Assessing group process
As a member of an intervention group, I was able to make a few observations about my team. One of the observations is in regard to the adopted structure. In this case, there was a clear hierarchical structure and chain of command. This kind of group component was the one that was used in communication. In other words, there was both the down-up and up-down communication. Up-down communication was mainly used when giving instructions. Down-up communication, on the other hand, was used in seeking clarification and in giving feedback. On the other hand, when it comes to task accomplishment in contracting assignments, we were assigned to various job duties based on our skills and areas of strengths (Thye, & Lawler, 2014). This was to enhance effectiveness and efficiency in the provision of care.
What I viewed to be the strength of my group is that there was proper coordination. The tasks at hand were subdivided into various subunits after which each individual was assigned his or her part. This helped in ensuring that there is no duplication of efforts. Apart from that, the other strength of my group is that it embraced teamwork. We were able to effectively work throughout the whole process as a team, and this helped in attaining our set objectives. On the other hand, the main weakness with our team is that there were some group members who used rumours in communicating rather than following the set formal channel. In order to counter this, one of the strategies that I would implement is to come up with a common formal channel of communication such as memo or emails and insist that all members should only rely on communication provided using such means.
Reference
Thye, S. R., & Lawler, E. J. (2014). Advances in group processes, 2014. Bingley, U.K: Emerald.