![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
References Additional Readings Online Resources Major Assignment Activities Return to Small Group Home |
POWER IN SMALL GROUPSStudents often have a difficult time examining power in their own groups. They usually have a love-hate relationship with power because they want to influence the group, but they don't want to admit that they exercise power.In this unit, the emphasis is on encouraging students to examine norms that are usually taken for granted and practices that legitimize power. This should lead students to question the distribution of power in the many groups in which they are embedded. OUTLINE OF STUDENT INFORMATION
REFERENCESCheney, G., Straub, J., Speirs-Glebe, L., Stohl, C., DeDooyer, Jr., D., Whalen, S., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Carlone, D. (1998). Democracy, participation, and communication at work: A multidisciplinary review. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 21 (pp. 35-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision making, and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers. Glaser, H. (1996). Structure and struggle in egalitarian groups: Dimensions of power relations. Small Group Research, 27, 551-571. Langellier, K., & Peterson, E. (1993). Family storytelling as a strategy of social control. In D. Mumby (Ed.), Narrative and social control: Critical perspectives (pp. 49-76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman. ADDITIONAL READINGHelmer, J. (1993). Storytelling in the creation and maintenance of organizational tension and stratification. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 34-44.Holt, G. R. (1989). Talk about acting and constraint in stories about organizations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 374-397. Peterson, E. (1987). The stories of pregnancy: On interpretation of small-group cultures. Communication Quarterly, 35, 39-47. Papa, M., Auwal, M., & Singhal, A. (1997). Organizing for social change within concertive control systems: Member identification, empowerment, and the making of discipline. Communication Monographs, 64, 219-249. Savoie, E. (1998). Tapping the power of teams. In R. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. Posavac, F. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.)., Theory and research on small groups (pp. 229-244). New York: Plenum Press. Shonk, J. (1992). Team-based organizations: Developing a successful team environment. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. ONLINE RESOURCESThe Challenge to Change: Creating Diversity in our Librarieshttp://www.libraries.psu.edu/divers/conf/dedicate.htm Sponsored by several libraries in the eastern U.S. in 1998, the notes and papers from the conference provide a glimpse into the intersection of diversity and power as experienced by conference participants. Click on Program, Abstracts, and Notes for a list of papers presented. "Diversity Matters: How One University Has Learned to Collaborate, Understand, and Appreciate Its Differences" is probably the most relevant to this unit. Leadership Strategies-Test Yourself http://www.leaderx.com Sponsored by Leadership Strategies, this site offers free leadership coaching through a series of online quizzes. Developing Coalitions: An Eight-Step Guide http://www.med.usf.edu/~kmbrown/Developing_Effective_Coalitions.htm Sponsored by the University of South Florida's Community and Family Health Department, this website provides an overview of strategies for effective coalition development. Other useful pages include: how to address barriers to building coalitions, coalitions and empowerment, multicultural issues in coalitions, and building community coalitions. ADDITIONAL READINGBarker, J. (1994). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. 126-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Biggart, N. & Hamilton G. (1984) The power of obedience. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 540-549. Carron, A., & Prapavessis, H. (1997). Self-presentation and group influence. Small Group Research, 28, 500-516. Cohen, B., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in enduring work groups. American Sociological Review, 56, 179-188. Franz, R. (1998). Task interdependence and personal power in teams. Small Group Communication Research, 29, 226-253. Gibson, M., & Papa, M. (2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue-collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 68-88. Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 622-641). London: Sage. Katz, S. (1998). A newcomer gains power: An analysis of the role of rhetorical expertise. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 419-442. Markham, A. (1996). Designing discourse: A critical analysis of strategic ambiguity and workplace control. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 389-421. Meyers, R., & Brashers, D. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In L. Frey, D. Gouran, & M. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication & research (pp. 288-312). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Scott, C., & Easton, A. (1996). Examining equality of influence in group decision support system interaction. Small Group Research, 27, 360-382. Seibold, D., Meyers, R., & Sunwolf. (1996). Communication and influence in group decision making. In R. Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. (pp. 242-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ONLINE RESOURCES (instructor)Communication Web of Resourceshttp://www7.50megs.com/aitkenj/joanaitken.html Prof. Joan Aitken, current editor of NCA's Speech Communication Teacher, developed this site. The site includes many resources, but it can be difficult to navigate as it's rather cluttered. Click on "Virtual Professor" for a list of case studies applicable to this unit as well as others on the McGraw-Hill Small Group Communication website. MAJOR ASSIGNMENTInstructions to students:This assignment is worth 350 points. There are 4 parts to this project: (1) Project Plan, 75 pts.; (2) Report, 225 pts.; (3) Project Activity Log, cr/nc; and (4) Individual Evaluation, 50 pts. Choose one of the projects below. For each project, you need to identify how power is enacted in the groups and the impact of influence processes on group functioning.
PROJECT PLANIn your Plan, you need to provide a rationale and roadmap for your project in about 1000 words. How does this project relate to power in small groups? Why view these particular television shows, observe these particular groups, or analyze these particular films? From what class materials are you likely to draw? What other sources of information will you use? Who will be responsible for what tasks? What is your timetable?Use the format below in developing your plan:
I will grade your Project Plan based on the following criteria:
REPORTYour Report should be about 3000 words and must include the following information:
I will grade your report based on:
PROJECT ACTIVITY LOGEach group member must keep a record of her/his work on the project. Each time you work on the group project, note what you did. Use the format below.Entry Number: 10 Date: March 12, 2000 Time: 2:30-5:30 p.m. Location: Lynne's house Participants: Lynne, Joe, Nan, Jamie, myself Viewed the movie "Boys on the Side." I took notes on leadership styles and the characters' attempts to exert influence. Discussed the movie after it was over. Decided that we'll each watch it again separately and post our notes on the group discussion board. Entry Number: 12 Date: March 14, 2000 Time: 9 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Location: my house Participants: me Viewed the movie "Boys on the Side" again. I added to my notes on influence and noted language that seems to indicate power structures. I typed up my notes and posted them on the group's discussion board. INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBER EVALUATIONSYou will "grade" yourself and the other group members on participation in and contribution to the group's project. Assign each group member, including yourself, a numerical score based on a 50 point scale (45-50, A; 40-44, B; 35-39, C; 30-34, D; < 30, F) and provide a 4-5 sentence justification for the grade. These evaluations are anonymous. However, I will summarize the comments, along with the average score, for each group member in a personal email. Turn in your evaluations to me by the date listed on the course schedule.ACTIVITIES
Instructions: Although groups often dedicate much time to talking about tasks, groups seldom talk about group processes, or how the group is functioning. Today, I'd like you to discuss the way power is evident and distributed in your group, and then identify any changes that could improve the way your group functions.
Copyright ©2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy For further information about this site contact communications@mcgraw-hill.com. McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of The McGraw-Hill Companies. |