Since human have an innate need for affiliation, there is a natural tendency for us to form groups. It can either be an informal one where friendship evolves naturally, or a formal one where there are goals to be accomplished as a team. I’m sure almost everyone has the experience of being part of a group. Do you know that whether consciously or unconsciously, you are playing a particular role in your group at a certain point of time? My question to you would be which role do you actually play?
There are two broad categories in our role playing:Task Roles and Maintenance Roles. We often specialize in either one, but the best group member is one who is able to display both kinds of behavior, depending on the needs of the group. Continuing on, I will be giving a personal sharing about the roles I play.
Task Roles
I see myself as an Initiator-Contributor who starts the ball rolling. This is so because I belief that in order to motivate others, I have to be motivated first. Also, this helps to enhance the group performance when goals and ideas are clearly laid out. In this way, all the members will know what to expect from this particular project or partnership. With that, it brings me to evaluate myself as an Evaluator-Critic who sets the benchmark for the group functioning. Personally, I have expectations of my own and my group’s performance as we accomplish tasks. No one would want a lousy output, neither do I. Therefore, I would constantly assess the quality of our output against a yardstick. If you are wondering what standard of comparison I use, my answer would be alongside the principles associated with our group. Hence, I also play the role of an Opinion Seeker who would seek clarification of values that our group holds. To me, it is a crucial role to play for ensuring a smooth and comfortable working relationship. Imagine what would happen if a person constantly decides and demands the group to achieve something that everyone in the group is unwilling to adhere to. The concept of group synergy confirms the fact that groups provide more input than an individual is capable of. Thus as an Information Seeker, I constantly question the group about our progress and encourage each of us to contribute suggestions and improvements that could refine the quality of the fruit of our labor. By playing these task roles, there is always a motivating drive for me to achieve the best that we are capable of. What is the point of putting in our precious time and effort if we are not giving our best?
Maintenance Roles
A highly task-oriented person may be too insensitive to the other member feelings in the midst of achieving goals, thereby causing tension and discontentment within the group climate. Hence, it is always desirable to be able to strike a balance in the various responsibilities we undertake. As a Gatekeeper-Expediter, I feel that it is important to give everyone a chance to voice their concerns as well as to express their opinion about the project that we are on. This gives them a sense of participation and belonging when their ideas and suggestions are taken into account for the benefit of the group as a whole. As I play the role of an Encourager, I belief that it is always pleasant to say a word of thanks and show appreciation to the contributor. It allows the person to know that he/she is not taken for granted and his/her ideas are valued.
Though out my experiences, I’ve never evaluated myself in the roles that I am playing in a group setting. It is indeed fascinating to discover a lot of myself through this communication course. I don’t mind a few comments from you about your perception of the roles I play when I am/was working with you!
Do take a few moments to discover more about yourself with the list of roles displayed below:
TASK ROLES
INITIATOR/CONTRIBUTOR: suggest new ideas
INFORMATION GIVER: offers facts and relevant information
OPINION GIVER: states beliefs/opinions
INFORMATION SEEKER: ask for information for facts
OPINION SEEKER: asks for clarification of values
COORDINATOR: pulls ideas together and coordinate work
ELABORATOR: works out details, gives examples
EVALUATOR-CRITC: develops standard
ORIENTOR: summarizes and ask questions about new paths
PROCEDURAL TECHNICIAN:performs routine tasks for the group
ENERGIZER: stimulates the group to action leading to closure
MAINTENANCE ROLES
ENCOURAGER: praises good points, exhibits acceptance
HARMONIZER: reduces tension and mediate differences
GATEKEEPER/EXPEDITER: attempts to encourage communication
STANDARD SETTER: applies standards for the group
COMPROMISER: is willing to compromise or yield his/her idea
GROUP OBSERVER: observe process and offers feed backs
FOLLOWER: going along with the ideas of others
So what role do you normally play? I’m eager to understand more about you, my dear friends! Just want to let you know that your comments are greatly appreciated!
13 comments:
Hey, it is an interesting evaluation of yourself and I do see the reality as you relate the terms to yourself =)
As for myself i see myself doing more of the Task role than a Maintenance one, though i do have some elements of the Maintenance roles like easing tensions and encouraing others =)
I am sure your article will help others know more about themselves!
