978-1285444604 Solution Manual Part 5

the group even when honesty (ethics) is an issue.

B. Time required: 30 minutes to run the exercise. Another 15-20

3. To make the point that in-group versus out-group competition can

produce in-group cohesiveness–team building.

according to groups. Then begin the block stacking with group A.

j. Keep a running point total on the board for all three rounds.

k. Rounds Two and Three have additional rules:

1). Multiply the group estimate by 20 for Round Two and by 30 for

Round Three. For example: if the estimate is 20 and the group

stacks successfully, then total points for Round Two will be

figured by adding the 20 plus 20 times the estimate (20) which

equals 420.

2). The Group with the highest estimate receives 150 Bonus points

For Round Two; 300 points for Round Three. If there is a tie,

split the points between groups unless one group chooses to

increase its estimate higher than other groups. If bonus group fails

to meet its estimate or its stack falls over–No Bonus!

3). An “ALIEN” will be sent from another group to each of the four

groups (designate who goes where). Each group will interview its

alien (member of another competing group) for 1 minute, then

decide whether to keep the alien or send him/her back to their

original group. If the group elects to keep the alien, the person will

stack in proper sequence for the group. If the group elects to reject

its alien, then the group loses one-half of the total points

accumulated for that round as a penalty (including any bonus points

for highest estimate). If the alien tips over the stack the group earns

zero points for that round (yes, sabotage is possible and permitted

though not encouraged).

NOTE: This is a powerful, high-energy exercise that makes significant points. This

may seem to be a complicated exercise but when you’ve done it once the exercise

works smoothly and easily. This exercise will produce an enthusiastic

participation from all groups. Normally, much cheering, hollering, calls for rule

enforcement, and coaching takes place during the block stacking. It’s great fun

and educational. Often, it is the talk of the class, even the campus.

D. Processing the exercise

1. Group pressure–this exercise creates tension between an “alien’s” desire to

promote his/her group in the competition and personal standards of fair play.

Sabotage is always an issue during Rounds Two and Three. Sometimes aliens

sabotage, sometimes they don’t (even when their groups plead with them to

knock over the stack), and sometimes they disguise their dirty work by

appearing to try. In most cases aliens will be pressured by their groups and will

sabotage. This particular dynamic of the exercise makes for a lively post-

exercise discussion.

2. Team building–this exercise is an excellent initial activity for term

groups to create an instant sense of groupness and an esprit de corp.

Although stacking blocks seems childish on the surface, the intensity

displayed by participants (shaky hands, shouting, exuberance)

clearly reveals that much more is going on than mere block stacking.

3. Effects of competition–creates intragroup cohesiveness but intergroup conflict

and hostility. These effects occur almost instantly. This exercise powerfully

demonstrates the effects of competition. It makes the point that what groups

compete over is far less important than the mere fact that they see themselves as

adversaries. Competing for meaningless points for stacking blocks when no

rewards are given to the winning group does not dampen the enthusiasm

displayed by groups during this competitive event. Students can’t even brag

about being the “best block stacking group.” The accolade is meaningless, even

silly, and yet, groups will ruthlessly compete. Competing for its own sake,

regardless of rewards, becomes the mindless goal. Discuss differences between

competition, cooperation, and individual achievement and the 3 conditions for

constructive cooperation (see text).

4. Ethics–an interesting discussion of communication ethics can follow this

exercise. Aliens will lie to groups (“No, I won’t knock over the blocks”), then

sabotage. Why? As competition increases, the pressure to cheat and be

dishonest increases. No such pressure occurs in cooperative group activities

because emphasis is placed on collective achievement, not determining winners

and losers.

NOTE: A different version of this exercise is explained in an article by Rothwell,

“Risk-taking and Polarization in Small Groups,” Communication Education,

April, 1986, 182-85.

