In the two most recent semesters (Spring and Fall of 2008), I was a member of my sorority's Chapter Management Team, or CMT. This group serves as the chapter's executive board, and its personnel is comprised of the president, eight vice presidents, and house manager. The tasks include (as the name suggests) general management of the chapter in the areas of Programming, Finance, Social Standards, Member Education, Membership/Recruitment, Foundation/Philanthropy, Communications, and Panhellenic Despite today's trends, CMT is a generally low-tech group. Our only tools were our handbooks, the Delta Gamma website, and E-Ops, a system that allows us to manage our calendar.
Our interaction was almost exclusively face-to-face, aside from occasional e-mails, and we had many patterns. For example, we met every Friday at 5 PM for about one hour. At these meetings, the president would open with general announcements, and then each VP would take a turn and give her announcements. Conformity was not a big concern because we were always looking for new, innovative ways to make the chapter stronger. Roles were hugely important; each individual had very specific duties that were all equally important to the success of the group. For example, I served as the chair of the honor board, and was also in charge of recognitions at weekly chapter meetings to help keep morale elevated.
Our production was mostly based around successful completion of our assigned tasks. For example, we all worked together to produce successful philanthropy events, safe social environments, and informative education programs. The member needs were mostly about recognition of our hard work. This was where our group perhaps fell a bit short. We were all so busy with our own projects that we forgot to thank our colleagues. However, we had a very cohesive group and were able to work together nicely on a regular basis.
As Kiesler and Cummings point out, face-to-face interaction is important when coordinating "highly independent groups" such as ours. However, I think the biggest affects of proximity come from the fact that we shared our space, the physical Delta Gamma house. Only some of us "lived in" during our term, but those who didn't would still travel from Collegetown for meetings. The officers all had the "territory" of the dining room during CMT meetings, and the officer table during chapter meetings. Additionally, the officers who lived in had the privacy of their bedrooms; mine was used for honor board meetings as well as slating meetings for the next round of officers. Overall, face-to-face interaction was an essential part of our group cohesion, especially in the realm of shared social spaces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It seems like the fact that your group was a sorority allowed for the lack of reliance on computer mediations. I assume that sorority members have the responsibility to meet often, and as a result, FtF interactions are the norm, rather than if compared to a group that is formed for a class, and often have members that meet each other for the first time, let alone see each other every day.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, it seems like groups like that work the best. Other than the fact that pre-existing relationships make communication easier and smoother, frequency of meetings are directly related to success.
It seems that you have had an overwhelmingly positive experience during your time on the CMT. I would attribute this to the emphasis on FtF communication within your group, as well as the strong ties and common goals shared by all members. Everyone knew what was expected of her and was motivated to complete her assigned task. Since your communication is FtF, it seems that there is more pressure to return to the meeting having done your ‘work’, so to speak, so that you will not appear at a disadvantage in front of the other members of the group. It has been my experience that FtF interactions are much more productive and motivating than CMC interactions -- have you found this to be true also?
ReplyDelete