Bales Observation Form

Who Makes What Kind of Contribution Warcry 3

CONTRIBUTION
1. Encourages
2. Agrees, accepts
3. Arbitrates
4. Proposes action
5. Asks suggestions
6. Gives opinion
7. Asks opinion
8. Gives information
9. Seeks information
10.Poses problems
11.Defines position
12.Asks position
13.Gives routine
direction
14.Depreciates self
15.Exhibits autocratic
self
16.Disagrees
17.Asserts self
18.Exhibits active
aggression
19.Exhibits passive
aggression
20.Appears out of field

2nd Year

3rd Year

4th Year

What Happened in the Group?

1. What was the general atmosphere in the group?
Formal
Compet
itive
Hostile
Inhibite
d

Informal
Cooper
ative
Support
ive
Permissi
ve

2. Quantity and quality of work accomplished

Accomplishment
Quality of
Production
Goals
Methods

Hig
h
Hig
h
Hig
h
Hig
h

Lo
w
Lo
w
Lo
w
Lo
w

3. Leader behavior
Attentive to group
needs
Supported others
Concerned only with
topic
Took sides
Dominated group
Helped group

4. Participation
Most people talked
Only few talked
Members were
involved
Members were
apathetic
Group was united
Group was united

I was assigned to observe War-games Game 3 Red vs. Purple team. Such
game is very useful when assessing a group as a whole and the members
individually because this game easily measures how united their group is when it
comes to making decisions, forming strategies and talking about the problems they
may encounter in the game. The effectiveness of their communication can also be
measured based on how they participated throughout the game. This kind of game
required only 6 members each team and each members were only given 2 water
balloons that they used to attack the other team. After the member had thrown the
water balloons to the opponents court, he cannot attack anymore but rather his
role is now to defend their own court.
Just by watching the game, I saw that the strategy here is that members
should not attack altogether because if they all attack, wholl defend their court?
They should have equal division of the team 3 attackers and 3 defenders. And

they should easily know when the defenders can already attack. Therefore, effective
communication of the members is a must for the group to win. If the members will
not communicate and assign tasks before officially entering the game, their goal of
winning will be vague and far from possible.
If youll look into the teams participation, you will not see anyone whos not
involved. They were all given a chance to participate. There is no division that
happened between the year levels. And its what I like between those 2 teams, both
leaders may be coming from the 4th year but they did not hesitated to ask opinions
to their lower years. I did not see any hesitation from those leaders to give hard
tasks to the members that belong to the lower years. Lower year levels were not
underestimated but rather they were treated equally as if they were on the same
level.
Opposing ideas and opinions are always present in a group, even in this game
(Red vs. Purple) but I did not feel any clash or rivalry between year levels because
they were so comfortable with each other. There are moments that the 2 nd and 3rd
year members of the team depreciates themselves and their ability to contribute in
winning but it didnt became a problem at all. You know why? Because the leaders
and the other members lifted these members up. Instead of belittling or
undervaluing them, they encouraged them through their words such as Hindi, kaya
mo yan!. These words might be so short and simple, but for me its very powerful
because they can change the outlook of the person who receives those words. It can
raise both their self-esteem and self-confidence, and its a good thing.
Leaders were not hostile with the other members because they treated them
as friends and not just their followers. The atmosphere is full of acceptance, trust,
and respect thats why I did not put any check mark on the people who asserts self,
exhibits autocratic self, exhibits active and passive aggression because I did not
saw such behavior during the game. Mostly, the leaders or the 4 th year are the ones
who mostly talked but everyone is given a freedom to voice out their opinions or
concerns. Although some expressed different opinions than the other, they are
treated with respect and opinions are heard by everyone. The leaders also did not
take the decision making part alone, he use the democratic style of leadership
where he also considered his members thoughts about what he thinks. The leaders
asked for facts, ideas, feelings, feedbacks, strategies and alternatives and listened
to it and accepted it no matter how contrasting it is to his own opinion. Maybe its
also the reason why no one appears out of field because no matter your dispositions
are when it comes to the game, you and your opinions are accepted.
In each group, there is always one member who seem to be very silent or
lets just say shy-type kind of member but bringing out the best in him depends
on how the leader and other members treat him. If members are unsympathetic
then the silent member will remain silent and unproductive because hell forever
feel agitated. Between the two teams, there is also one silent person which both

came from the 2nd year. Instead of fear, I witness how the leaders transformed these
silent people into someone who believes in their own capabilities. They may be
silent at first but because they didnt feel indifferent with the other team members
they did not think twice of contributing to the groups road to the goal.
What I noticed is that, the 4th year are the ones who kept the ball rolling but
like I always said all year levels had a chance to talked. It was just that the 4 th year
had the last say or they are the ones who were entitled to make the final decision
for the group. They are the ones who give direction to the members. The good thing
in these teams is that although the 4th year are the ones who had the final say,
there is a back and forth communication between members. They were also the
ones who usually started asking for suggestions for strategy. All members
regardless of their year level were not prohibited to give their opinions and ideas
about the possible problems that they may face in the game. One way flow of
communication where leaders will just speak and members will follow is not a thing
in both teams. I just noticed that 2nd year members dont usually disagree with the
upper year levels, 3rd year and 4th year are the ones who contradict decisions.
Both teams had an eye on the goal of winning but in the end, the Red team
won over the Purple team. Both teams were very competitive and were very eager
to win the game. What I learned most while watching and observing these teams
even before the actual game begin is that being competitive isnt wrong as long as
its not too much. Being too competitive can make a person, specifically the leader
aggressive not just to their opponent but even to his members. If it gets to the point
where his leading his members through force then his members cannot perform
properly because their feelings will be filled with fear. If that happens, then winning
would be hard to achieve. Being competitive is not bad if the members cooperate
and support each other despite of the competition happening. Its just a game and
no one should take things too personally or seriously because games are made to
enjoy and not to divide people. And thats what happened between the red and the
purple team, during the game they were all very competitive but no one cheated
just to win. I can see that despite of the competition happening, they can still smile
and laugh at it. I didnt see anybody raise his/her voice, everybody was just having
fun, and for them, its what matters most. The red team won because of their better
strategy and skills than the other team but after the game its like the competition
never happened because they still remained as good friends.
Its just similar with the competition that happened inside the classroom. My
close friends are all honor students and were all longing to have high grades but
instead of pulling each other down, we help and assist each other when things go
wrong. For me, thats what makes a group successful, competition must be present
because it makes a person do better but it must always be a friendly and fun
competition.