10 Psych - 310 Organizational and Group Dynamics

Running head: ANALYSIS PROJECT
Analysis Project
The Emmett Township Board Members
Linda Elliston
The Robert B. Miller College
PSYC 310-Organizational/group Dynamics
CapstoneChair:
DateofSubmission:
JulieSteinbacher,Professor
April17,2013
ANALYSIS PROJECT
1
2
Table of Contents
4 Introduction and Background.............3
5 Group Observation in the Beginning: Cohesion and Interaction ......3
6 Interaction analysis of the group....4
7 Analysis of how the group does or does not employ creativity in light of controversy... 6
8 Analysis of how the group manages conflict.....6
9 Analysis of how the group manages diversity...8
10 Suggestions as to how the group could increase cohesion.....9.
11 Final analysis and evaluation of the group's effectiveness and
12
suggestions as how to increase that
3
effectiveness 10.
13 Conclusion....11.
14 References....12.
15 Attachments-- copies of some of the Observation Procedure Forms.......13.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Emmett Township Board Meeting

Introduction
The Emmett Township Board includes seven elected members who serve four year
terms; they include: the supervisor (Tim Hill), the clerk (Teresa Myers), the treasurer (Diane
Talbot), and four trustees, (Steve Buller, Tom Gunning, Pat Doughterty, and Jesse Jacox). There
ANALYSIS PROJECT
was a vacant trustee position that was filled during the February meeting by Jesse Jacox. This
group was chosen for this project due the close proximity of the meeting location and the need to
learn what is going on in the surrounding community. There are two new members to the group
this term: the supervisor (Tim Hill), and the new trustee Jesse Jacox. The other three trustees
where elected into their positions, but have worked for the township before in one form or
another. For example: Steve Buller use to work for the township as a building inspector, Pat
Doughterty severed as the townships supervisor last term, and Tom Gunning was a trustee ten
years ago.
Group Observation in the Beginning: Cohesion and Interaction
At the first meeting, the group seemed to have great cohesion and interacted well together.
The design of the board meeting room was formal with the group members sitting around a semicircle long table, facing the public. All the members of the group seem to know their roles, and
follow the agenda well. The supervisor, Tim Hill, did seemed a little out of place, but the clerk
was quick at helping him learn the group norms. Tim did do a good job at encouraging two way
communication, paraphrasing, and asking members their opinions. The supervisor appeared to be
trustworthy and honest.
Interaction analysis of the group
At the February meeting, the supervisor seemed to learn the group norms a little better, but
the township clerk, did have to put him back on track in regards to the agenda a couple of times.
During the meeting, Tim seemed to have a role position approach to leadership (Johnson &
Johnson, 2012, p. 181), and was opinion seeking (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 183). When it
came time for voting on resolutions, Tim was task oriented. He would read the resolution, and it
seemed like Tom Gunning would always support it right away with Pat Dougherty seconding the
motion. After the resolution was seconded, the clerk, Teresa, would call names to vote. Tom,
Pat, Diane, and Teresa have reached group maturity and know how the voting on resolutions
ANALYSIS PROJECT
should proceed (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 267). When it came time for the public safety
report, or the road department report, Diane and Teresa seemed to have their own agenda they
were working on. They both were writing something on the papers they had, and did not appear
to be listening or paying attention. The other members of the group had good eye contact with
the speakers, nodded their head at appropriate times, paraphrased, and asked appropriate
questions for clarification.
During the new business portion of the February meeting, Steve Buller, one of the trustees,
seemed to have a hidden agenda when he wanted to develop a subcommittee for the septic
system problems. After the group agreed to have a subcommittee, Steve volunteered his services
right away. He wanted to make sure he could be one of the members of the subcommittee.
Steves hidden agenda was exposed during the April meeting. Steve subcommittee report was in
regards to obtaining a one million dollar grant from the government, and the tax payers would
only have to pay 10% of it, to start a Public Works Department in Emmett Township. He stated
the board members could be crossed trained so the township would not need to hire anyone new.
He also argued that the township needed to have their own Public Works Department to take care
of their own septic system. They should not have to rely on the City of Battle Creek.
Another item on the agenda for the Februarys meeting was the filling of the position for the
vacant trustee seat. The three candidates running for the position stood up during the public
comment period. They all gave a little speech on why they were the best candidate for the job.
After the speeches where done, Steve Buller jumped right in and nominated Jesse Jacox for the
seat. Pat Dougherty seconded the motion right away and the board had to vote. The treasure,
Diane Talbot, did not seem too happy with the way the two members were railroading their
decision (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 264). When it came her turn to vote she just stated,
Qualified. Yes. After all the voting was done, each board member thanked the other candidates
ANALYSIS PROJECT
for running and made comments about the new trustee. When it was Dianes turn for comment,
she said I just want us all to get along. This kind of decision making does not sound very
efficient. During an informal interview with Diane, I questioned her on this decision making
process. She informed me that this was the same way the previous clerk was voted in; however,
the group did have a group discussion prior to that meeting. According to Diane, there was no
group discussion on the vacant trustee position; all the members just received emails with the
resumes and qualification of the candidates. Diane also told me that in previous years the group
was quite divided and that she just wanted the group to get along.
Analysis of how the group does or does not employ creativity in light of
controversy
When it comes to controversy the Emmett Township Board members have more than their
fair share. Controversy is very common, since people do not all think alike or have the same
