CONCRETE EXPERIENCE (CE)



CONCRETE EXPERIENCE (CE)

This section describes my concrete experiences from LRNG 602: Group Dynamics and Team Learning during the fall 2007 semester in the Organization Development and Knowledge Management program at George Mason University.

Friday, August 17, 2007

After starting class with an introduction and overview, I was placed into a small group with 7 other classmates. Initially, two of my small group members were fellow Mason colleagues (Pam and Mariam). I was subsequently switched into another small group and felt relieved. I immediately noticed upon entering into my new small group that I was the only male member of the group and felt anxious about it. I then drew my personal board of directors for the first group activity. I felt nervous about my drawing ability. In my board of directors I included: myself, my mother, my father, my fiancée (Beth), Jeff Milem (a former professor), James Kohl (a mentor and former colleague), Tony Soprano, Homer Simpson, Margaret Wheatley, Paulo Coelho, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Catherine De Medici. I felt confident in my ability to talk before the group about the meaning of each individual in my drawing, but in presenting, I did not get any questions and I felt disappointed. I also felt that I was trying to impress others with the variety of individuals in my drawing.

Other group members presented their drawings and I had reactions to each. Amy presented her drawing and it included almost all female relatives and I continued to feel anxious as the male in the group. Jamie included Annie Oakley in her drawing and it evoked a similar reaction from me. Penny talked about appreciative inquiry in presenting her drawing and it made me feel curious and nervous. Marissa presented her drawing and I wondered how she would contribute to the group being so young. Marybeth presented her picture and I felt disappointed that I did not get to know her well from it. Christal talked about her picture by saying “I did like what he did,” and felt angry that she did not remember my name. Jessica presented her picture and said she did not like speaking in front of a group and I felt I judged her negatively for that. In the group conversation that followed Marissa commented that I would be better than most men at expressing my feelings because of how she felt I explained what I do in my job and that made me feel uncomfortable. I then felt defensive and uncomfortable when Joey questioned my effectiveness in expressing my feelings, as I mentioned that it was something I wanted to practice. As the night ended I felt angry at myself for not asking more questions of the other group members about their drawings. I felt I missed an opportunity.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

When the small group started again on Saturday I felt concerned about my other group members. I noticed Marybeth, Christal, and Jaime each talk about their own discomfort with the lack of structure in the group process and I felt bad for them. Christal said, “I need to figure this thing out,” and that made me feel very connected to her, as I also felt lost at the time. Amy and Penny both talked about how they wanted to get the most out of the program, and I felt their statements captured my own fear of not wanting to miss something and my own nervousness about not making the most of our time as a group. I felt very bored for the first 90 minutes of the conversation. I was tired, felt confused, and felt I was trying too hard to make sense out of what was happening. I felt tense. I kept wondering what the “here and now” was that kept coming up in the conversation. I felt uncomfortable that we were not going somewhere. I wrote in my notes that “I need to feel like something is happening.” I noticed the non-verbal cues of other members in the group and felt that there was no energy in the group and that made me feel even more despondent.

After the small group time in the morning, Tojo led an analysis and discussion of the Learning Styles Inventory. The outcome of my worksheet showed that I have a learning style of a Converger, although the box representing it was very small. I felt happy that my box as a Converger was small. It also made me feel good when I observed that our group membership was very well balanced across all four learning styles (2-2-3-1). I felt sorry for the members of the small group with six Assimilators. After completing this activity, we transitioned into the Desert Survival exercise. When I received the handouts I immediately felt satisfied. I had done a similar activity in the past and I felt good to know the general framework of how the activity would work. I also felt very confident that my past experience in a similar exercise would help our group. When our group came together to discuss how to rank our items I immediately told my story of how I had done a similar activity and suggested that we break our rankings into three categories, most important, important, and not important and talk about them in groups of five. It felt great to have the group adopt my recommendation. Throughout the rest of the exercise I felt extremely comfortable. It felt very calming to have a task to tackle as a group. Although our group score was low, I felt optimistic, as our group score was higher than every group member’s individual score.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Class started with a lecture from Tojo that provided me with context for the social capital assignment I had completed and the sharing exercise I expected to follow. After the lecture our small group formed again. It felt much easier to give feedback to others than to receive it in the Johari Window exercise. As I was giving feedback to the other members of the group I felt a little concerned that some of the more negative descriptors I had used to describe them would be poorly received, but I felt confident that I could reframe them in a positive way if I was challenged. Conversely, I was extremely tense and nervous when it became time for other group members to give their descriptors of me. I consciously waited to go last and the anxiety I felt escalated after each other group member had their own turn before me. The outcome of my Johari Window is below:

