Assignment 2

For three years in high school, I was a member of the softball team. Many of the principles discussed by Kiesler and Cummings (2002) and Kraut (2003) applied to our group. Having been a part of this team makes it easy for me to agree with input-process-output model of group functioning. The success of our team was undoubtedly dependent on our inputs. The talent and basic skills we had as well as our work ethic, attitude and relationships with one another constitute the resources we had to work with, which played a major role in determining our success.

Kraut (2003) include Personnel, tasks, tools and technologies as three factors influencing input. There were girls ranging from very athletic to moderately so, and each contributed in their own way to the team. We relied on the drills in practice to prepare us for games. In terms of McGrath’s (1984) circumplex, our team’s function would fall in the “performance” realm of the “execution” tasks. We had to cooperatively work together to execute a win. The technologies we relied upon included the pitching machine, our batting cage and the plethora of equipment (bats, balls etc.) that we used for practice. Without the materials that stood to simulate actual game-time situations, it would have been hard for us to be prepared to play and win.

The interaction process identifies communication, conformity, strategy, action and individual roles as key components. It is not hard to apply Cummings (2001) finding that in a corporate setting, groups that communicated more with one another were evaluated more highly. In terms of our interaction process, it was necessary for those on the field to call out when they had the ball, or to encourage the player up at bat. Without communication, each player would be forced to work independently- to the detriment of the team. Each member took on an important role as well. It was clear that the girls on the team who had been playing the longest and had a natural athletic ability were responsible for the general strength of the team. Those who could not carry their weight athletically played an important role, encouraging their fellow teammates.

The input and interaction process discussed above contributed to our outputs including production, member needs and group maintenance. Our goal was to win games, which we were successful in doing. Kraut (2003) implicates aggregation and synergy as important components of production success. It is likely that the different strengths and points of view that each team member brought to the field and shared with one another did increase our efficiency. We played together for three years, evidence of the wanting to work with each other after the season ended. Socializing outside of practice and games and encouraging each other were important factors in that decision.

Kiesler and Cummings (2002) discuss effects of proximity on production. Included is the effect of the mere presence of others. Research indicates that the mere presence of others makes people more efficient in tasks they are comfortable with, and makes people perform more poorly in difficult tasks. I was not a strong batter, so when I was by myself I was much more comfortable practicing my form and execution. When in the presence of anyone else, I would become nervous and uncomfortable and did not perform as well.
Research has also shown that spontaneous communication among group members increases interdependence, and encourages mutual understanding. Playing report building activities and getting together for pasta parties before games allowed us to build trust and create an informal, comfortable environment conducive to playing well.

Clearly my experience as a high school athlete supports the evidence put forth by the above authors concerning group collaboration.