opinions about different matters. The Emmett Township Board members did employ creativity
in light of controversy when they developed a subgroup to help discuss and brainstorm new ideas
for the water and septic problems. They also used creativity when the original nominee for the
trustees seat did not show up to be sworn in. They brainstormed different options as a group and
discussed the matter with their lawyers. The vacant seat ended up being posted open to the
public. Three qualifying candidates applied for the position. However, the group failed to make
a creative decision when choosing the best candidate for the open position. There was no group
discussion prior to the nomination, and no deliberate discourse: discussion of advantages and
disadvantage of the proposed actions (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 299). The way the
candidate was just nominated seemed more like an individualistic decision since only certain
members of the group independently decide on the course of action without talking to one
another (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p.301). Diane was held hostage to groupthink when voting
in the new trustee. Groupthink is a process of conformed, suboptimal rationalization that comes
ANALYSIS PROJECT
about subliminally when group members feel constrained to hold similar beliefs (Kuhn, 2011,
para. 1). Diane just wanted to conform to the groups consensus. She probably felt direct pressure
from the group to conform to the groups recommendations and the illusion of unanimity.
Analysis of how the group manages conflict
According to our textbook there are five styles for managing conflicts of interest which
include: withdrawal, smoothing, compromising, forcing, and problem solving (Johnson &
Johnson, 2012, p. 357). The style one chooses to use for a given situations depends on how
much they want the goal and how much they care about the relationship (Johnson & Johnson,
2012, p.365).
During the March meeting, the board members wanted to change the time of the
monthly meetings from 7pm to 5pm. As soon as the option to change the time was mentioned by
Tim, it was motioned by Steve. The public was quite upset by this. One public member stated
she has been coming to these meeting for over 20 years, and has to work in Kalamazoo until 5
oclock in the afternoon. Tim spoke up right away and told everyone the group had been
debating this issue for quite some time and gave his reasoning to save on gas. Steve chimed in
stating he wanted the time moved so he would not have to miss the County Board Meeting. The
boardroom environment was in an uproar, and one public member spoke up loudly, The county
meeting is the third Tuesday of every month and this meeting is the second Thursday. Tim cut
the discussion off and went on to say, do we have a motion to accept. I spoke up at this meeting,
being a participant/observer, and suggested they compromise. My suggestion was for them to
change the meeting to 5:30 or 6pm so the people who had to work until 5pm could make it. Pat
and Tom agreed with me right away, maybe because they knew I was writing a paper about them.
Steve went on to say we could trial 5pm for six months. Tim tried to get a motion on that, and
had Jessie in agreement, when I mentioned, Will someone be watching the door during the trial
to see how many people come in late. Pat spoke up again and said, Lets trial 5: 30 for six
ANALYSIS PROJECT
months. Everyone in the group seemed to agree to this, so they proceeded with the voting.
During public comment, a member spoke up against the groups reasoning to move the time, but
stated she appreciated the 5: 30 start time instead of 5pm. During this conflict, Tim and Steve
seemed to use the conflict management style of forcing; they wanted to change the meeting time
no matter what. They did not care about the public relationship. Tom and Pat, where willing to
compromise with the public. Jesse seemed to be problem solving, listening and agreeing with
suggestions from both side of the issue. Teresa and Diane did not say a word. They seemed to
be using the conflict management style of withdrawal since they probably did not want to engage
in the conflict or cause problems in the groups relationship.
Another conflict was noted during the April meeting. Steve came back with a report from
his subcommittee on the problem of the septic system smell near Wattles Park Road. He said
when the system was put in, they installed two 90 degree turns instead of 45 degree turns. The
septic system was backing up. Steve went on to report that the City of Battle Creek was
planning on doubling the septic bills for everyone that lives in Emmett Township, starting in
June, to help pay for these repairs. His solution, hidden agenda, was to develop an Emmett
Township Public Works Department. During this conflict, Steve and Tim were still forcing their
side of the issue, pushing forward the development of this new department. Steve declared there
were grants availableunspent money the state had to hand out. Tim even held up the hammer
when one public member was complaining about how much a new department would cost the
taxpayers. Tim stated, I have the hammer, and then went on to say words that did not match
his body language, And I am here to represent the best interest for the people in Emmett
Township. Pat spoke up and mentioned what a great job Tim was during as supervisor and that
we should give Steve and Tim a chance, instead of letting the City of Battle Creek take care of
things. Steve and Tim won the competition, after forcing the issue, and were able to get the
ANALYSIS PROJECT
motion to proceed forward with the subcommittees plan. Diane and Teresa seemed to use the
conflict management style of soothing and/or withdrawing during this conflict. They barely said
a word. The trustees, Tom and Jesse, seemed to be problem solving and wanted the subgroup to
investigate things more. They encourage the subcommittee to check into the advantages and
disadvantages before moving forward.
Analysis of how the group manages diversity
Diversity includes any differences in peoples culture, sex, physical abilities, age, race,
sexual orientation and even into political beliefs, religious practices and socio-economic status
(Fritz, n.d., para. 2). Even though the Emmett Township Board members are all Caucasians, five
of them are men, and two of them are women. The youngest member in the group is probably in
the mid 40s and the oldest could be approaching 60 years of age. They probable come from
different economic background, and could have different religious beliefs. No matter what their
