Last spring I took INFO/COMM 320 and at the end of the semester we had to complete a group project that involved using a new media technology to explore a topic we discussed in class. I collaborated with three other students to create a blog about politics and new media. The personnel consisted of me and three of my friends, one other sophomore and two seniors. I was the only IS major in the group (the rest were COMM) so I was able to contribute a lot through my technical skills and they were able to help me with the writing aspects. I think the fact that we were “functionally diverse” (Kraut) contributed to our success as a group. The other inputs were the task (creating the blog) and the tools and technologies, which primarily consisted of the blog itself and an email chain between the four of us. The email chain was an easy way to start, but as the project progressed, we used the blog a lot to share links and ideas and even set up dates for meetings.
Throughout the interaction process, we did end up developing roles and interaction patterns. For instance, the sophomores (as opposed the second semester seniors) were generally more on top of setting up meetings, working out deadlines and assigning tasks. As an IS major, I took on most of the tech work, and my COMM friends were nice enough to help proof-read the things I wrote. At the end of the day, we were satisfied with our outcomes. We completed the task with little to no conflict, we were happy with the results, AND we all still liked each other.
With respect to McGrath’s model, I’d say our project was definitely
cooperative and behavioral, especially as we got toward the later stages of the assignment where we were actually creating the blog. Our group often met ftf, but much of the work was done at a distance. Although the reading predicts that the distance would hinder cooperation, I think we worked quite well with it. We would often send out emails that would explicitly assign a task to each one of us, and since we all trusted one another everyone cooperated and completed their respective tasks. I could see how if you weren’t comfortable with people you were working with distance would make you second-guess each other more and thus cooperate less, but I think our mutual respect and trust saved us from experiencing this effect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I enjoyed your post. Sounds like an interesting course. One point that really catches my attention is the concept of functional diversity. You mentioned that there was little conflict and the times you all were apart did not really affect the overall performance of the group. Do you think that’s because there wasn’t much intersection in the tasked being worked on at any given moment? Because your group was functionally diverse, you were able to work independently towards a common goal and kept each other in the know by periodic communications, limiting the opportunity for conflict…
ReplyDeleteOne of our readings pointed out that CMC, or a distantly located group, would discourage people from voluntarily contributing to group performance. You mentioned that you would commonly send out e-mails assigning tasks to each person and that these tasks were completed. Further, you propose, “since we all trusted one another everyone cooperated and completed their respective tasks.” I presume this trust must have stemmed from a group cohesion that was solidified during FtF meetings. I’m interested to know if this task was intentionally monitored or if your group merely fell into this beneficial pattern.
ReplyDelete