Sunday, February 1, 2009


When I read the different assignments for this week I felt that the common themes were personal communication. In an organization there is a certain type of management style.Inevitable changes need to occur, sometimes to make things good and sometimes to make things better. In thinking about interventions it is important to take the individual into account. The main thing is to make people feel that you believe in them so that they want to perform better. If they are made to feel valuable and validated, they will want to perform because at that point they become invested in the "emotional setting". The idea that I was working on last week about being SOCIAL beings in an EMOTIONAL setting is really well illustrated with the articles from this week. One of the article states that empowering employees to do their best and empowering them to make change is effective in successful transformations. I agree with this idea because it works the social being part in the empowerment of employees and the setting becomes emotional with the employees' personal investment in wanting to perform well. Another article stated that the "central concept could be the depth of the individuals' emotional involvement in the change process". Again, this illustrates the philosophy of the employee as a "social being in an emotional setting".

Monday, January 26, 2009

So this is what organizations should be doing...

In reading the articles for this week, I found so many connections to my training in social work. Of course, my training was more with individuals than with organizations however; all of the ideas apply. The things that stood out to me the most was the article by Bushe which stated "pay attention to what is working well, the qualities of leadeership/group process that are working well...and amplify them when you see them". This is exactly right! This is what I was taught to use as a Strengths-Based Perspective when doing therapy. Again this is stated in the article that it is a direct contrast to what we are taught to do. We are trained to be problem solvers. To make sure that we "nip it in the bud". Based on the readings of this week, I learned that the diagnosis that I learned to apply in a mental health setting can be similar to the diagnosis in an organizational setting. If we are open to change and aware enough to identify needs of the organization changes can be made.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Gotta Love Groups

In reading the articles, I think about all of the different groups that I am a part of and try to identify who is who...if that makes sense. Who is the aggressor, the contributor, the compromiser, the dominator, the blocker, etc. With different groups, obviously, there are different personality traits that provide an easier definition of these roles. The difficult thing is that in a perfect world we would have groups that "storm" however, they would eventually "norm" and adjust. I feel that when there is a lack of balance in the overall dynamic of the team, we become isolated in different stages. For example, if one person can't get past the storm stage, then the rest of the group is at a stand still because there needs to be some type of group cohesion in order to move on. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a group! The lack of balance, I feel, can stem from a lack of trust, respect and/or common goals. If these feelings are not communicated, it creates a road block. In other group experiences, as a group facilitator, I see the stages well defined, even the adjourning stage mentioned in the Tuckman article. It is very interesting to see the development of a groups' personality and the roles that are either assigned or adopted by members. Having experience with both long term and short term groups, the process seems to be the same. In a 10 week group, the stages can be well defined within that time frame where in a 40 week+ group all of the same stages are addressed however the process may be elongated. The type of group is also a vital consideration. In our profession, as educational leaders, we may encounter more work groups where decisions need to be made based on data or concerns, etc. In a process group, if a specific issue is addressed or there is a certain topic, we are all already beginning on common ground potentially with similar experiences and similar feelings. Another consideration is whether a person elected to be part of this group or was required to participate. This simple piece to the puzzle can have a dynamic effect on the process itself. I think that groups are a powerful force and can be very effective with the right combination of members and a well defined purpose. As I mentioned last week, I'm excited about this class because, so far, it feels like a great combination to admin leadership and social work/counseling.