differences are, they all seem to work well together and strive for positive relationships. Positive
relationships are important in a diverse group since it can lead to acceptance, respect,
appreciation, and a commitment to equality (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 415).
While working or interacting with people in America, people cannot help but come in
contact with diversity. During the monthly board meetings, the Emmett Township Board
members come in contact with people from all different types of diversity. To keep a peaceful
and harmonious environment during the board meetings, the members seem to know how to act
appropriate, sophisticated, and refined while working or interacting with people from different
cultures (Johnson, & Johnson, 2012, p. 435). Frequently, while dealing with the public, the
group does come in contact with people that have different beliefs on the way things should be
done. The board members seem to listen to the publics different perspectives, and usually take
ANALYSIS PROJECT
their opinion under consideration before making important decisions. As mentioned above, they
were willing to compromise on the meeting time, after listening to the publics concern.
Another example of the group managing diversity happened at the March meeting. The
group appointed a young woman, in her 20s, to sit on the Zoning Board. This woman graduated
college with a degree in law. Appointing this woman to a board position will be beneficial to the
group since, groups are more effective when composed of individuals with diverse types of
skills, knowledge, abilities, and perspectives (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 421).
Suggestions as to how the group could increase cohesion.
As stated in the beginning of this analysis, the Emmett Township Board members seem to
have some cohesion. Their interactions and body language appear to be open and honest most of
the time. All of the group members are there by choice, and act motivated to make the group
successful. However, even though the group acts cohesive, there is always room for
improvements.
To help improve the groups cohesiveness, the group could try to get to know each other a
little better and develop closer ties. Since there are new members in the group, the group should
do things socially together, build a real sense of camaraderie (Yukelson, n.d., par. 6). By doing
things socially together they can develop stronger bonds and strengthen their trust in each other.
The group could also increase their cohesiveness by offering each other encouragement
and support frequently. They can do this by complimenting each other on a job well done
(Yukelson, n.d.. para. 9). Pat Doughterty did do this at the April board meeting when he spoke
up and told everyone how he support the supervisor, Tim, and how Tim was doing such a great
job.
Final analysis and evaluation of the group's effectiveness and
suggestions as how to increase that effectiveness
Overall, the group is effective. They all know their specific job roles and responsibility,
and appear to work together well to achieve the groups goals. They follow the board meeting
agenda, and vote on resolution and proclamations in a timely manner. They seem to work
ANALYSIS PROJECT
10
cooperatively together to achieve the groups goals. According to the social interdependence
theory cooperation, compared to competitive and individualistic efforts, tends to result in
greater achievement, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health (Johnson &
Johnson, 2008, para. 1).
To help increase the groups effectiveness on their decision making process, the group
should agree to disagree. They should encourage everyone in the group to meet a half hour
before the public meeting time to have a group discussion on the items on the agenda. Everyone
should be encouraged to brainstorm different ideals and give their opinions on any major
decisions listed on the agenda. This type of discussion can help the group come to a collaborator
conclusion prior to the meeting (Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 341). Furthermore, encouraging
everyones opinions ensures that the resources of every member are fully utilized (Johnson &
Johnson, 2012, p. 200) and helps the group discover the best solution possible. Another reason
the group should be encouraging differences in opinions is to promote constructive conflicts,
since constructive conflicts can be beneficial for completing complex problem-solving tasks
(Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 422). To insure each member that their opinions matters, the
group could use a white board to post everyones suggestions, and then the group could discuss
the advantages and disadvantages of each solution before picking the best solution.
Developing more subcommittees can also help increase the groups effectiveness.
Subcommittees encourage leadership and participation by all the group members since the
equalization of participation and leadership ensures that all members are involved in the groups
work, committed to implementing the groups decisions, and satisfied with their membership
(Johnson & Johnson, 2012, p. 200).
Conclusion
If the Emmett Township implements some of these recommendations to increase their
cohesion and effectiveness, in the long run, they should be able to develop stronger relationships,
ANALYSIS PROJECT
11
be more efficient at decision making, and learn that they can depend on each other for support.
For a group to be efficient, it needs a trusting, respectful relationship, where group members feel
comfortable and able to speak their minds without offending other group members.
References
Fritz, R. (n.d.). Diversity for groups & teams in the workplace. In Chron.com. Retrieved March
27, 2013, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/diversity-groups-teams-workplace10998.html
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). The Teachers Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning
in the Classroom (Vol. 9, pp. 9-37). N.p.: Springer US. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-70892-8_1?LI=true
Johnson, F. & Johnson, D. (2012). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (11th ed.,
pp. 200-451). Pearson. Kindle Edition.
Kuhn, R. L. (2011). Beware groups. Chief Executive, (254), 22-24. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/918793714?accountid=28472
Yukelson, D. (n.d.). Group cohesion and team building. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from
http://www.mascsa.psu.edu/dave/Group-Cohesion-and-Team-Building.pdf
ANALYSIS PROJECT
12
Observation Procedure Form
Name: ____Emmett Township Board Meeting _____________

