Individual Strengths and the Group Process, Essay Example

Part One

For 13 years, I was employed for the bankcard division of Wachovia, the banking corporation.  The setting was that of a group, even as I was responsible for specific and individual duties.  More exactly, all of us in the department attended to the customer relations, account services, and merchant issues in a way both independent and cooperative; frequently, a matter at hand presented to a coworker would require input from me, as I had information regarding that account or issue.  At the same time, we were perceived as a group in terms of the company’s focus on the department itself.  We were supervised, and we were also often expected to perform tasks in a cooperative manner, as in learning and implementing new systems and policies. I would add that this group dynamic was often virtual, in that our interactions occurred through computers, and email and file exchanges.

As I learned in these years, being within a group dynamic even partially virtual changes how membership in the group is perceived.  People may feel that, since they are not physically “present” in the group interaction, they are less responsible (Franz, 2012,  p. 262).  This goes to a strength I feel I brought to the group.  More exactly, I made an effort to see myself as responsible in my virtual interactions as I was in literal ones.  I accepted that anything I did in my job, relayed through technology or otherwise, was still fully reflective of myself.  On one occasion, in fact, I brought this attitude up at a meeting in which we were discussing how to enhance our performance as a department, and I believe the impact was positive.  There were colleagues present who seemed to find my approach unusual or new, and I made a point of emphasizing that computer interaction should not be allowed to lessen how we perceive our own presences within the group.  I believe that this, in turn, promoted the group ‘s sense of how important it was to utilize all skill levels, no matter the arena.

Upon reflection, it seems to me that a drawback in my character may have affected my performance at Wachovia, particularly in regard to my department, and this was ironically due to what I think of as a skill or strength.  As I tend to demand full responsibility from myself to perform at my best levels, I was not always tolerant when circumstances, or even lack of skill and training in others, diminished our work as a whole.  I was aware that there are often good reasons why a group member is not performing in a satisfactory way, and I was not completely blind to individual causes for this.  At the same time, I am something of a perfectionist at the job, and my greater focus then was more on what was going wrong, than as to why.  I will admit that there were times when this viewpoint of mine created tension within the group, if never to an extreme extent.  Interestingly, this drawback of mine was helped – in time – by the skills and strengths of others.  More specifically, I benefited from those colleagues who had a wider appreciation of the group scenario than myself, and who saw both my frustrations and the realities behind the work situations causing them.  These individuals, I believe, improved the group performance by balancing group objectives with the individual factors present, and it is a lesson I try to apply today.

My years at Wachovia left me then, not surprisingly, with the awareness that I need to work at expanding my focus, and reviewing my own priorities in group dynamics.  It is not easy for me, but I believe I have worked toward the “skill” of greater comprehension, which allows for a perspective vital for group success.   In order to actively work at this, I consciously seek to “step back” when I feel an immediate reaction or reflex coming on.  This is, in fact, an exercise I try to conduct, even on the job.  It translates to my better developing behaviors that reflect a real awareness of every individual within the group, because no group achievement can happen without it.

Part Two

The primary problem-solving technique I apply today relies on developing that larger awareness, no matter the actual situation confronting the group.  I am a supervisor at a Kroger grocery, so I deal with dual group dynamics; there is that of the people under my supervision, and there is the interaction with my fellow supervisors and management.  In both, I increasingly find that taking a minimal amount of time for reflection and examination is immensely valuable, if not essential.  Put differently, I have observed that a rapid solution to a problem very often generates others, simply because it is made with insufficient understanding of the real nature of the problem.  To that end, I make a point of applying my “step back” technique, if only because it allows for a greater sense of a situation in its entirety.

I believe this approach of mine, if not exactly original, has an extremely beneficial influence on both groups with whom I deal.  On the management level, it seems to encourage a similar thoughtfulness in my fellow supervisors, so decisions are made with more care.   I find, in fact, that their taking more time in reaching decisions provides new ideas simply because those ideas have an opportunity to be created or developed.  Then, any individual strength is enhanced when the group dynamic goes well, so that an exponential process seems to occur; the more efficiently and agreeably the group is interacting, the more an individual is motivated to contribute, which in turn improves the group’s functioning and decision-making (Gottlieb, 2003, p. 168).  When an employee under my charge feels validated because their concerns are being honestly weighed by me, for example, they tend to make decisions more productive for everyone’s interests.

Recently, it has occurred to me that I might try to learn and practice other techniques when problems arise, and another I am exploring is also hardly original: encouraging feedback and ideas from all concerned.  It has always interested me that leaders of groups presented in films invariably, and very simply, express their leadership by asking for help.  The problem is there, it clearly affects everyone in the group, and the leader honestly seeks answers from it.  This is a direction to which I would like to turn.  In the past, I have been more compelled to view problem-solving as a personal challenge, when there has been a wealth of opportunity all around me.  It lately seems to me that the best groups take the fullest advantage of the essence of the group itself, and elicit as much interaction as possible.  The arena must be controlled, of course, but each individual is an immensely important resource, and the solution may arise from the one least expected to provide it.

I have also learned that problem-solving in my role as a supervisor is more complex than I had first assumed it to be.  It is less obvious than it appears, but a logical approach to solving problems is not always helpful, simply because the differences within all kinds of problems demand a more creative view.  Logic operates on information gained from previous experiences, and this is certainly valuable.  At the same time, solving a problem also relies on understanding what makes it unique, and this is where an element of imagination must be applied (Proctor, 2010,  p. 7).   This, then, is another technique I feel I should seek to enhance in myself, and I think that improving my ability here relies on my willingness to let go of certain restrictions in my thinking.  As with any facet of a group dynamic, the key is balance.   When, for example, I make the time to fully examine the reality of a problem and take in information regarding it from all concerned, I am still obligated to exercise control, and not permit extraneous matters from entering into the arena.   Similarly, as I seek to encourage creativity in my thinking, I must maintain a pragmatic awareness of the realities facing me and the group.  Creative problem-solving without a base of reason is as ineffective as strictly logical problem-solving that goes only by prior experience.   Problem-solving is inherently as intricate a process as each problem is unique.  Consequently, my ambition is to develop a framework of the techniques described.  A combined approach of distance and perspective, the active encouraging of participation and feedback, and promoting creative thinking will, I believe, go to improving whatever group dynamics I engage in, both as a supervisor and as an equal member.

References

Franz, T. M.  (2012).  Group Dynamics and Team Interventions: Understanding and Improving Team Performance.  Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Gottlieb, M. R.  (2003).  Managing Group Process. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Proctor, T.  (2010).  Creative Problem Solving for Managers: Developing Skills for Decision Making and Innovation.  New York: Taylor & Francis.