CHAPTER 4

Developing the Group Climate

I. “Win As Much Money As You Can”: Creating Cooperation in a Competitive Group

Climate exercise*

A. Purposes:

1. To demonstrate the disadvantages of competition.

2. To illustrate how a competitive mindset can be transformed into a

cooperative agreement when a system is structured for

cooperation, not competition.

B. Time required: 25 minutes to conduct; 15-20 minutes to process it.

C. Instructions:

1. Divide the class into four groups.

2. GOAL: To win as much $$$ as you can. (Use this exact phrase.)

3. There are 7 rounds.

4. Each group votes either HEADS or TAILS.

5. Money is gained or lost based on the collective vote of all groups as

follows (put on board or make transparency):

4 HEADS = each group loses $25

3 HEADS = Win $25 for each group that chooses Heads

1 TAILS = Lose $75 for group that chooses Tails

2 HEADS = Win $50 for each group that chooses Heads

2 TAILS = Lose $50 for each group that chooses Tails

1 HEAD = Win $350 for group that chooses Heads

3 TAILS = Lose $25 for each group that chooses Tails

4 TAILS = Win $25 for each group that chooses Tails

6. Multiply each group’s score for each round by the number of the

round (e.g., in round 3 two groups vote HEADS and two vote TAILS;

the groups voting HEADS each win $50 x 3 = $150 and the groups

voting TAILS each lose $50 x 3 = Minus $150).

7. Negotiations among groups are allowed during rounds 3, 4, 6, and 7.

Each group will be given 2 minutes to decide on a strategy and to

choose a representative who will meet with representatives from the

other groups in the center of the room. Negotiations will last for 2

minutes. Then groups will be given 1 minute to decide their vote.

8. All votes are by secret ballot. Groups decide, then write their votes on

a slip of paper and give it to the facilitator who announces the results.

9. Scoring system changes after round 3 as follows: (put on board a

PowerPoint slide)

a. Round 4–change 4 HEADS to “Lose $250”

b. Round 5–change 4 TAILS to “Win $250”

c. Round 6–change 1 HEADS to “Lose $300” and

3 TAILS to “Win $100”

d. Round 7–change 2 HEADS to “Lose $200” and

2 TAILS to “Win $200”

NOTE: Once changes in scoring are made, they remain.

D. Processing the exercise:

1. Competition typically produces a “beat the enemy” mentality even

when it may disadvantage one’s own group. Groups usually vote

HEADS. This reveals a “ME orientation”–my group against the other

three groups. Groups mostly lose money when adopting the

competitive “them vs. us” strategy. Negotiations, especially in round

3, often reveal dishonesty and mistrust typical of competitive

approaches to group decision making. When the system is structured

for competitive advantage, groups will engage in competitive

behavior. Discuss ethics and competition.

2. Cooperation is achieved best and most often by structuring the

system for cooperative advantage. Personal pleas during negotiations

to cooperate and vote tails usually fail when rewards are given for

competing. The gradual changes in the scoring system begin to offer

big rewards for cooperating, making continued competition between

groups disadvantageous. By the seventh round, there is no longer

any real advantage but a definite disadvantage to competing (voting

HEADS). Conversely, cooperation (voting TAILS) by round 7 is now

structured into the scoring system. Why would a group want to do

anything else besides vote TAILS (although the competitive mindset

nurtured in the early rounds is sometimes difficult to break)? Groups

don’t even have to like each other to cooperate. Play in the early

rounds and initial negotiations often produces animosity between

groups, yet by the sixth or seventh round, groups usually cooperate.

Competitive merit pay systems, for example, are analogous to the

“vote HEADS” strategy, and the profit sharing pay systems are

analogous to the “vote TAILS” cooperative strategy. How you

structure a wage and salary system can produce either ruthless

competition or productive cooperation (see text).

3. Discuss the various ways to structure cooperation into group decision

making listed in Chapter Four of the text. (You may want to save this

until a full class discussion of the claimed advantages of competition.)

