon (Tina Fey), a good, quirky leader, who is more or less able to bring her group of producers and writers together to produce a comedy show. Although it is not obvious in the clip, her gang of people are actually able to handle both task and maintenance roles very well! Of course there are occasional slip ups here and there, but it is to be expected, with it being a comedy and all.
WELL, let’s just jump forward to an article I read in the straits times on the 27th of September. I was attracted to the article because of the big picture of President Bush in a meeting with congressional leaders- basically, a big powerful group of people sitting down to discuss what to do with their country. BUT from what we’ve learnt, about optimal sizes for groups, the roles that people in the group must take on etc etc, it is no wonder that politicians never seem to get their work done in peace. Under the façade of wanting to implement a bailout plan for the financial crisis, I do believe that most of them do have hidden agendas or simply, a conflicting perspective as to what needs to be done. I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about this particular issue, but my opinions do stem from what I’ve read about in newspapers and such.
NOW, let’s jump back a couple of days, to September 23rd where (I’m so sorry I’m using him again) President Bush addressed the 63rd UN General Assembly in New York. This article spoke about how the West was losing its dominance in this organization. The UN functions as an organization made up of 192 member states to facilitate cooperation in several areas. If I may, I’d like to think of the UN as a REALLY humongous group.
There is a saying that “too many cooks spoil the broth”. But in this case, the broth is so overcooked; it probably leaves a pretty disgusting taste in your mouth. The UN hasn’t had the best policies despite its good intentions. With members that have conflicting interests and ideals, the UN has been more or less inefficient and redundant at worst. I could probably write another 1000 or more words on the UN’s extremely negative involvement in the 3rd world debt crisis and the arab-israeli war, but I’m probably boring you enough as it is.
MY point is, I’ve described 3 different types of groups. The small and not so significant one, the medium and not very effective one, and the really large and controversy filled one. The communication within the groups differ a lot, but yet at the end of the day, the individuals that come together become more or less interdependent, and they try to fight for a common goal despite differences they may have. The larger the group, the more complex the dynamics become, and more so for the case of the UN where the members are countries that have to protect the interest of their own people too. Nevertheless, there are instances where such groups communicate well and function at their best, and those are what we should be trying to achieve. You think so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
HAHA, that was funny. I thought it was gonna be something about group dynamics during a meeting.. turns out the clip was about a 'pretty' distracting intern. =P
Shucks, i didn't know Tina Fey's character was Liz Lemon until now.. I just caught snippets here and there occasionally. But yea, the quirkyness/format of the show never fails to tickle my funny bone. (=
I just had a look at the 27th September (Saturday) article you mentioned. Somehow, it seems that the discussion and oppositions (there is nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing) have descended into the usual fracas between two factions (Reps and Dems) that consist of people who got to where they presently are (aka lofty positions) because of how they've always sought to advance their respective party's peculiar brand of policies (that in turn stem from party ideology), or at least have been seen to do so. When you mentioned about how you don't believe that specific interests and agendas do not underlie their decisions, I agree readily with that. I do not blame them, however. Perhaps i may not always agree with their values, but hey, aren't we all motivated by different factors, and will always seek to make things better/more comfortable for ourselves?
These people in the meeting room each represent various groups of people, who have appointed them (not sure about the process though) to bring across their preferences or even fight for their desires. Perhaps in a competive society, selfishness and coldness is a virtue. Hopefully in this case, the right thing will be done, even if such measures may offend many. Well, it's easy for me to ramble on about this, but if such things involve me directly and affect me monetarily, i may not be so easy-going about this. AFter all, when someone has vested interest in something, it's natural to look out for oneself.
I could not find the article about the UN assembly 'cause my mum has bundled it out for the karang guni man. Really? The UN has handled the 3rd world debt and Arab-Israeli war poorly? Hmm.. did you know that the UN first begin at the League of Nations after the 1st World War? It functioned mainly thru diplomacy more than anything.. people may fight with words or say "this is the right/wrong thing to do".. but at the end of the day, if a rogue country decides to do something funny, the League can denounce it all they want, but so what? I guess in today's more interconnected world, sanctions and diplomacy ties play a much larger role. (Pressures too.) Maybe it's the costs and benefits thing, i don't know. But yea, countries and their leaders still have to look out for their own before helping other countries with theirs. Or maybe, more cynically, some areas of the globe are kept poor deliberately, so that those in power can retain this relationship of influence over them. -shrugs- Who knows?
It is not power that corrupts but fear.Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.
-Aung San Suu Kyi
I think international organizations like this, although their sheer numbers make them hard to coordinate, but when they do agree (even if it takes freakin' long) on something, it's impact will be greater. Then again, the bystander effect where we think that seems someone else is already working on it (an issue), we don't have to bother about it ourselves, might also come into play.
Pardon my unfocused rant, but yup, small groups get things done quickly, medium sized ones are slightly more troublesome yet powerful, but large ones just look good. Besides, who wouldn't wanna be cool with the 'in' group?
I don't like being cool with the "in" group because they are usually comprised on morons with the intellectual capacity of a comatose chicken....on drugs.
I always envision myself in being in groups like the one in 30 rock.It not "serious" but they get the job done and that's what matters to me a lot.
Having a good time ,being comfortable with each other and lastly,producing something awesome.I really hate uptight groups who have to base everything ona very strict schedule,the illusion that they think that being "serious" all the bloody time actually matters.
Hi Jo! I've watched a couple of episodes of 30 Rock and that was a funny one there haha! I watch 'The Office' more frequently and they have such hilarious and awkward moments on the show too when they have company meetings and stuff.
Well, I have not been reading the newspapers but I was watching the news on Channel 5 yesterday and I saw the scene where Bush was seated at the cabinet room with the democrats and republicans. I'm not familiar with politics but I agree with what you said: Effective group discussion does comes about when people put their individual differences aside and compromise with one another to reach common goals. I hope this is what these leaders will do to resolve the bailout issue.
Futhermore, I think a good size for a group would be 6 people. I feel that having lesser people will help the group to be more focused and chances for conflict would be reduced due to the lesser number of people present. However the size of the group would also have to depend on the magnitude of the task. If it has to do with something like a world conference by the Group of 8 (G8) leaders or the UN, the more the better. Critical decisions have to be made on important issues such as global warming and economic issues so with more people, different perspectives to such issues can be brought up. Sure there would be fiery debates that take place, but I feel it will be worth it in the end.
Hahaha, I've seen this episode of 30 Rock! (Btw, did you see the one on the Rural Juror? I laughed so hard for that one!)
Personally I prefer working in smaller groups of people. It is easier to connect and get to know a smaller group of people more easily, and conflict do not get started so easily due to the even greater difference in mindset if the group is larger and made up of more random people with different personalities. (Like later on in the same episode, Liz decided to talk to Cerie about her dressing, and Cerie totally did not get what Liz was trying to tell her.)
However, large groups do have their advantages too. More people means more ideas could be generated. In some cases, there could also be lesser work for each member to complete!
Post a Comment