Date:___Feb 2013________________
Time:_____7pm______________
Name:
Name:
Tim
Hill
-new
Teresa
Behavior
Myers-old
Position:
Position:
supervisor
Clerk
Red in face
Reads
Demonstrates openness in when
notes
body language and position. confronted
when
Communication patterns
with conflict speaking
to group
Name:
Name:
Diane Talbotold
Position:
Position:
Treasurer
Did not listen
to public
safety report.
Working on
her own
agenda.
Chief/public
safety said
people house
broke in Mi
and 11 mile
/south. People
pretend lost
their dog.
Upset with
Responses appropriately to Public. Lets
questions and to others
Not let things
members opinions. Allows get out of
appropriate time for
line.
members to give their
opinion without cutting
them off.
Keeps the attention of the Lets not get
members,
Out of order
communicates well, and
Keep to
sticks to
agenda
the agenda.
Interacts well with the other good
good
good
officers. Knows their job
responsibilities, and does
not try to take over
someone elses job duties.
Opens the floor to
Swore in
discussion and questions
new
and offers appropriate
Trustee.
feedback without belittling
or Intimidating other
members.
Manages conflict well.
Red in face
Teresa
when
tried to
confronted
step in for
with conflict, Tim when
stick to the confronted
agenda
with
Public wanted conflict,
ANALYSIS PROJECT
13
him to motion Lawyers
to swear new told us to
trustee in
swear new
now.
trustee in
later.
Decisions made
Atmosphere, environment
Last day pay