E. VARIATION: Add an additional round or rounds to the exercise.

*This exercise is a substantially altered version of the classic William Gellermann “Win

As Much As You Can” exercise in Pfeiffer, J. and Jones, J. Handbook of structured

experiences for human relations training, University Associates, 1970.

II. Arm Wrestling Demonstration

A. Purposes:

1. To loosen up class in preparation for discussion of the pros and cons

of competition.

2. To demonstrate the competitive mindset.

3. To show that working against each other is usually less productive

than working with each other in common purpose.

B. Time required: 10 minutes to complete the demonstration and briefly

discuss the results.

C. Instructions:

1. Have the class pair up – male-male; female-female

2. Tell the class that each pair will arm wrestle and that the purpose is to

acquire as many points as you can in 60 seconds. You earn 1 point

every time your partner’s arm touches the table (pairs keep track).

3. Tell the class to begin and call time at the end of 60 seconds.

4. Caution students not to participate in this demonstration if they have

a physical or physiological reason why they should refrain from

arm wrestling.

D. Processing the demonstration

1. Ask pairs how many points each person scored. Go around the room

and make note of any high scores, stalemates, and uneven scores.

2. Discuss the demonstration with class, pointing out that if the pairs

had collaborated (simply by offering no resistance and putting

partner’s arm on the table each way, over and over again) rather than

competed, worked with each other instead of worked against each

other, very high scores could have been earned by all participants .

3. Competitive mindset–our society is structured for competition (much

as arm wrestling creates a competitive mindset). Thus, we have to

break the competitive mindset and think cooperation because few

people will help us transform competitive situations into cooperative ones.

III. Excerpt from movie, Who‘s Afraid of Virginia Woolf

A. Show the segment starting with the arrival of the guests (Sandy Dennis

and George Segal) at George and Martha’s (Richard Burton and

Elizabeth Taylor). Finish the segment with George shooting the

umbrella out of the rifle. (About 20 minutes long.)

B. This Oscar winning movie is a superb example of defensive

communication patterns. All six categories of defensiveness are

depicted. Most students have never seen this movie yet they are

familiar with the actors. It’s a very dramatic illustration of

defensiveness, exaggerated yet very powerful.

1. Evaluation–George and Martha criticize each other brutally

throughout the segment.

2. Control–George and Martha fight for conversational control.

They control their guests (e.g., not-so-subtle reminder that

Martha’s father is the president of the college). There are several

instances of psychological reactance (“Go answer the door”; “Don’t

talk about the bit–the kid”). Sandy Dennis’ character interrupts

George Segal’s character–conversational control.

3. Strategy–George and Martha play brutal games with their guests

(e.g., “Get the Guests”). George plays verbal and intellectual games

with the George Segal character. George and Martha play ugly games

with each other.

4. Neutrality (indifference)–George shows little interest in

remembering his guest’s name and academic discipline. George

listens poorly. Everyone mostly ignores Sandy Dennis’ character.

5. Superiority–George spends much time showing his perceived

superiority over George Segal’s character (battle of wits).

6. Certainty–George is dogmatic, asserting truths throughout the

segment (even when he is spouting nonsense–“the ants will take

over the world”).

IV. Excerpt from movie, Jerry McGuire

A. Show a 3-minute clip from the movie Jerry McGuire. The scene begins

about two-thirds of the way into the movie. Begin the clip when Dorothy

(Renee Zellweger) tells Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) that Jerry (Tom

Cruise) is working for him for free; that he’s “broke, broke, broke.” End

the clip when Jerry is looking at his watch.

B. Nice example of supportive communication from Tidwell’s wife, Marcy.

She is an empathic listener, and she communicates that empathy.

V. Excerpts from “American Idol”

A. Copy selected excerpts from episodes of “American Idol” showing contestants with

no talent but encouraged to participate by parents and friends; excerpts of

contestants taking negative criticism badly; and contestants boasting wildly before

performing.