|Jessica |Marissa |Jaime |Amy |Christal |Marybeth |Penny |ME |

|Hockey |Hockey |Guitar |Guitar |Tuba |Writing |Fiction writer |Guitar |

|Action movies |Horror movies |Burgers |Pizza |Hot wings |Pasta |Pizza |Wine |

|Beer | |Fantasy Sports |Football |Sportscenter |Hockey |Baseball |Hockey |

| | |Napoleon |Animal House |Rush Hour |Reading |Last Samurai |Memento |

| | |Dynamite |Spending time |Air Guitar | |Reading |Reading |

| | |Cards |with fiancée | | | | |

I felt thrilled and relieved to get such positive feedback about myself from my group members. I felt that my group members perceived me much more positively than I perceived myself. I felt shocked by some of the adjectives (sensitive, patient, relaxed, not arrogant, happy) but had the strongest gut reaction to “guy’s guy,” competitive, and the overall picture of masculinity that I saw in the food/movies/hobbies descriptors. I felt mad about the competitive comment and I felt burdened by the others. When Tojo joined the group and asked me to think about what words I would want people in a group to say about me I felt closure.

Friday, September 7, 2007

The day started off with another lecture from Tojo in which our class debriefed the social capital exercise. Tojo challenged us to use the small group experience as a time to experiment with new behaviors to impact our own social capital and I identified using ‘what’ questions and accepting positive feedback as two behaviors to practice for myself. One of the first questions that came up in the small group session that followed the lecture was Joey asking the group whether joking or humor alleviates/resolves tension in the group or avoids tension in the group. This was in response to Amy asking about her own social capital feedback. I felt nervous during this conversation. I received several pieces of feedback about being humorous in my own Johari Window and felt unsure about how it was perceived by others. When I asked for feedback about it some of the other adjectives I received (calm, relaxed, supportive, seeks consensus) came back up in how other group members describe their perceptions of my using humor. While this feedback did not entirely address my feeling of being unsure, I did feel appreciated by other group members. I felt comfortable that the conflict exercise later in the day would allow me to revisit this conversation at another point.

I also received feedback from my behavior during the Desert Survival exercise. I was apprehensive to bring back up Penny’s observation of my being competitive, but appreciated her observation of that behavior of mine from the exercise. Other feedback from the group included that I took charge, was persuasive, was sincere, but I was not pushy. However, it was raised that Marybeth’s dissenting opinion at one point during the exercise was not fully explored. I felt angry and responsible upon hearing this. I felt bad that I did not allow her opinion to come through if others in the group perceived me as taking charge and felt that the other group members would think negatively of me for this. At the end of this conversation I felt concerned – it was pointed out to me that there may be some incongruity between how I perceived myself in the Johari Window and how others perceive me. It felt frustrating to have this “blindness” pointed out to me. Also at the end of the conversation, Tojo commented that I should work on expressing my feelings or thoughts more concisely. I felt vulnerable and embarrassed to have their observation shared. I felt exposed and flawed.

In the evening session we started with a short video on the five different styles of resolving conflict. I felt confused by the outcomes of my own conflict styles diagnostic. For each of the four areas (calm-private, storm-private, calm-public, storm-public) all five resolution styles scored between 9 and 6 preventing me from identifying a clear style. It felt good that others in the group expressed similar confusion and frustration. The group only spent about 30 minutes discussing conflict, and I felt that we avoided it, but also felt good about doing so. I brought up my feeling of embarrassment that I felt prior to the dinner break when Tojo provided me with feedback. Several group members asked me to talk more specifically about how I felt. While I still felt embarrassed to have what I felt was a flaw exposed to the group, I felt in control and felt relieved to have received the feedback. I felt empowered to do something about it and felt comfortable receiving more feedback about it from the group. Penny told me how she sometimes drifts off when I talk too long, and Amy told me that she likes to hear me thinking out loud. It felt great to get this feedback about my communication style and to be able to better communicate one-on-one with the other group members as a result. Throughout the conversation I felt jealous about others observing Jaime’s directness and ability to articulate things clearly and concisely.

Around 9 pm, all of the other group members expressed how tired they felt and how they wanted to go home. I expressed that I felt defeated. I said that I felt it was important for us to use the time we had to get to know each other better, and felt angry that the rest of the group expressed otherwise. Penny said something to get the group going again, but I do not remember exactly what it was. I felt proud that we spent another 45 minutes in the group continuing with a good conversation. It felt rewarding to have kick-started some energy back into the group.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Upon arriving at our small group session to start the day, I felt extremely tired and unable to focus. I wanted to be back in bed sleeping. I felt exhausted and wondered how I would get through another day of class. My mind drifted for the first 45 minutes of the small group. Amy seemed to get the group going when she told Joey, Jessica, and myself that the phrase “so what I hear you saying…” (one that the three of us seemed to use a lot) really turns her off. It felt shocking to have this very natural form of paraphrasing and active listening be challenged. It felt good however to hear Amy comment on how my behavior impacted her. I felt more confident about being able to communicate with her in the future.