taxes without
penalty.
Board room.
Supervisor in
middle of
group facing
public. formal
communication
network, is a
centralized
chain. Open
semicircle table.
Who talked to
who/interactions
Leadership skills
Tim did ask Gatekeepe

Cvil Engineers r? Or
INC can you keeps new
explain to the supervisor
public what Tim inline
you are
and on
doing. Gas
track.
testing sewer.
Said there was

an ordinance
again
solicitation in
Emmett
township
when one of
the new
candidates
recommended
one to prevent
burgarlies.
Delegated
Assist the Relationship
himself, S
new
actions/approa
Buller, 1
supervisor. ch to
board
Knowledge leadership.
member and on how the When
1 public to
meeting
everyone else
water and
should be voted yes for
sewer
run.
new trustee..
committee.
said yesTrait approach
qualified. Any
to
of the 3
leadership??
candidates
Jokes, tension
where
breaker.
qualified and
Read agenda
she voted yes
out of order
so the board
couple times,
would just get
Teresa had to
along. Dont
set back on
think Jesse
ANALYSIS PROJECT
14
track.
Proceedings. Called meeting Task oriented.

to order. Pledge, role,
. Role position
agenda, public comment.
approach to
Please keep 3 min each.
leadership
One person refused to talk
to the snack /podium.
Name:
Name:
Tom
Gunning
Steve
Behavior
was on board Buller was
left 10 years, building
back to
inspector
board this
new to
year.
Position:
Position:
Trustee
Trustee
Did good job Did not
Demonstrates openness in
listening and listen to
body language and position. had question safety
for safety report,
chief. Two
working
way
on own
communicati agenda.
on
was first
choice
Do not like
how they
motioned
Jesse in, and
second, and
voted. Maybe
should have
voted for all 3
candidates on
piece of paper.
.
Name:
Name:
Pat
Jesse Jacox
Doughterty New
used to be
member
the
swore in that
supervisor, night out of
now is
3 canidates.
Position:
Position:
Trustee
Trustee
Knows the
Seemed
group norms. friendly and
Knowledge of open. Told
proceedings. me I could
call him
anytime.
Seemed
trustworthy
Looked
Stood at
Responses appropriately to
interested
podium and
Motioned listens well. gave good
members opinions. Allows
for jesse Did not
speech
appropriate time for members
for
interrupt.
before steve
to give their opinion without
trustee.
Waited for
buller
cutting them off.
questions.
motioned for
Seconded
him for
jesse for
trustee.
trustee
Interacts well with the other
Knowledge,
Knowledge of
knows job
proceedings
responsibilities, and does not
respons.
moves to
try to take over someone
Moves to
second/supp
elses job duties.
support
ort fast and
agenda fast
frequent. So
ANALYSIS PROJECT
15
and
frequently.
Teresa can
take a vote.
Opens the floor to discussion