It is an interesting personal sharing on the roles you played in a group. You placed yourself in different roles. I'm quite surprised that one can actually play different roles at the same time.
As for me, I think as time passes I changed my roles from mainly maintenance to mainly task. Is quite a big change for me as I compared.
I guess is the change of peers. Surprisingly, peers can be a great influence to such extend.
Last but no least, your post make me start wondering whether my way of dealing a group work is right. And i agree with sibell that your article will help others to know more of themselves xD.
Well, it’s interesting to note that people tend to observe group dynamics in 2 broad groups--- the active initiator and the relatively less active complier. May I contribute a third character to spice things up further… let’s include the schizotypal personalities to complete the equation. These people are part of a group on in name, but not in person. They are present in the physical realm, but mentally-withdrawn into their own “inner garden” when it comes group-work. Let’s not ostracize this group of people from our discussion, like they’ve ostracized themselves from the rest of the team!
While it’s interesting to evaluate ourselves on this spectrum of roles in group-dynamics, let’s not forget that group dynamics, is by definition, dynamic. Our roles and niches are not rigidly encased in a hierarchy when it comes to group-work. Let me illustrate an example…
Suppose we form a group to do a school project. Evidently, Mr ABC, the dominant, ambitious go-getter assumes the driving force of the team, while timid Miss XYZ assumes the ‘yes-man’ role. But when Mr ABC suddenly meets a debilitating obstacle to his campaign (possibly the humble common cold), and everyone else is incapable of leading the team, poor Miss XYZ gets thrust into a post she wasn’t prepared for (typically an act of conspiratorial-sabotage). So, without much of a choice, Miss XYZ would have to adapt to the role-change and put on a tougher front to bear heavier responsibilities.
Ladies and gentleman, this is but one hypothetical scenario in the complexities of life’s interdependent relationship fabric. We experience these role-shifting events all the time, subconsciously too! We may be a leader at once, but when something else crops up, our attention is shifted, and the ruling scepter gets transferred to the next best person, and so on and so forth. Sometimes, it may mean that you get a job-promotion after your supervisor has been retrenched. At other times, role-changes may occur in serious life-events such as a death of a loved-one in a family, and the next most capable person assuming the breadwinning role.
On a second point, allow me to propose the possibility that an individual may not always assume the same active/passive/withdrawn role in different situations. While it’s true that some people are extremely laconic, and some are excessively-opinionated, much of the rest of us fall somewhere along the scale of normalcy--- which means that we ‘chameleon’ ourselves according to different situations. When taking a group of friends out to a new hideout, we become the boisterous host. When attending a conference with highly-esteemed superiors, we paint our smiles in a more acquiescent manner treading gingerly so as to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes. In essence, I think we shouldn’t evaluate ourselves according to the manifested role in a particular situation. We are far more sophisticated creatures with a full wardrobe of facades for different occasions!
In conclusion, let me complicate matters by throwing up 3 new perspectives:
1.In addition to the group of active and passive group members, there’re the non-contributors.
2.Our roles in a particular group are subject to changes! (There won’t be so many sensational underdog stories otherwise!)
3.We assume different roles in different situations. Most people are chameleons, not leopards (who can’t change their spots).
---My three-bit worth!
Thanks Jonathan, for compressing your comments into 3 new pointers.
For the 1st point, you are absolutely right with your comment on non-contributors. Having mentioned that she plays a ‘Yes Man’ role, it actually shows that she is playing the maintenance role as a Follower who accepts ideas and serves as an audience for most of the time.
For both of your 2nd and 3rd point, they are both revolving around the concept that in different situations or even in the same group at different point of time, we assume different roles. Your understanding of the role concept coincides with the theories we’ve learnt in our communication class as well. Just like your analogy for the chameleons, it is exactly the aim we are working towards. It will be ideal if we would be able to adjust ourselves when faced with different circumstances, such that we suit the needs of our group.
I agree with Jonathan that besides active and passive groups, there are non-contibutors. It is true that the role we play might change according to the situation. On the other hand, we might be playing both task role and maintenance role at the same time.
Hi Beattie. You have raised good points in your entry.
