Running head: THE GROUP PROCESS

The Group Process: A Critical Analysis

Melissa Scholtens

THE GROUP PROCESS

A group consisting of individuals is an ever changing being in constant flow. A group

can either have a free and mostly equal exchange of ideas and concepts or the group can get
caught in a push and pull or give and take mentality causing friction.
Group work and group projects seem to be the standard within nursing course work, and
especially in an online class setting. I have to admit that the thought of completing group
projects makes me slightly nauseated and want to hold my breath and jump up and down
pouting. I am a professional who has been working in healthcare, the hospital setting
specifically, for almost 15 years with almost 10 of those years practicing as a Registered Nurse.
A nurse in my mind is a lot things, and right at the top of the list is a team player. Nursing within
the hospital is a team sport with regular interactions with a multidisciplinary team. I would
define myself as a team player, but working within a team at work is light years different than
working within a group of school peers for the purpose of completing a project for a grade.
A group was formed for the specific purpose of completing a presentation on a planned
community change project. Our group consisted of 5 individuals including myself. The initial
goal of our group was to agree upon a contract that spelled out the details relating our roles,
responsibilities and deadlines. In an article written in 1977 by a nurse, Margaret Wolf, she
broadly defined nursing as a group using the following criteria: 1) dynamic interaction among
members, 2) a common goal, 3) a relationship between size and function, 4) volition and
consent, and 5) a capacity for self-direction (1977). Our group was to be a dynamic interaction
among the five group members for the common goal of creating a community change project
presentation where all members would contribute willingly and with diligence through selfdirection as spelled out and agreed upon in the group contract. Our association of individuals
met the criteria of a group.

THE GROUP PROCESS

It was clear from the start of this project that there was a driven leader within the group.
The leader of our group from the beginning showed the characteristics of great leader by
initiating discussions, keeping the group on track, focusing our attentions and keeping our group
cohesive. The leader of our group did not change throughout the project, but maintained a strong
force within the group for the duration. Leadership is the ability to define a vision and guide
individuals and groups toward that vision while maintaining group-promoting teamwork,
commitment, and effectiveness. Teamwork embraces the productive aspects of group cohesion
and it focuses on the leaders ability to ensure that team member relationships are collaborative
and productive (Knodel, 2009). Our group leader took the reins and guided the direction of the
project. The remaining four members of the group participated equally from the start of the
project. The flexibility and work ethic of the group members was striking. From the inception
of the project I was surprised as the willingness and motivation of all of the group members and I
was pleasantly surprised at the drive of the individuals within the group.
The group met for discussions in an online forum for the purpose of having a
conversation to ascertain certain details and aspects of the project. The assignment prior to the
first meeting was to come prepared with thoughts for what direction we might choose to be the
focus of our presentation. All but one of the group members was present for this conversation
and each person came with ideas, thoughts, research and details for project focus. Each member
of the group volunteered his or her strong suit for the project and our group members
complimented each other perfectly. The group came together as individuals, but by combining
talents and abilities we became a group for a common purpose that turned out greater together
than any one individual would have been alone.

THE GROUP PROCESS

At the half way point of the project and at the project completion an evaluation of ones
self and each of the group members was completed. This evaluation tool allowed for an honest
evaluation of each group member, although I found it difficult to complete all of the sections as
several did not pertain to an online group. While completion of this evaluation was done twice, I
found that my thoughts about myself and my peers thoughts about my work did vary from the
midpoint to the culmination of the project. This evaluation tool would prove useful within a
group that had individuals guilty of social loafing which is the tendency to reduce individual
effort when working in groups compared to the individual effort expended when working alone
(Piezon & Ferree, 2008). Within my group there was no obvious social loafing as to my great
surprise all members of the group were focused and completed their responsibilities on their own
volition and in a self-directed manner.
In previous group projects I have frequently found myself in the leadership role as well as
the role of completing whatever work was not completed by a group member exhibiting social
loafing. I would take on the role of sucker which is defined as the act of group members
carrying the free rider or social loafer (Piezon & Ferree, 2008) and by doing this I not only
allowed that individual to get by with little interaction, but I jaded by perspective on the concept
of group work. Through review of the evaluations completed by my peers in reference to myself
I see that involved, interactive, supportive and thorough. I think that most important that I
learned from the evaluations was a confirmation that I was the kind of group member that I
strived to be: open, supportive, hard-working, professional, and engaged.
Prior to being involved with this particular group of individuals the thought of group
work left me with nothing more than the feeling of dread. Working within a group that has a
common goal and a group of people with the same work ethic and drive makes completing a

THE GROUP PROCESS

group project more of a learning experience and less of a dreadful experience. While the
dynamics within the group changed very little from the start of the project to the completion of
the project, our understanding of not only the topic for our community change project grew but
also our understanding of a functional group.

THE GROUP PROCESS

References
Knodel, L. (2009). Nurse to Nurse Nursing Management. Retrieved from
http://www.mhprofessional.com/downloads/products/0071601538/knodel_ch01_p001018.pdf
Piezon, S. & Ferree, W. (2008). Perceptions of Social Loafing in an Online Learning Groups: A
study of Public University and U.S. Naval War College students. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9.
Wolf, M. (1977). Group Stages: One View of the Development of Nursing. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 9, 64-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1977.tb01605.x