and questions and offers
appropriate feedback without
belittling or Intimidating other
members.
Appreciation
for all 3
qualified
candidates.
For trustee .
Decisions made
Who talked to
who/interactions
Leadership skills
Proceedings.
Motioned
for
sewer
/water
committee
and if he
could be
on it. ?
hidden
agenda.
Formal,
about the
right
temperature
Members
seated
around a C
shape table
facing the
public.
Member
maturity and
group norms.
Friendly.
Knowledge. Relationship
approach
Swore in as
trustee
ANALYSIS PROJECT
16

Date:___March, 2013________________
Behavior
Name:
Tom
Gunning
Position:
Trustee
Time:_____7pm______________
Name:
Steve
Buller
Position:
Trustee
Name:
Teresa Myers
Position:
Clerk
Smiles
Nods head
body language and position.
appropriate time for members
to give their opinion without
cutting them off.
Keeps the attention of the

members,
communicates well, and sticks
to
the agenda.
responsibilities, and does not
try to take over someone
elses job duties.
Name:
Tim Hill
Position:
Supervisor
Listen well
To safety
speaker
but
Not public
Did not
Nods head
want to
Listening
change
Praise the 5
meeting
Officers
time to
That laid off
compromis
e, made up
excuse to
go to
Calhouns
meeting
Usually
makes first
motion for
issues to
vote on.
Praise
Recognitio
n police
officers laid
off
ANALYSIS PROJECT
17

appropriate feedback without
belittling or Intimidating other
members.
Own agenda
During public
safety report
Decisions made **** Move

time of
Meeting to 5pm 2nd Thursday
of the month.
Steve said
needed to
go to
Calhoun
meeting
but public
told him
they met
on 1 and 3
weeks of
month
Proceedings.
Sewer
update.
Venting
problems,
gas,
blockage,
and
smell ??
coming
from
casino.
$17,000
for
engineers
report.
Debate
why he
need time
moved to
5pm for
meeting.
Stated he
wanted to
go to
Calhoun
county
meeting.
Constructive
controversy,decisions
concurrence seeking, debate ,
and individualistic efforts )
(Page 323).
Tim said to
save gas.
Said been
talking about
changing the
time for
quite a
while.
Always
tabled.
Motion on
floor. Public
upset.
Report from
engineers if
casino
responsible
make them
help pay.
Above to pay
for
equipment
for testing
from
$15,000 to
$17,000.
Constructive
controversy,
time of
moving
meeting to.
Agreed to
discuss or
trial a new
time for 6
months.
Concurrence
seeking
ANALYSIS PROJECT
Synthesizing, Integratingelephant-decisoions
Majority Rule penguins
Agreeing golden retriever
Winning bear
Avoiding ostrich
18
Majority
rule
Winning
Agreeing
with
whatever
the groups
decide.
Johnson, David H.; Johnson,

Frank P. (2012-05-24). Joining
Together: Group Theory and
Group Skills (11th Edition)
(Page 307). Pearson. Kindle
Edition.
cooperative context tend to be Would
more open-minded in listening listen to
to the opposing position
compromis
e 5:30 or
) (Page 323).
6pm that I
suggested.
Inquiry is investigating an
Steve
issue to establish the best
Inquiring upset.
answer or course of action; it
road
Road
involves asking questions and departmen commissio
seeking to learn the necessary
t.
n fills pot
facts to answer the questions.
holes at
night,
flashers on
Frank P. (2012-05-24). Joining
truck to
Together: Group Theory and
dim. ??or
Group Skills (11th Edition)
dont want
(Page 327). Pearson. Kindle
to pay
Edition.
night
shift???
controversy: cooperative and cooperativ Competitiv
cooperative
competitive.
e
e.
Constructive or dystructive
Page 324). .
Conflict management style.
collaborati competing accommodati collaborating
Competing,(shark), avoiding ng
ng
(turtle) accommodating (teddy
bear), or collaborating (owl).
Everyone is Comprising.
(Fox)once in a while
Combination of of assertiveness
and cooperativeness
Diversity? **** 2 females. On Voted in