I challenged the group, and Jessica specifically, that the comments from the first part of the morning about what was going on in other groups made me feel frustrated. I felt angry that the focus of such comments was not on our group or on each other. A conversation about the ‘here and now’ versus the ‘there and then’ followed. It felt spectacular to finally feel like I understood the difference between the two. I expressed that when other shared about themselves or their experiences in the group during conversations that I felt energized and gratified, but when others shared comments that brought other people or other experiences outside of the group into the conversation it made me feel disengaged and frustrated. It actually felt exhilarating to have this epiphany.

Following the small group conversation in the morning, we had a clinic on writing our PRAE papers in the afternoon, followed by a small group practice PRAE session to end the day.

Friday, September 21, 2007

This was the last Group Dynamics class session. We started in our small group with the appreciative feedback activity. I was still recovering from being sick the week prior, and I found it hard to concentrate throughout most of the activity because of the medication I was taking. I felt surprisingly comfortable receiving the feedback of my other group members. Conversely, I felt uncomfortable giving the feedback I had written. Others in the group presented very detailed appreciative feedback in what they read and I felt guilty that mine was not as detailed as theirs. I felt like I did not do as well in completing the exercise as others, and that the feedback I received was much richer than what I was able to give. Marissa received a blank map as a symbolic gift from another group member, and she commented, “I would get so lost with a blank map,” and I felt that this comment summarized the entire small group experience.

REFLECTIVE OBSERVATION (RO)

What was it about being switched into another small group without colleagues from my workplace that made me feel relieved? Is it that I want to keep my work life and my non-work life separate? Or, is it that I was afraid the small group would expose weaknesses of mine that I would want to keep hidden in the workplace?

What happens when I am the only male member in a group with all other females that makes me anxious? Is it that I find it difficult to form relationships with females? Or, is it nervousness that being in groups with females will force me to share more of my feelings? What is it about sharing my feelings that makes me nervous? Is it that I am afraid others will judge me for my feelings when I share? Or, is it because when I share my feelings I feel that I lose control of how others see me? What is it about sharing my feelings that makes me feel I lose control? Is it because I believe that emotions are a sign of weakness? Or, am I afraid of receiving feedback about myself?

What was it about not asking others more questions about their Board of Directors picture that made me feel angry? Is it that asking questions helps me form relationships? Or, is it that I feel angry when something ends without feeling a sense of closure? What is it about something ending without a sense of closure that makes me angry? Is it that closure evokes a sense of accomplishment for me? Or, is it that I am uncomfortable with ambiguity?

What was it about the conversation about lack of structure in the group that made me feel fear and nervousness about not making the most of our small group time? Is it that I am uncomfortable when there is no established task in a group setting? Or, is it a desire to form strong relationships in groups that I need to have fulfilled? What is it about forming strong relationships in groups that I desire? Is it that I lack strong personal relationships in my life? Or, is it that when I have strong relationships with group members I feel more in control of the group?

What was it about having a “small” box as the outcome of my Learning Styles Inventory that made me feel happy? Is it a fear that having too strong of a learning style will prevent me from relating well to others? Or, is it that I feel having too strong of any one learning style would expose my weaknesses? What is it about having too strong of a learning style makes me feel that it would expose my weaknesses? Is it that I would prefer to keep my weaknesses covered up? Or, is it that I do not want to feel stereotyped?

What was it about the Desert Survival exercise that made me feel a sense of calm and made me feel comfortable? Is it that I am most comfortable in groups when a clear task is involved? Or, is that I am most comfortable when in a position of authority in a group? What is it about being in a position of authority in a group that makes me feel comfortable? Is it that I am distrustful of others in positions of authority? Or, does having control over a process ease my anxieties? What anxieties are eased when I have control over a process? Is it that I am anxious to prevent failure? Or, is it that I am anxious to prevent conflict?

What was it about receiving feedback from other group members in the Johari Window exercise that made me feel nervous and tense? Is it that I feel that others judge me when giving me feedback? Or, is it that I am afraid of the possible changes I might undertake because of the feedback I receive? What is it about changing myself that arouses fear? Is it that I have failed to change things about myself in the past? Or, is it that I am very comfortable with who I am?

