FREE ESSAY ON DAVID, MARY AND ERICA

DAVID, MARY AND ERICA

The group I have decided to closely examine, is the group I encounter every day at work
Altogether there is only four of us; David is our boss (he is a lawyer), Paul who is also
a lawyer but works under David, Mary is the paralegal and Erica is the secretary. We have
been together a little shy of a year. Over the course of this past year there have been
many changes. I was hoping to look closely at the structure of this group and the
changing aspects of it, mainly the cohesion.
To start I would like to explain how the group first worked, the individuals in this
group and their roles. Most of the roles have prevailed, but because of the development
of our group, and the increased cohesion, some of our roles have changed. 
David should defiantly play the role of task orientation, and for the most part he does.
He has this fear of being too bossy and tries not to demand too much. He leaves the
details up to Mary, and however we wants to accomplish something he tries not to
interfere. David is one of the stronger information givers of the group, but that is why
we are a team, no one in the group knows how to do everything necessary to finish a
project. David knows the law and the rules of the court. He isn't too big on details
because both Mary and Paul will pick up where he leaves off. Anything that is related to
the client's information, Erica has the appropriate information for doing that. David
rarely plays any socioemotional roles. He tries to play the gatekeeper by attempting to
keep equal participation, but the truth of the matter is that he is not usually around.
Most of his mornings are spent in court and his afternoons consist of work in the field
(he is a real estate lawyer so he often goes out to look at property or over see homes he
or one of his client's are having built) or desk work which he gets so engulfed in, he
doesn't know what is going on in the office. Every now and then though, he plays the
playboy role and just spends the day out in the field or home. 
Paul is the information seeker and information giver. He has no time for any
socioemotional roles, although he loves to be recognized for his work. He has no interest
in the other people or their roles, until he wants something. Unfortunately, he played
the dominator for quite some time. He was happy to pick up where David left off, in as
far as authority, but his lack of interest kept him at a far enough distance so as not to
create any enemies.
Mary is the recorder. She is the last person to see the legal documents before they leave
the office and must make sure everything is correct and all the necessary people have a
copy. I think that just being a woman and a mother lead her to play a few socioemotional
roles. She is big on encouraging the group through tough projects and setting standards.