committee. Ages 40 to 60s female age
20 to 30 to
sit on
ANALYSIS PROJECT
19
Zoning
Board.
Behavior
body language and
position. Communication
patterns
Name:
Diane Talbot
Position:
Treasurer
Name:
Name:
Pat Dougherty Jesse Jacox
Position:
Position:
Trustee
Trustee
Smiles at me
frequent.
Knows Im
writing a
paper.
Praised
Looks
officers who interested.
had families
and were laid
off.
them off.
Keeps the attention of the Own agenda
members,
public safety.
sticks to
the agenda.
Interacts well with the
other officers. Knows their
job responsibilities, and
does not try to take over
Opens the floor to
discussion and questions
and offers appropriate
feedback without belittling
or Intimidating other
members.
Usually
Seconds
nd
always 2
motions
motion made occasionally.
by gunning.
Praise road
dept.
Praise cops
laid off.
Thanks
everyone
Agreeable to
compromise
when public
upset with
time chg to
5pm. Work.
Name:
Position:
ANALYSIS PROJECT
Decisions made
Constructive
concurrence seeking,
debate , and individualistic
efforts ) (Page 323).
Winning bear
Avoiding ostrich
Johnson, David H.;
Johnson, Frank P. (2012-0524). Joining Together:
Group Theory and Group
Skills (11th Edition) (Page
307). Pearson. Kindle
Edition.
cooperative context tend
to be more open-minded in
listening to the opposing
position
20
Agree to
move time to
5:30 for 6
month trial.
After I
recommended
knows Im
writing a
paper??
Concurrence
seeking.
integrating.
cooperative
) (Page 323).
answer or course of action;
it involves asking
questions and
seeking to learn the
necessary facts to answer
the questions.
controversy: cooperative
and competitive.
cooperative
Page 324)
Inquiring best
answers for
reporting pot
holes in the
road to the
Road Dept.
cooperative
Cooperative.
Compromise
meeting time.
ANALYSIS PROJECT
21
Conflict management
compromising Accommodati
style. Competing,(shark), accommodati
ng. new
avoiding (turtle)
ng
accommodating (teddy
bear), or collaborating
(owl). Everyone is
Comprising. (Fox)once in a
while
Combination of of
assertiveness and
cooperativeness

Date:___April 2013________________
Behavior
Name:
Tom
Gunning
Position:
Trustee
Time:_____5:30 pm______________
Name:
Steve Buller
Position:
Trustee
Name:
Teresa Myers
Position:
Clerk
Name:
Tim Hill
Position:
Supervisor
ANALYSIS PROJECT
22
Said he had
the hammer,
and held it
up, when
public upset
about public
works
department.
Then said
the opposite
of what the
hammer
stood for
Im here to
look out for
the best
interest of
the public.
body language and position.
Seemed to
Responses appropriately to listen well
opinion without cutting them
off.
Usually
members,
makes first
motion for
sticks to
issues to
the agenda.
vote on.