What was it about some of the adjectives given by my group members that made me feel shocked? Is it that I am less self-aware than I thought? Is it that the interpersonal adjectives that were used to describe me are ones that might not have been used in past groups? Or, is it that I am uncomfortable receiving positive feedback? What is it about receiving positive feedback that makes me uncomfortable? Is it that I find it easier to be critical of myself? Or, is it an anticipated discomfort in giving positive feedback in return?

What was it about Penny’s comment about her perceiving me as competitive that made me feel mad? Is because a prior group experience in which I was called competitive brings back negative emotions from the past? Or, is it that I try to mask my competitiveness so others do not see it? What is it about my competitiveness that I am trying to mask? Is it my desire to win? Or, is it that my being competitiveness can be perceived as domineering?

What was it about the group conversation about joking that made me feel nervous? Is it that I joke a lot in groups as well and want my joking to be perceived as a positive contribution? Or, is it that the conversation sparked some conflict within the group? What is it about conflict that makes me feel nervous? Is it that I fear confrontation? Or, is it that the process of addressing conflict is ambiguous?

What was it about the group raising the point that I took charge during the Desert Survival exercise and did not allow Mary Beth’s dissenting opinion to be explored that made me feel mad and responsible? Is it that I fear the other group members would perceive me negatively for taking a leadership role in the exercise but not being inclusive in my leadership? Or, is it a fear that not including the opinions of others in a group decision making process can lead to failure? What is it about not including the opinions of others is a group decision making process do I fear will lead to failure? Is it a recognition that groupthink and trips to Abilene should be avoided in groups? Or, is it a fear that if I am unable to bring out the voice of a group member that the group member will experience conflict? Or, it is that I fear failing when in a position of leadership?

What was it about Tojo’s feedback that I should share my feelings and thoughts more concisely that made me feel vulnerable, embarrassed, exposed, and flawed? Is it that I react that way to receiving critical or negative feedback? Or, is it that I am comfortable with my natural style of communication and did not want to have it questioned? What is it about my natural style of communication that I did not want to have questioned? Is it that I did not want others in the group to judge me for having a weakness exposed? Or, is it that I am significantly anxious about how to change a behavior that is very natural for me, and that I feel insecure to take risks to try out new behaviors?

What was it about avoiding a discussion about the conflict style exercise that made me feel good? Is it that I am uncomfortable discussing conflict? Is it that I am uncomfortable discussing my own conflict style? Or, am I afraid that discussing conflict in a group will lead to conflict? What is it about conflict that I fear? Is it that conflicts from my past have almost always left me feeling dissatisfied? Or, is it that I fear I am ill-equipped to resolve conflict in the best way?

What made me feel in control when I asked the group for feedback about my communication style? Is it that by asking for feedback I felt I had power to control the conversation? Or, did the fact that a flaw of mine was already exposed to the group make me feel that there was nothing more to fear? What was it about my flaw being exposed to the group that relieved my fear? Is it that receiving feedback from group members allowed me to develop strategies to address it? Or, did I want to prove to the rest of the group that I was serious about improving myself? What causes me to want to prove things to others? Do I need to be perceived favorably in the eyes of others? Is this what made me feel proud when the group spent more time talking one evening after others expressed wanting to leave? Is it that I want others to see me overcoming a challenge?

What was it about drifting from the “here and now” that made me feel angry? Was not drifting from the “here and now” a part of the structure of the group, and is it that I felt mad at others for breaking from that structure? Or, is it that I did not want to let experiences from outside the group into it? Is asking this question an indication that I tried to take control? Was feeling good about the outcome of the “here and now” conversation because I wanted to facilitate it? What is it about facilitating that I wanted? Is it that I want to see myself as someone capable of helping others help themselves? Or, did I want other members of the group to view me as a leader?

What allowed me to be comfortable receiving feedback from the rest of the group during the Appreciative Feedback exercise? Is it that receiving feedback from group members during the Social Capital exercise made it easier to receive feedback a second time in the same way? Did I trust the other members of the group because of the experiences we had already shared? Or, did I trust the instructions of the exercise itself to assure me that the process left me little to be concerned about?