I also agree with Jonathan's point as I think that many of us can play multiple roles in different situations. For instance, sometimes I can be the energiser when I'm passionate about the project topic and play the group observer role when I'm less informed about the topic. Therefore, I believe that many of us can also play different roles according to the different situations.
That was an apt display of the trait of an encourager by the last sentence of your post!
I think that all of us have different combinations and varying degrees of emphasis on the diverse traits at dissimilar times in divergent situations.
Personally, I would think that I’m an information giver and seeker. I just have a nature inclination towards gaining more knowledge and acquiring more information. It just hypes up my brain in an unusual way. This shows the beauty of God’s creation. In order to be an information giver, I have to be an information seeker to fill up the knowledge banks in my brain to be able to extract out and disseminate some of them to others. This accounts for my passion towards studying, which often baffles people around me.
I have a little of everything but the initiator/contributor trait is least seem in me. I am usually not the one with many tricks up my sleeves or full of wacky ideas. I am more of a practical person led by rationales more than dreams. This is at times to my disadvantage when situations which place emphasis on creativity arise.
I believe that the majority of the world’s population has a superior of higher authority overseeing them as they work. Therefore, opinion givers should try as much as they can to learn to not be so straight forth with their opinions, especially in situations of offering feedbacks to their superiors.
Every role is important in this world of ours. When placed together, all the individual roles will paint a dynamic picture of the world.
Thanks for your comment, Belinda.
From your comment i realize that just because different people have different abilities and strengths in various areas, each of us play a role, regardless of how insignificant if might seem. When all of us come together and work in a group,we paint a beautiful picture together. That, i feel is the beauty of Group Synergy!
Whenever I am involved in a project I am always grateful for the more 'task-y' individuals who are able to generate the core ideas and get things started. Being more of a 'maintainer' I happily morph into the different maintenance roles with the occassional times when I need to take on task roles as needed. In relation to my comment and the well-informed article that yakking has kindly posted, I come to realise that I can perform my own role well largely because of others within are cooperative and perform their individual roles well with apt display of their traits.
My other personal reflections besides readily agreeing with points that have been mentioned, is that as long as everyone is ensured that their participation counts, and we all work for the common good of the whole group as the top priority, there will be lesser conflicts of interests.
A good team is like a good movie with both a solid cast and an excellent crew. Task people might not necessarily be those that we see onstage all the times & neither are the maintenance people always the 'unseen force'. Interestingly, those whom we see onscreen are sometimes the very team members who play the maintenance roles while those off screen might be the ones who delve deeply into the task roles.
I conclude that firstly roles should exist for the common purpose of the group and both groups of individuals (maintenence and task) should serve each other with the recognition that every member is a valuable asset to the team.
With regards to kx's comment,
I believe that both task and maintenance roles shuffle between being a front-stage as well as a back-stage person. And i feel that this is a different concept all together.
A task-orientated person may be seen at the front stage leading the discussion about the planning of a project. However, to those people who were not present at the meetings will see the task roles as a back-stage job. This is because others may not see the planning committee executing the plans, which is a relatively front-stage job.
A relationship-orientated person may be prominently seen as someone who keeps cheering the group on and maintaining the synergy of the group at front-stage. However, there are other roles of maintenance that are done at the back-stage. An example is one to one talk and counseling. These actions maintain the relationship of the group but are often not seen by others.
Thanks for your comment for bringing a different light to the role playing in groups!
This is an interesting post, Beattie. A group's success will depend largely upon these roles, and how different members of the group are able to come to a consensus. As for myself, I see myself more bend towards the task role.
-ray
Yo! That is a very detailed sharing of the roles we could play in lives from you! =)
Personally I feel that I am more inclined to being EVERYTHING. serious. That is because throughout the many chances I am exposed to in say group discussions, projects, or in my CCA, my "roles" assigned vary alot to begin with.
That explains why I have played almost every role. But I see myself most successful in being the GATEKEEPER. Most probably because of the environment I am in, more chances of getting to be in groups with new people, or friends who are not really close. It is really important then to have someone in the group to start the ball rolling.
And humour, has always been my most "lethal weapon" in being a good harmoniser too! =)
Post a Comment