Erica, I feel, has played the most roles. Not all at one time, but through the course of
the year she has fit into a couple roles. The biggest factor being that she was the last
one to enter the group. Erica played a lot of socioemotional roles because that is where
the lack was. Initially she played the follower role, just accepting the environment and
observing the details, kind of going with the flow. She slowly came to play the
harmonizer and the compromiser because she could. The other three were set in their ways
and didn't want to hear otherwise, among themselves or with her.
Most of the socioemotional roles became descriptive norms. It was Erica's responsibility
to mediate when a problem arose between people in the group. As a result of David not
usually being in the office, somewhere along the line, lunch became one and a half hours.
No one would ever say anything to an individual who came back late from lunch because
they knew they too wanted a longer lunch. This would never go if David was in in the
morning. That is where this becomes an injunctive norm. If someone did come back late
after David had been in work that morning, there would be obvious hostility between the
three members directed toward the late person. Anything that was acceptable when David
was out, was not when he was in the office. For example, when David was out, no one
really spoke, everyone would tend to their own work. However, when David came in you
would find Paul talking to Mary (usually not even about the task on hand) just to look as
if he were interested.
It has been very clear how we have worked through the five steps of group development,
which is so necessary for our survival as a group and keep production on a high enough
level.
The orientation (forming) stage seemed to last the longest because we were almost always
missing one member of the group. That is why Erica played the follower at first. She was
put into a situation that has already existed without her. Even though she was an
important part of the group, she still needed to see how the group worked and work her
way in. Everyone was very polite and worked very nicely together. Even Paul was
interested in the others work. During this time David was usually around, he worked
diligently but kept an open ear of what was going on in the office. He made sure everyone
knew what their job was and that they were happily on task. Mary stayed by Erica's side
to make sure she understood her responsibilities. She worked very closely with Erica
until she knew the flow of the office. Showing her where all work ended up, how we filed
all the clients, how the information was stored on the computers, and so on. Paul took
time to explain to Erica and Mary what cases he was working on and some of the
interesting facts he had unvailed. He would bring Erica with him to the courthouse so she
could witness the process of the papers they would file in the future. Everyone seemed to
want to work together.
It wasn't until the conflict (storming) stage took place that true colors started to
show. David started to disappear through out the day, and when he was in he didn't have
much to say unless he needed something. It was too early for the others to start going to
him with problems. Paul and Mary could not get along. Paul decided he wanted Mary as a
personal assistant, and Mary wanted no part of it. She worked for David and worked with
Paul. Paul wanted to get the material necessary and put it into the correct order but he
wanted Mary to perfect it. He didn't want to be bothered by little details like sentence
structure or courtbacks. Mary was left, at first, with role ambiguity. Her job was to
take care of little details but things that were missed not things purposely not done.
Mary started to refuse to do his work for him. She would get herself so overwhelmed with
this increase of work that she would just not do it. This is when Erica tried to play the
mediator. She would work with one and than the other trying to keep the away from direct
contact. Work had become very isolated, Mary didn't know what Paul was working on until
he gave her his work. This was wasting a lot of time. Eventually, David had to be brought
into the situation to clear up responsibilities (clarify group goals). 
This brings us to the structural (norming) stage. At this point David had to layout the
rules and responsibilities. From there, the rest of the group made their own. For
example, David had broken down the work and told everyone what they were responsible for,
when they would take lunch and how he was going to deal with a problem like this if it
occurred again. The group stuck to his order quite closely at first, but we slowly
brought it to a level that we were all comfortable at. David had told Paul that he was to
give Mary his best work, that she was there to catch David's mistakes not Paul's. He told
Mary that whether Paul is actually a good writer didn't matter because it was her
responsibility to make sure the courts will accept the material. Erica was given the
responsibility of getting everything necessary to client's and keeping the office
organized, but without saying it, she was given the duty of keeping Paul and Mary
in-line. After about a week of following his orders, they started to settle into their
own regime, knowing that if they step on anyone's toes they could lose their jobs. Mary
started picking up some of Paul's slack and Paul made sure his work was up to a certain
level before it left his office. Now they were overlapping, doing a little extra on each
end which was bringing them together. When Erica was added to the mix, a friendly tone
appeared. They were now doing work at the same time. If Paul started a project he told
Mary and Erica what he was doing to they could all work on it. This way they would finish
about the same time and one project could be finished in less than a day. The
communication level increased as well as the comfort level.
As a result of this ability to work together, the group was clearly at the working
(performing) stage. Now that everyone was working together and on the same project, there
was more added to the group. They could discuss any problems with the project and move
on. While working through the project, I noticed everyone working on a personal level.
There was small talk at first, than more personal conversation. Before long they were
able to discuss life and issues in their everyday lives as well a finish a project in a
third the time it would have taken them during the conflict stage. Without any
intentions, the work group was meeting up outside of the office at different functions,
and enjoying each other's company. However, the most important aspect was never lost,
production. Because production was so high, both Mary and Erica had the opportunity to
really learn about the law. Everyone started gaining in so many different ways.
They haven't really reached the dissolution (adjourning) stage, mainly because they make
such a good team. There had been a few different Erica's and Mary's within this group,
but they seemed to reach the dissolution stage too soon.
Since cohesion is multidimensional, I wanted to examine the different aspect of cohesion
and how they apply to this group. Cohesion, in this case, is definitely a social force.
Cohesion is the aspect that was keeping them together, and helping them work with one
another. 
It was obvious that they were working in group unity. They constantly spoke of themselves
as a team. If one was out for the day, the entire office seemed to go on hold. Everyone's
job was important to the group and its production. The had working as a team down to a
science, where they could reach new levels between each other without hindering their
production. Which would also apply to the teamwork aspect of cohesion.
I think the group had both personal and social attraction between its members. Everyone
seemed to have their own relationship with each member after sometime. As a group we all
had relationships with one another. Their separate relationships were possible because
they had developed a liking for each other as a part of a group. This was the point where
I had the courage to do a sociogram. If you look at appendix A you can see that I asked
two questions (at separate occasions). First I asked who you feel you work the best with.
Than I asked who you liked the best. I found it very interesting that everyone felt they
worked the best with the person closest to their level. Paul chose David, and David chose
Paul, likewise, Erica chose Mary and Mary chose Erica. Take into consideration that David
and Paul do very similar work and a Mary and Erica also work on a comparable jobs. As far
as the person everyone liked the best, was the most interesting of all. Everyone seemed
to choose the person right above them. Erica chose Mary, Mary chose Paul, and Paul chose
David. I thought this may be so because everyone saw how the person above them had to
adjust to work with them. Although, David chose Erica, and I think that has to do with
the fact that Erica was the lightest of the group. She didn't have stress the other
individuals in the group had, which is why she was able to mediate in the beginning.
This cohesion has brought the group to a level where their task work never really falls
below disjunctive. More often than not they work with results of additive or
compensatory. They work at everyone's best level and pull the others up with them. They
work as a group, considering and needing everyone's input. They also have their size in
their favor. Because the group is so small they really aren't affected by the Ringelmann
effect, although I can see where that would apply if the group did increase, mainly
because there would not be enough work for more people so someone would have to loaf a
little. At this point, there is no room for social loafing. Everyone is needed to do
their specific job. 
I'm sure they could use some work on motivation, but I don't see their motivation as a
problem. As of now they work nicely together, and keep each other motivated. I feel that
if they set higher standards they may produce more, or if they increase their unity a
little more they may perform a little better. Altogether though I think the five stages
have brought them to a level where they preform close to their best.
While observing this group and applying it to the concepts we have learned in class, I am
definitely seeing how and why the five stages to developing cohesion are so important.
The orientation stage is inevitable. Whenever you are thrown into a group you have to
feel the members out and be on you best behavior until you become settled. To become
settled you have to have some sort of conflict. The problem come when a group doesn't
leave either of these stages. If you don't ever conflict with anyone else, you will be
stuck on an impersonal, unreal polite stage. Once you conflict, it is important to work
though that so you can reach a point where you can really work with the other members in
the group. This structural stage is very important so as to acquire trust and
relationships, and develop roles that everyone can work with. All of which is important
for the development and production of the group. With this worked out the group can then
move to a level of pure performance. Then when the group is finished it will dissolve,
breakdown and eventually finish up. Even though this group has not reached this level, I

think it was a great representation of the importance of each step toward cohesion and
eventually outstanding production.
APPENDIX A