Four Themes from CE and RO Sections

1) Disclosure

2) Ambiguity & Authority/Power

3) Conflict

4) Social Capital

ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALIZATION (AC)

Theme 1 – Disclosure

From my experience in and reflections from the small group, an evident theme is that personal disclosure leads to increased levels of trust and group cohesion. Initially, my feelings about the group experience reflect anxieties about sharing my emotions, hiding my weaknesses, giving feedback, and receiving feedback. However, as I shared more about myself and as other group members shared more about themselves, my perception of our group was that we began to trust each other more with our emotions and experiences, and as a result, became a more cohesive group. Forsyth (1999) defines group cohesion as, “The strength of the bonds linking group members to the group, the unity (or we-ness) of a group, feelings of attraction for specific group members and the group itself, and the degree to which the group members coordinate their efforts to achieve goals” (p. 157). The development of this cohesion was reflected in the norms that developed from our sharing. When a group member was sharing, the group focused on that group member, and when the individual exhibited signs of vulnerability or discomfort, the group collectively worked to support that individual.

This experience is consistent with the stages of group development. After spending some time in the forming stage of group development, the individual sharing done by each member contributed to some minor level of conflict and led to the storming stage (Forsyth, 1999). Having struggled to establish norms for the group, we reaped the benefits of this process in the third stage of group development, or norming, in which the cohesion we experienced was characterized by “Mutual trust and support increasing, members cooperating with each other more, and members try to reach decision through consensus” (Forsyth, 1999, p. 157). In a way, the forming and storming at the initial stages of our group interaction laid the necessary foundation for the trust and cohesion that we experienced in the norming stage. Without the personal conflicts our group members experienced early on, and our vocalization of those conflicts through dialog, we might not have become a cohesive and trusting group. While cohesion as a byproduct of group development and trust does not bring about group dynamics that are only positive (Forsyth, 1999), my experience in the group illustrates the link between the sharing that took place and the benefits that resulted.

The disclosure that occurred in the group also connects to the notion of heuristics. Heuristics are “inferential principles or rules of thumb that people use to reach conclusions when the amount of available information is limited, ambiguous, or contradictory” (Forsyth, 1999, p. 192). The conversations that took place within the group helped break down the assumptions we held as group members about our experience, and allowed us to reconcile contradictory opinions that would have remained if the open sharing did not take place. Through disclosure, my own assumptions, thoughts, and feelings became public and open to interpretation, influencing the assumptions, thoughts, and feelings of other group members, and allowing the group to establish a common language instead of holding on to our individual heuristics regarding our perceptions and experiences.

The disclosure process leading to trust and group cohesion is also reflected in several of Schein’s (1999) functions of group cohesion, including “to get our needs met, to figure others out, to make sense of ambiguous situations, to build collaborative experiences, and to express and understand ourselves (p. 102). When I asked the group to consider remaining present even though members of the group were tired one evening, it was with a desire to get my personal needs met, figure others out, and build a collaborative experience. When I asked for feedback on my communication style, it was to express and understand myself, and to make sense out of my own ambiguous experience within the group. My communicating led to the outcomes Schein (1999) recognizes and resulted in the greater levels of trust and cohesion I felt within the group. Lastly, Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) also recognize that “by not raising it [an issue], the resentment you feel will slowly grow and erode the relationship anyway” (p. 94). This statement illustrates the opposite hypothesis – not sharing in a group when something strikes an emotional chord exacerbates distrust and prevents cohesion.

Theme 2 – Ambiguity & Authority/Power

The second theme that emerges from my experience in and reflections from the small group suggest that in ambiguous situations, I attempt to exert influence over the situation and rebel against authority that may be present. There are numerous times in my reflective questions that suggest my role at ambiguous points in the group conversation was a controlling one. When there was lack of structure in our conversation, I made efforts to provide structure. When the conversation drifted from the here and now into ambiguous territory, I made an effort to bring it back on track. Additionally, (while some are not specifically mentioned in my concrete experience), when I gave the group permission to make mistakes, to sit at tables instead of away from them, challenged the group to remain in class longer, and said we should go outside if we wanted to, I was rebelling against the minimal rules and authority that was present the group in an effort to reduce the ambiguity present at the time.

These experiences are reflected in Schultz’s Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation as described by Forsyth (1999). According to the FIRO theory, men are more likely than women to seek to fulfill a need for power in a group setting, and the more significant the need for any one person, the more likely that person will look to have it fulfilled by a group (Forsyth, 1999, p. 92-93). Additionally, the ambiguity in the small group produced a degree of social anxiety for me, “a feeling of apprehension and embarrassment experienced when anticipating or actually interacting with other people,” as illustrated by my experience of receiving feedback from Tojo. In such experiences I sought to minimize the ambiguity and anxiety I felt by exercising power and influence over the group process. The group process also resulted in role ambiguity for me, defined as, “unclear expectations about the behaviors to be performed by individuals who occupy particular positions within the group” (Forsyth, 1999, p. 128). As roles in the group were almost often undefined, when an opportunity to define roles arose in the Desert Survival exercise, my reaction was to eliminate the ambiguity and assume control of and lead the group through the activity.

At the same time, when ambiguity was lessened by an authoritative presence in the group, I often played the role of counterconformist and exhibited the characteristics of an individuation personality (Forsyth, 1999, p. 183). The experience and reflections related to my charging the group to remain longer when all the other group members expressed that they were tired and wanted to go home illustrates this point. While the group eliminated ambiguity by reaching a near consensus about ending for the evening, I expressed a dissenting opinion to rebel against where the group was headed and publicly stated my preference to not act on the authority of the consensus. While there was a “normative influence” (Forsyth, 1999, p. 192) being exhibited by the group, like the lead character in the film 12 Angry Men, my dissent went against these influences in an effort to shift authority in another direction. Although ambiguity was reduced in this specific group interaction, the authority of the consensus-building process that was occurring at the time was one that I wanted to avoid, and my vocalizing a different opinion reduced any ambiguity that may have been present and allowed other group members to not question if consensus had actually been reached.

This experience relates to the theory of reactance. Reactance is “a complex emotional and cognitive reaction that occurs when individuals feel that their freedom to make choices has been threatened or eliminated” (Forsyth, 1999, p. 227). It is clear from my experience and reflections that when the group sought consensus to leave early one evening that I felt threatened. In this situation, I felt that there was more ambiguity, if only because of my own desires, than the group was accounting for at the time, and exhibited a reactance to the authority the group was attempting to exercise.

In one type of situation, where I experience anxiety as the result ambiguity, my behaviors seemed to be an attempt to exert influence over the group process and to reduce the ambiguity by controlling the process. In other situations, where the authority of an individual or of the group as a whole eliminated the ambiguity that I wanted to remain present, I again made similar efforts to exercise power over the group process and control the sense of ambiguity within the group to fit my own emotions at the time.

Theme 3 – Conflict

A third theme is that while my personal experiences and emotions with conflict may be difficult for me to manage, managing conflict can be successfully achieved by adopting a perspective of inquiry and understanding. When our group quickly bypassed a conversation about the results of the conflict styles exercise, I felt good about it. However, I also reflected that I felt ill-equipped to handle the conversation. At the same time, my reflections about joking in the group as a mechanism for avoiding conflict raised a sense of nervousness that I utilize humor to do so. Not surprisingly therefore, when I experimented with asking “what” questions in situations where conflict followed, I felt that I was able to do a better job managing my own emotions during the conversations and was less prone to simply avoiding the conflict when I experimented with this new behavior.

Forsyth (1999) argues that increasing communication about intentions and feelings when in a group conflict can help group members resolve the conflict and establish a greater mutual understanding of the perceptions and attitudes that are a part of the conflict. Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) use a conversation between a supervisor and an employee over timeliness to make the same point. When the supervisor shifts his focus in the conflict to trying to better understand the employee’s perspective, the communication that results improves the conflict. When I focus on my own perspective, I feel that I have to defend it. Conversely, when I let go of the need to focus on my own emotions and try to focus on another person’s, I am able to engage more easily and prevent avoidance. Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) summarize this point beautifully, stating, “Certainty locks us out of their story; curiosity lets us in” (p. 37), and suggest, “Wherever you want to go, understanding – imagining yourself into the other person’s story – has got to be your first step. Before you can figure out how to move forward, you need to understand where you are” (p. 43).

The authors of Difficult Conversations also offer four strategies for regaining a sense of balance during emotional conversations. These strategies are particularly relevant given the emotions that are evident in my reflections given my experiences with conversations about conflict in the small group. These strategies are, “letting go of trying to control their reaction, preparing for their response, imaging the future to gain perspective, and if you lose your balance, take a break” (p. 122). Asking “what” questions, both to other group members and directed at myself, allowed me to let go of whatever preconceived fear I may have had in my own mind. While I was still prepared for a response and tried to imagine what other group members might say, it still helped me engage in the conversation instead of withdrawing from it. Specifically, when Tojo provided me with feedback that was embarrassing and knocked me off-balance, I felt I needed to take a break before confronting it. I took a break, and then reengaged to practice the new behavior of asking “what” questions. Also, when I raised the conflict of remaining in the “here and now” one morning, I did so by utilizing the strategies from Difficult Conversations, and while the conversation was still physiologically difficult, the tips certainly helped me along the way.