appropriate feedback
without belittling or
Intimidating other members.
Wants to
develop a
public works
dept. take
over septic
system from
battle creek
city. Cross
train the
people who
work for the
township.
Own agenda
During public
safety report
ANALYSIS PROJECT
Decisions made ****
23
Wanted to Upset with Doesnt say
investigate public
much.
first. Give it
a chance.
Check into
public works
department
for Emmett
township.
Who talked to
who/interactions
Leadership skills
Proceedings.
Talks with
Talks with
Tim on his Tim to keep
suggestions. meeting on
track
compromisi forceful
Smoothing.
ng
1,000,000
grant from
government
if township
pay 10%
toward
public works
department.
Held up the
hammer to
make his
point.
Stood behind
Steve Buller
on decision
for public
works dept.
on same
committee.
Upset
picked up
the hammer.
Want to take
over septic
system from
BC.
Forcing.
On same
subcommitte
e as Steve.
Wants their
own public
works
department.
States BC
plans on
doubling
everyone
that lives in
Emmett
township
septic bill in
June. Need
to protect
us.
Constructive
Constructiv Debate
Concurrence Debate.
e
reasons we seeking.
need Public
concurrence seeking, debate
Works Dept.
, and individualistic efforts )
(Page 323).
ANALYSIS PROJECT
Winning bear
Avoiding ostrich
24
Majority
rule

Frank P. (2012-05-24).
Joining Together: Group
Theory and Group Skills
(11th Edition) (Page 307).
Pearson. Kindle Edition.
Creativity.
cooperative context tend to

be more open-minded in
position
) (Page 323).
Tom
inquiring
it involves asking questions information
and
about a new
Public
Works
the questions.
Department
Frank P. (2012-05-24).
avoiding
Winning
Subcommitt
ee to take
care of
problem
with septic
system
smell near
wattles
park. BC
doubling
payment/fee
s to fix
problem.
Steve just
wants to
take over
the
business.
Told the
public would
not need to
hire all new
staff. Cross
train.
Winning..
ANALYSIS PROJECT
25

cooperative Competitive.
competitive
and competitive.
Page 324). .
Conflict management style. collaboratin competing accommodati competing
Competing,(shark), avoiding g
ng
(turtle) accommodating
(teddy bear), or
collaborating (owl).
Combination of of assertiveness
and cooperativeness
Name:
Diane Talbot
Position:
Treasurer
Name:
Pat
Behavior
Dougherty
Position:
Trustee
Smiles at me Praise Tim
Demonstrates openness in frequent.
for doing a
body language and position. Knows Im
great job. .
writing a
paper.
them off.
members,
sticks to
the agenda.
Usually
always 2nd
motion
made by
gunning.
Own agenda
during public
safety.
Told
everyone
they are not
responsible
for the Road
Dept. or the
Name:
Jesse Jacox
Position:
Trustee
Looks
interested.
Seconds
motions
occasionally.
Name:
Position:
ANALYSIS PROJECT
26
holes in the
road.
Constructive
concurrence seeking,
debate , and individualistic
efforts ) (Page 323).
Winning bear
Avoiding ostrich
Frank P. (2012-05-24).
cooperative context tend to
be more open-minded in
position
) (Page 323).
it involves asking questions
and
the questions.
Frank P. (2012-05-24).
Agreed to
let tim
check into
gov. grant
for public
works dept.
Concurrenc
e seeking.
integrating.
cooperative
Inquiring best
answers for
reporting pot
holes in the
road to the
Road Dept.
ANALYSIS PROJECT
and competitive.
cooperative
Page 324). .
cooperative
Cooperative
.
Compromis
e meeting
time.
Conflict management style.
compromisi Accommodati
Competing,(shark), avoiding accommodati ng
ng. new
(turtle) accommodating
ng
(teddy bear), or
collaborating (owl).
Combination of of
assertiveness and cooperativeness
27

10 Psych - 310 Organizational and Group Dynamics

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10 Psych - 310 Organizational and Group Dynamics

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Running head: ANALYSIS PROJECT

Emmett Township Board Meeting

Name: Emmett Township Board Meeting _________

Last day pay

Tim did ask Gatekeepe

Said there was

Proceedings. Called meeting Task oriented.

Opens the floor to discussion

Observation Procedure Form

Keeps the attention of the

Opens the floor to discussion

Decisions made **** Move

Johnson, David H.; Johnson,

Diversity? **** 2 females. On Voted in

Observation Procedure Form

Opens the floor to discussion

Decisions made ****

Johnson, David H.; Johnson,

cooperative context tend to

(11th Edition) (Page 327).

Manages conflict well.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen