Why groupwork fail and how to repond to problems

People problems

Process problems

There is no attempt to get to know each other as people.

One or two people try to dominate the others.

Some group members try to monopolise the discussion.

Some group members do not speak at all – they just sit in silence.

Most of the group wants to talk – and not listen

Individual members’ ideas are ridiculed or dismissed by other group members.

Group members are reluctant to take the initiative to start a discussion

Individual members’ ideas are ridiculed or dismissed by other group members

Some group members make racist, sexist or homophobic remarks that are not challenged.

Individual members prove to be unreliable:   they do not do what they say they will do.

Group members are unpunctual or fail to show up for meetings.

Two or three group members quarrel and create a bad atmosphere.

Some group members are deliberately isolated or ignored.

There are no ‘ground rules’ agreed, on, for example, when, where and how often the group will meet

There are no agreed agendas for meetings – there is a lack of clarity on the purpose of each meeting.

Specific roles or tasks are not agreed and delegated to group members.

No deadlines are agreed on

There is no chairperson agreed or allocated for each meeting.

Meetings start late or run on over time

No record of the meeting is made, e.g. who has agreed to do what and by when.

Problem

Advice

Someone gets upset if his or her ideas are challenged or rejected.

This problem usually arises because of the way an idea gets challenged in the group. The person who put forward the idea may feel personally rejected or insulted if their suggestions are scorned or insensitively rejected. If someone puts forward an idea, and others don’t accept it, the objectors need to make clear that it is the idea that they want to challenge, and not the intelligence or integrity of the person proposing the idea.

Problems from outside being brought into the group.

If group members are experiencing problems outside the group, they may find it difficult to ignore these. Worries from the outside can cause group members to be angry or aggressive to others without too much obvious provocation.

It can be helpful if group meetings started with members saying what has happened to them generally since the last meeting. This may bring worrying issues up to the surface.

The group may also want to build in a ground rule about not accepting abusive or aggressive behaviour.

Group imbalances, e.g. one or two people tend to dominate the discussion; a few people do all the work; some members opt out of most discussion/work.

If these issues are coming up to the surface, they need to be openly discussed, otherwise resentment will start to destroy group cohesion.

The chairperson needs to lead discussion on to the topic of group dynamics by inviting group members to say openly, candidly, but not abusively or aggressively, how they feel the group is working.

The chairperson should invite someone to start the discussion, and once someone has raised a sensitive issue, others will usually follow with their comments. The chairperson should ensure all group members get a chance to say what they think.

This can lead to a difficult and tense meeting, particularly if a lot of resentment is below the surface. However, an honest discussion can clear the air and lead to a much more open and committed group. Some group members, for example, may be completely unaware that their opinions and actions have been causing problems.

Silences: sometimes a group will not have much if anything to say on a particular topic or occasion.

This can be embarrassing in a group situation, and often someone will jump in with a superfluous comment or joke to fill the silence.

However, silence is often a good thing, when the group is considering an important point. The chairperson could, in fact, encourage group members to sit in silence for a minute or two to mentally weigh up important issues before commenting on them. The chairperson or other members of the group could suggest working in pairs to make it easier for individual group members to speak up.

Sexist, racist or other stereotyping or abusive remarks

These should not be allowed, accepted or tolerated in the group, and there should be a ground rule to this effect. It should not be left to the chairperson to have to challenge these remarks, because all members have a moral responsibility to intervene.

Not listening to others in the group.

It can take a lot of courage and encouragement before some members voice their opinions in a group. If these opinions are not listened to, the speaker may retreat emotionally from further group discussion.

The group may wish to include a ground rule about the importance of listening to others and paying attention when others are talking.

Group members should find ways of encouraging quiet members to contribute to the discussion, and the chairperson’s role in ensuring everyone has a fair chance to speak is vital.

Someone allocated a group task does not complete it in a way that satisfies other group members, e.g. some information is missing.

This is a problem best avoided in the first place by the group discussing who does what at an early stage of group formation, and what results are expected by the group (see ‘Delegation & Expectations’ ).

Individual group tasks should be:

(a) identified;

(b) delegated; and

(c) the expected outcome clarified.

If all group members have entered into a contract on expectations, the group is then justified in asking the group member concerned to complete his or her part of the contract in the way previously agreed.

It is always worth checking if the group member is encountering difficulties that s/he hasn’t made known to other members of the team. In extreme and irresolvable cases, however, group members may wish to discuss this with the module leader, particularly if marks or grades are involved.

Tutors now are increasingly asking group members to identify and summarise their role and contribution in a group or using peer assessment to decide whether or not individual members are entitled to share a group mark or grade.

Dealing with this kind of situation can be a worthwhile learning experience if you can develop strategies to channel your anger and frustration into positive action. Agree among yourselves how you will do the work if it is not forthcoming and have a contingency plan to ensure that you can meet your deadline.

The leader or chairperson of the group is proving to be unsuitable and unacceptable to the majority of the group. S/he may, for example, be too directive, dogmatic or aggressive; or be contrast, indecisive and ineffective.

It is unusual in any group for the leader or chairperson to be completely isolated and without some partial support from one or two group members. If there is consensus among group members about the problem, it is best approached via those individuals who are most likely to be listened to by the leader.

The leader should be given a chance to discuss the issues with all group members and make changes if necessary. Sometimes the leader simply does not understand that negative impact of his or her leadership style on others.

Real problems can occur if the group divides into factions because of leadership related issues. Often in this situation the real problems are not aired and discussed, and a general mood of disagreement, hostility and non‐cooperation prevails. The answer is to discuss the problem, not matter how painful, awkward or difficult it is for the group. As stated earlier, a “storm” is necessary to clear the air.

In extreme cases, the University counselling service will help by providing an independent mediator or facilitator to allow individuals, including the leader, to have their say and to make a fresh start.

The group has discussed a subject honestly and democratically, but no agreement or decision can be reached.

There are likely to be two or more positions within the group and the role of the chairperson is to summarise these and then allow group members to vote on which option they prefer.

This can be done publicly, but is often best done privately and in writing as the voting preferences of some members might be influenced by the dominant personalities of others in the group.

One approach would be to briefly adjourn the meeting to give everyone a chance to think the issues over, but then ask group members to return after a break and to vote to reach a majority view.

In the case of three options, an initial vote can identify the two strongest positions, which can then be voted on. If the three options all receive equal votes, the chairperson may have to decide which two options should be voted on. This may make him or her

temporarily unpopular with some, but at least not for being indecisive!