B. Discuss defensive versus supportive communication in these excerpts. Is there such

a thing as “constructive criticism?” Explain. Should bad performances be praised to

avoid disappointing those with fragile egos and low self-esteem? Are some

comments by the judges more supportive than others? What is the difference? What

is your reaction to boasting by contestants (superiority pattern of defensive

communication)?

CHAPTER 5

Roles in Groups

I. Lecture/discussion on roles, explaining emergence of roles, types of roles, role status,

role reversal, role conflict and role fixation.

II. Show Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Study. Available from Philip Zimbardo at

Stanford University (psychology department) An excellent 1992 production with

updated footage. (50 minutes long.) Excellent illustration of the power of roles

(“guards” and “prisoners”). Analogous to any role relationships where there is a

power imbalance–teacher-student, doctor-patient, parent-child. Shows the potential

for abuse.

Another excellent synopsis of the Stanford Prison Study with grim applications to

the Abu Ghraib torturing in Iraq is available on the documentary entitled “The

Human Behavior Experiments” available on YouTube (about 23 minutes into the

program) at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfddDbWYL8Q

III. Show excerpt of movie The Doctor (role reversal) that depicts the William Hurt

character as a patient with busy nurses ignoring him and forcing him to wait.

Powerfully illustrates the impact of reversing roles (from doctor to patient, student to

teacher, child to parent).

IV. “Role Expectation, Role Performance” exercise

A. Purposes:

1. To illustrate role expectation can create self-fulfilling prophecies (we

become the role)–the power of roles to shape behavior.

2. To demonstrate that role emergence comes from the transactions of

group members and the roles members’ play must be endorsed by

the group.

3. To illustrate hidden agendas.

B. Time required: approximately 35 minutes

C. Instructions:

1. Divide the class into four or five groups (5-6 members works best).

2. Members of two groups will have labels stuck to their foreheads.

These labels will assign roles and dictate the behavior for group

members. Labels (roles) are not revealed to those receiving them.

The labels (file folder labels with sticky backing work best) are:

a. LEADER–follow me

b. ISOLATE–ignore me

c. CLOWN–laugh at me

d. FIGHTER–disagree with me

e. INITIATOR–encourage me

f. INFO-GIVER–ask me

3. Members of the remaining groups will receive slips of paper with

roles designated and behavior specified. Members are not to reveal

what is on the slips of paper. Choose from the following:

a. CLOWN–you are a disruptive character. You will goof off, crack

inappropriate jokes, make frequent asides, side-track the group

with irrelevant comments, etc.

b. HARMONIZER–you try to maintain the peace and reduce tension

by using humor and by trying to reconcile differences between

members who disagree. You’ll make statements such as, “That’s

a good idea,” “Let’s not get nasty,” “I’m really interested in your

point of view,” and so forth.

c. LEADER–you will run this group. Do not allow other members

to assume the role of leader. Provide direction for group

discussion and bring the group to an eventual decision.

d. ISOLATE–you are bored with this task. You will resist

contributing anything to the discussion. Remain silent unless

spoken to directly, and then answer half-heartedly and with brief

responses. Don’t be too obvious. Simply melt into the

background. Don’t be obnoxious, just bored and uninterested.

e. INFORMATION-SEEKER–you are very interested in this

discussion. Actively listen. Request information and opinions

from group members. Ask for clarification of others’ points of

view. You seek information but rarely give it.

f. INFORMATION-GIVER–you provide relevant information and

opinion on the subject for discussion. Act as a resource

person. Even if you have to make up information or

provide misinformation, be actively involved in the group

discussion.

g. INITIATOR-CONTRIBUTOR–you offer lots of ideas and

suggestions during discussion. Propose solutions and new

directions for discussion. Be a highly active participant in the

discussion.

4. Have all groups pick a stimulating topic for 10 minutes of discussion

(while the facilitator assigns roles as instructed above), or give groups

a controversial newspaper article or editorial to discuss.

5. Encourage everyone to play their roles with as much

accuracy as possible.