Why you need to evaluate Group Dynamics in your group coaching?

I am certain as a coach, you might be working out many groups coaching on numerous topics.

One of the fundamental is to figure out the group dynamics to drive such a coaching session. In my coaching journal, I am capturing these factors. If you are a leader of the Group, you need to take care all these aspects.

If you are coaching a few Feature teams, Squads, you will be able to find these group dynamics easily and handle easily when you understand this.

Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, and change management expert is credited with coining the term “group dynamics” in the early 1940s. He indicated that people generally pick up on unique roles and behaviors when they work in a group.

“Group dynamics” specifies the effects of these roles and behaviors on other group members and on the group as a whole.

Group dynamics deal with the attitudes and behavioral patterns of a group. Group dynamics concern how groups are formed, what is their structure and which processes are adhered to in their functioning. Thus, it is concerned with the interactions and forces running between groups.

A group has certain common objectives & goals. Because of which members are tied up together with specific values and culture.

Group members form alliances within the group and the group itself adopts accepted behavior norms. If there is a positive dynamic, they will accomplish their goals, even if those are simply to play cards.

The greater the loyalty of a group toward the group, the greater is the motivation among the members to achieve the goals of the group, and the greater the probability that the group will achieve its goal.

Working agreement among team members:

Working agreement is common standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the members of the group. Working agreement describe the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. They are normally designed in order to facilitate group survival, make behavior more predictable, avoid uncomfortable conditions, and express the values of the group. Each group will establish its own set of norms that might determine anything from the appropriate dress to how many comments to make in a meeting. Groups exert pressure on members to force them to conform to the group’s standards. The norms often reflect the level of commitment, motivation, and performance of the group.

Group Cohesiveness:

Cohesiveness refers to the bonding of group members and their desire to remain part of the group. Many factors influence the amount of group cohesiveness. More difficult it is to obtain group membership, the more cohesive the group. Groups also tend to become cohesive when they are in intense competition with other groups or face a serious external threat to survival. Smaller groups and those who spend considerable time together also tend to be more cohesive.

Few examination which help to understand the group dynamics better:

• What roles are numerous individuals performing in the group?
• Who is pacifying whom?
• Who has the authority in the group?
• How do decisions get established in the group?
• Who gets time and how is that negotiated among members?
• Other than the leader’s direction, how is it determined who talks and what is examined?
• Which coalitions have developed? Who is associated with whom?
• Which alliances have formed temporarily and permanently?
• Which members are in conflict with one another?
• Are the boundaries within a group open sufficient to grant fresh information to arrive the group?
• Who gets into your group? What are the entry or exit criteria?
• How do members communicate with one another? Are the lines of communication clear and direct?
• Where do members direct their attention when leaders speak?
• Do group interactions tend to move in patterns that move toward preserving the structure reliable?
• What norms have established in the group that governs behavior?
• Which rules were confirmed by the leader versus which ones emerged covertly by members?
• How is information exchanged among group members?
• How did people share what they know with one another? Who was eliminated or avoided?
• Which factors were accepted and rejected? What significant message was rejected? How was the information synthesized?
• Did change in a group occur via the use of positive and negative feedback?
• How are conflicts dealt with? Who doesn’t like whom? What are the means that members try to disrupt or undermine one another or the leader? How do members demonstrate their discord with what is going on? So who works to establish things better? Who oppress the conflict? Who tries to create interruption?
• What was the total outcome of the group so far?

If you as a coach does your home work better, it will help you to pass your message clear over a period of time.

“Archer’s Paradox”, What can we know from this?

Why team members need to learn about the “archer’s paradox”?

I invariably choose to explain several occasions about this information,

The term was first used by E.J. Rendtroff in 1913,[1] but specific descriptions of the phenomenon appear in archery literature as early as Horace A. Ford’s 1859 text “Archery: Its Theory and Practice”

In order to be accurate, an arrow must have the correct stiffness, or “dynamic spine”, to flex out of the way of the bow and return to the correct path as it leaves the bow. Incorrect dynamic spine results in unpredictable contact between the arrow and the bow, therefore unpredictable forces on the arrow as it leaves the bow, and therefore reduced accuracy.

What is THE ARCHER’S PARADOX?

To shoot the target, aim dead-on? Not necessarily. Archery provides us an excellent lesson of why initial misses can be vital. Arrows flex, and this means their trajectory curves in mid-air. Archers have to factor in the stiffness of the arrow’s shaft in order to judge how far its flight will deviate. This is the “archer’s paradox”: for a perfect shot, you have to aim slightly away from the bulls-eye.

Occasionally the particular way to get an understanding for things is to fire some arrows and understand how they fly. Consider of your mistakes as test shots: study at where your efforts land, and that can tell you how to correct your aim next time.

During sprint planning meeting the conversation comes out about the rework reduction and the strategy to minimize rework. Through this rework, as a team, we explore many things. We stabilize an abundance of ways of working, we reach our mastery level.

In a popular TED Talk, art historian Sarah Lewis describes watching archers practice over and over again to master the “archer’s paradox” whereby to hit a target, you have to aim slightly askew. This, she argues, is the difference between success and mastery: it’s a success to hit the target, and mastery to be able to hit it more than once—but to reach that point, you have to miss many times.

Many great artists, Lewis adds, didn’t much care for some of their artworks that others value greatly: the “near win” that doesn’t please its maker is a part of learning. Being able to judge your work negatively should be taken as a sign of increasing mastery, as it means you are developing expertise.

Initial several sprints will be part of the Forming and Storming process for team discovery plus the technological discovery phase. It is a journey in which we keep maturing ourselves.

Will you share similar topics to alter the mindset of the Leaders?