Hidden Dynamics
For every thought we express during a conversation, there are probably several others that never emerge: ideas that are off-topic (or off-color), discourteous or otherwise inappropriate. And often what we do say is not really what we mean. For personal, cultural or other reasons, many of us are reluctant (or unable) to express what we’re thinking. Some people are shy and insecure, afraid of the consequences of speaking our mind. Others might be wary of popping the lid off of an emotion for fear of what lies underneath. Whatever the reason, frustration, insecurity and anger often go unvoiced (or, in some settings, are voiced to the extreme).
Group dynamics seem to be a concentrated version of all that’s difficult in one-on-one conversation. If we’re hesitant to express disapproval to our best friend, how do we speak our mind when trying to negotiate with a number of people — some of whom may even be in competition with us (for power or control, for example)?
This paper peeks under the covers of a group situation to examine what remained unexpressed during a two-week-long project, and briefly to explore why.
The Setting
In Alex’s Language Analysis and Lesson Planning course, groups of three students research a grammar topic and make a half-hour presentation to the rest of the class.
For this paper, I separately interviewed the three people in one group, with the promise that I wouldn’t share the information with the others. I’ve debated using their names here because to do otherwise seems awkward, but I didn’t explicitly get their permission so I won’t. I will, however, retain a few identifying factors since those may be important for context. In any case, their identity is likely to become clear to you when you read on. If not, you can grease my palm.[1]
Allow me to introduce you to:
- Buffy: a shy, funny, young American female
- Mike: a young, buoyant American male
- Chalaza[2]: an earnest, talkative middle-aged international student
I also interviewed Alex about his observations.
All interviews were done within a week of the experience.
Why I Chose This Topic
When Alex announced his selection of this trio as a presentation group, I thought, “Oh dear. This could be dicey.” One team member is strong-willed and a ham, one is strong-willed and inhabits her own world, and the third is silent almost to the point of being withdrawn.
Thus primed, I was not surprised to notice cues that something was amiss subterraneously as the group launched into the teaching. In that moment, I chose this topic for my paper. Even here at SIT where communication is king, it seems that true feelings are often suppressed. Silence is not always golden. Sometimes it is only a veneer over simmering emotion.
Ginna’s View
Here is my brief summary of the drama. I admit I became more engaged in the interaction than the topic:
- Chalaza was the opening act, performing a soliloquy that had a spiritual and symbolic aspect, and that had no connection that I could see to the theme. Her later contributions seemed likewise incongruous. The other two presenters looked perplexed as she spoke.
- Mike ran most of the show, dominating the “floor time.” He would occasionally interrupt his companions to add a comment or clarification. Now and again Buffy tried to participate but was drowned out. Chalaza would occasionally chime in with a comment.
- Buffy said a few opening words and later tried to lead an interactive segment, but Mike frequently jumped in and directed. She would occasionally smile for no apparent reason. I suspected I recognized it as the kind of smile I give to someone who is trying to run me off the road.
Each group member was at times like a shooting star, streaking (with clothes on) past our eyes, disconnected and somewhat random. “I’ll bet these guys haven’t talked to each other about their group’s dynamics,” thought I, sagely. I was right.
Following are excerpts from the interviews I did with group members. So you wouldn’t have twenty-pages to slog through, I edited to focus mostly on role definition, though other factors — such as scheduling — were also major hurdles.
Buffy’s View
In her description of their first meeting, Buffy describes the group’s informal attempt to establish roles:
“Everybody came in with information… I said I’m not very good at explaining terminology but I’m creative and good at activities, so I can contribute in that way… I just wanted to know what I needed to do.”
But, she said, Mike disregarded her suggestions in favor of his own.
“I came up with my activity, and he shot it down. I had planned the whole activity. Chalaza had liked it. She and I were trying to move things along.”
In the end, Mike assigned her a simple and “meaningless” task, and then proceeded to do the bulk of the work, without talking with the others about what he was developing. Buffy felt diminished and invisible, and began to withdraw.
During the presentation:
“We had parts — who was doing what — but Mike took over. Each person was supposed to explain one thing but he explained them all… He kept looking over my shoulder and checking on me while I was writing on the board, as if to make sure I was getting it right. The whole time he wanted to do stupid shit like drawing happy faces on the poster…
“At one point during the presentation I just smiled, because I think everyone knew what was going on. During the presentation I just let it be. There was no time to deal with it.”
Dornyei and Murphey (2003, p. 122) describe challenges in group dynamics. Role ambiguity (who does what) and role distance (not being invested in the task) are two sources that came into play with Buffy. Of the authors’ hypothesized reasons for role conflict, several seem relevant here: reserved personality, process variations and communication problems.
Chalaza’s View
Chalaza is personable, yet I never feel I am seeing even the shadow of her true self. I was interested, under the circumstances, to note that she didn’t acknowledge the group interaction as anything but harmonious. Her description of the process makes it seem linear and productive: an ideal progression.
“On our first meeting we made plans. We communicated about the concept and tried to figure out ways to narrow it. We gave ourselves the assignment to research and come back with an outline. On our second meeting we talked about the outline. Whatever I was interested in is what I talked about. We talked about definitions and parameters: who can do what. We agreed that I would do the introduction. Buffy was given the activities to do, and some explanation. Mike decided he wanted to explain the rest.”
I’ve italicized two comments in that quotation that I find interesting. The first (“Whatever I was interested in is what I talked about”) has been her modus operandi with collaborative projects at SIT: to establish her role by working on what she chooses, independent of the Big Picture. The second is remarkable in its lack of critical judgment at Mike’s having taken control over the process.
Beebe and Masterson (1989 p. 98) describe communications challenges in the form of disconfirming responses, strategies that Chalaza sometimes uses:
- Impervious: During our interview she answered questions that I didn’t ask.
- Irrelevant: During the presentation, she followed up her peers’ comments with something unrelated.
It would be an interesting paper in itself to explore the reasons — personal traits, cultural attributes, coping mechanisms, etc. — for her actions, which she summarizes:
“You pick what you’re comfortable with… In a group you take what you see, take what you have. I was satisfied with the process.”
Mike’s View
Mike is a clown. Dornyei and Murphey (2003) write that “There is hardly a class that does not have its resident clown. However, clowning is not just an individual inclination; the group also needs clowns.” (p. 116)
The trouble with clowns is that they can also go out of control. Just ask Stephen King.
Mike entered the situation with clear ideas about the capabilities of his peers and his obligation to the group. As with the others, role-definition is at the root of his thinking:
“When I saw the composition of the group I thought I’d have to initiate. My first reaction was trying to figure out ‘What job am I going to do with this group?’ I had the idea I’d be the one to put a lot together. Buffy is very reserved and Chalaza often runs in many directions. I wanted to make Chalaza feel valued but rein her back in. With Buffy I tried to facilitate a discussion that prompted her, bring out answers that she was thinking but not saying… I kind of felt like I was — not necessarily the leader but the manager.”
If Beebe and Masterson (1989) are correct in their assertion that “Group cohesiveness is measured by the degree of attraction that group members feel toward one another and the group,” (p. 115) then this collaboration was off to a bad start.
While he assumed the role of “ringleader” not only willingly but unilaterally, at times during our interview Mike seemed almost resentful, or at least resigned, to his “fate.” But during the presentation, he was ebullient.
He acknowledged that working with personalities so different than his own made the project difficult for him, and while he talked a lot about his sensitivity toward others (which he genuinely does have), that trait was not manifest in the stories of his peers. He offered a vivid encapsulation of the nature of task-based work in a group:
“It’s challenging to try to match competencies, character traits, levels of involvement, tolerance for ambiguity, comfort in working with others, sharing power and being part of a group — and trying to comprehend each other.”
Alex’s View
In selecting team members, Alex picked randomly except for seeking a balance between gender and country of origin. This is what he observed during the presentation:
“The locus of the presentation was Mike. He is high-energy, charming, funny, on top of the material, creative, sociable… The other two have different styles and seemed to be in the background. It was like ‘Mike and his assistants.’”
Alex noticed that Buffy looked uncomfortable, but didn’t know why. And he was not surprised that Chalaza was trying to avoid conflict and put a positive emphasis on the experience.
After the presentation Alex invited written feedback from the presenters, and the responses[3] mesh what I’d learned through my interviews: Mike had felt there was consensus and he’d listened well; Buffy found Mike patronizing and resented following his agenda; and Chalaza had no comment.
It was “an archetypal experience in group work,” Alex observed. “When people aren’t forthcoming about their feelings and don’t share… that can become the norm and people become more entrenched in their own way. So Mike will expand and Buffy will retreat. He thinks ‘People aren’t stepping forward so I need to take more control.’ She thinks ‘He’s not listening to me so I’ll just give up.’”
I asked about the role Chalaza played. He referred to her public persona as the “I need to get my story out” type, determined to convey her perspective regardless of context. He could see her going off in her own direction, but did not know the source: whether it was “cultural dislocation and distance (‘I’m not going to adapt’),” a protective device or another reason.
Alex noted that people play different roles in groups, and that that role will determine how much each gains from it.
And in the End
It was striking to me that Buffy, Mike and Chalaza describe the experience almost as though it were three separate events. It is a powerful illustration of how subjective our experiences are, and therefore how difficult to work in a group. Conflict can exacerbate that subjectivity, clouding our vision of what is happening.
But conflict is important, say Dornyei and Murphey (2003). They advise that we not “try to suppress, deny, ignore, minimise or bypass” it (p. 142), because a group needs that tension in order to grow. Yet I have been surprised at SIT at how superficially “nice” people are within groups, when clearly there is turmoil underneath. It has troubled me, and fueled my interest in writing this paper: why don’t people say what they think, why do they wrestle over unimportant things, why are we humans so egotistical, why am I so sensitive… ?
Many of our groups at SIT pose particular challenges because they are either one-time entities, as with this LALP group, or they are in pursuit of an arbitrary and superficial goal (our Explore the Environment task, for example). In these cases, there isn’t the time or necessarily the desire to face conflict in order to build group strength, because the group will disband soon. Of course, that’s not quite accurate, because we remain part of a larger group — the MATs — and continue to have to negotiate with one another.
It is, of course, crucial that teachers be aware of group dynamics. Under these particular circumstances, however, I don’t think it’s possible to mitigate negative interactions. Alex’s inviting feedback from students is a constructive step.
Since the group is now dissolved, the team members have the option of looking inward instead. Alex defined fundamental questions that could lead each person to constructive development for future group work:
- Buffy: How do I act on my feelings?
- Mike: How do others see me and how can I adjust to that?
- Chalaza: How do I balance my cultural or personal dissonance with the group work?
If the students can explore these areas, their future collaborations may start to become more successful and balanced.
References
Dornyei, Zoltan & Murphey, Tim (2003). Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beebe, Stephen A. & Masterson, John T. (1989). Communicating in Small Groups: Principles and Practices. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
[1] I know this is inappropriate for a paper, but I’ve been writing so many lately that I need to have just a little fun. And it serves an academic function: it reinforces my assertion that we say but a fraction of what we think. I endeavor to provide exceptions.
[2] Noun. [Zoology] (in a bird’s egg) each of two membranous strips joining the yoke to the ends of the shell.
[3] Of course he didn’t give me details, but only general comments.