Other experiences and reflections also relate managing conflict to adopting an approach of inquiry and understanding. Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) recommend extending an invitation as a strategy for discussing something difficult. When I asked others for feedback about how they perceived my communication style, which I recognized as bringing up conflict about preferred methods of communicating, I was extended an invitation to the group. My invitation made it acceptable for the group to explore communication, putting me in the spotlight, but at the same time raising the opportunity for others to give and receive thoughts about successful communication as well. I recall Jessica, Jaime, Penny, and Amy each using the invitation to explore their perceptions of my communication style, as well as others’ perception of their communication styles.

Lastly, my experience in coming right out and saying that I felt defeated when the group wanted to go home reflects what Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) refer to as “Name the Dynamic: Make the Trouble Explicit” (p. 209). While being too declarative to be considered making an inquiry, when I raised this point of contention I did so in an effort to help the group explore an understanding of where we were at the time and if the emotions that were being expressed were really representative of the decision we wanted to make. Although several of my experiences and reflections illustrate a tendency to avoid conflict, or when experiencing conflict to feel nervous about it, the practice I was able to engage in during the small group of utilizing skills and techniques to better manage conflict helped me greatly and connected my experience back to the theories around conflict resolution.

Theme 4 – Social Capital

A final theme from my experience in and reflections from the small group is that feedback enhances my social capital by reducing the characteristics that are “blind” or “hidden” to me as perceived by others. The Johari Window exercise and my reflections from it illustrate that I was nervous about receiving feedback, and that the feedback that I received, while generally positive, was inconsistent with much of what I had written about myself. Additionally, when I received feedback, specifically about my style of communication and my tendency to be verbose, while difficult, opened my eyes to aspects of how others perceive me from their first impressions that I was unable to see myself. Over time, I became comfortable giving and receiving feedback, as reflected by the Appreciative Feedback exercise in the last class, because of how I came to understand the value of the feedback itself in increasing my social capital in groups.

Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) argue that receiving feedback is a necessary prerequisite to making an impact in any situation. They state, “By identifying what you are doing to perpetuate a situation, you learn where you have leverage to affect the system. Simply by changing your own behavior, you gain at least some influence over the problem” (Stone, Patten, & Heen, 1999, p. 70). This argument recognizes the possibility of incongruity between my own perceptions of myself and the perceptions of me held by others in any given situation, and asking for feedback offers an opportunity to reduce the incongruity and increase my social capital as a result.

Schein (1999) identifies this learning process as giving and receiving deliberative feedback. “Deliberative feedback is a particular form of altering what might be thought of as the ‘level’ or depth of interpersonal communication,” (Schein, 1999, p. 125) however, “One person cannot get precise feedback on his blind areas without another person willing to reveal what she ordinarily conceals” (Schein, 1999, p. 131). Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) make a similar observation, suggesting that when we hold back our feelings, emotions, or feedback about ourselves or about others we restrict the likelihood of the relationship developing further. Therefore, it makes logical sense that my giving and receiving feedback in the small group not only reduced the hidden and blind aspects of my behavior, but also led to the development of stronger interpersonal relationships with group members.

This reflection is also evident in Forsyth’s (1999) description of the reciprocity principle (p. 106). The principle suggests that I am more likely to affiliate and positively identify with other members in a given group who I perceive to be a lot like me. My experience and reflections validate this, such that I found myself interacting more easily with those who had a similar learning style and were generally more talkative than reserved. However, because of this natural tendency to affiliate with common personality and behavioral characteristics, the perceptions of others about me that are different are more likely to remain hidden or blind unless I explicitly seek feedback about them. Put another way, if I affiliate with people like me I am less likely to get feedback about how those who are not like me see me, and if I want to increase my social capital I need to consciously recognize the power of the reciprocity principle and seek feedback from those I do not naturally gravitate towards in a group setting. This is consistent with my experience from the small group, such as the feedback I received from the Johari Window exercise from those in the group who I would identify as least like me was also most likely to be hidden or blind to me.

Finally, appreciative inquiry and appreciate feedback also played an important role in increasing my social capital. In describing the value of appreciative inquiry as a component of the learning process, Schein (1999) notes, “it is more helpful to think in more positive growth terms, focusing on what works well, what ideals we are trying to accomplish, and what visions for the future we have” (p. 56). By utilizing appreciative inquiry as a mental model for giving feedback, it offered me a more comfortable framework for engaging in the feedback process, and as a result, made me more open to learning about my hidden and blind spots in my Johari Window. Appreciative feedback, while not entirely eliminating critical feedback, reframes feedback in a more positive light and reduces the risk associated with both giving and receiving feedback, allowing the process to be more open, authentic, and relaxed.

As several authors (Adler & Know, 2002; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001) note, the organizational and personal value of social capital, like other forms of capital, it is important for me to consider ways in which I am able to increase it. As Forsyth (1999), Schein (1999), and Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) all recognize, asking for feedback, particularly from those that I do not naturally identify with in group settings, and using an appreciative framework to do so, is a powerful way to increase social capital and to minimize the spots in my Johari Window that are hidden or blind.

ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION (AE)

Experimentation on Disclosure

As I feel a strong level of distrust and lack of cohesion at work in my present working group, and recognizing that my experiences and reflection in the small group led to great levels of trust and cohesion, my first experimentation with respect to this particular theme is to share more of my own feelings during staff meetings and to ask others what questions to do the same. To give this intention more specific parameters:

1) At our next office staff meeting on Tuesday, October 16 at 9am, I will disclose more of my personal feelings as I feel them during the meeting. If I have a reaction to something that is said, instead of remaining quiet and keeping that feeling to myself, I will speak up and share it with the group.

2) In this same vein, at our next office staff meeting on Tuesday, October 16 at 9am, I will ask open-ended “what” questions of others when I sense that they would like to share more than the general norms of the meeting allow them to share. In general, the meeting is run by one person, and this person is the only one that generally asks questions of others. In the process, this behavior greatly constricts what is shared by others, and does not allow for a sense of trust and cohesion to develop during the meetings.

In general, the norms of our bi-weekly staff meeting prevent any kind of storming from occurring, and as my experience in the small group suggested, storming is a prerequisite towards achieving trust and cohesion. Therefore, by sharing my own feelings and asking others to do the same I will create a platform for some storming to occur within the group. These behaviors should also help to break down any assumptions held by the group that are preventing greater levels of trust and cohesion from developing, as well as allowing myself and others a greater opportunity to have our own needs met during the meeting.

Experimentation on Ambiguity & Authority

Experimenting in this area is a difficult one for me to conceptualize, but what comes to mind first is to experiment with a behavior contrary to my natural tendency to reduce ambiguity in nebulous situations by exerting control and power over the conversation or direction of those situations. Developing a greater tolerance for ambiguity will hopefully lead to greater creativity in group environments, as not having the greatest tolerance for ambiguity in the small group experience certainly harmed the outcome of our only task as a group in the Desert Survival exercise. The group project on the Challenger Disaster should be a perfect forum for experimentation in this area.

1) As one of my group members in the challenger project, Kyle, is clearly a diverger, my experimentation in this area will be when the next time our group meets, on Friday, October 12, 2007, I will refrain from being the first one to comment upon one of Kyle’s statements. Most often, when Kyle speaks thus far, she raises lots of really good ideas in the group about our project, but because I find her conversations raising more ambiguity than lessening it, my natural reaction is to comment quickly upon what she has said instead of letting my other group members jump into the conversation. If I consciously decide not to respond quickly, I should be able to allow the creative process to evolve without feeling a need to control things and reduce the ambiguity.

2) Additionally, as I have acted upon this experimentation, I will include it here. For the Challenger project, when our group formed on October 2, 2007 after watching the videos in a group of 11, I consciously chose not to assume the role of group leader. In doing so, I wanted to challenge myself to refrain from acting out of a need to have control over the group, and to continue to experiment with my relationship to others having authority and power in a group.

While my experimentation in other areas reflect a desire to actively and openly try out new behaviors, my experimentations in this area reflect a recognition that I need to become comfortable with minimizing or eliminating a behavior that is already very common. In this case, my doing will be to stop doing.

Experimentation on Conflict

My experiences and reflections from the small group reflect two natural tendencies of mine related to conflict – I avoid it, and when I do not avoid it, I have a tough time managing it. My experimentations in this area reflect these observations and should allow me to take advantage of the learning that occurred during the course and in the process of writing this paper.

1) This experimentation has already taken place, but at it relates I will consider this idea as “just raise it.” On Friday, September 21, 2007, I spoke with my boss (the Dean) and raised my displeasure with the work I was doing and the general environment in which it was taking place. For me, this experience was a new one, as I strongly felt a sense of conflict, and from the learning in the class, felt compelled to express it to get my feelings out on the table and to have it addressed. I chose not to avoid raising this conflict and instead acted upon my emotions. The result was very positive, as the Dean is working to reconfigure my job responsibilities, give me more autonomy and creativity in the work I am being asked to do, and provide me with a greater level of challenge than my current responsibilities will allow.

2) My second strategy is to adopt a mindset of inquiry and understanding when having tough conversations involving conflict, and to ask more “what questions” to help facilitate the process. To make this more specific I will connect it to my personal relationship with my fiancée (to be wife as of November 3, 2007), Beth. As we experience conflict nearly everyday about personal habits around our house and around grocery shopping, when we go grocery shopping the next time on Sunday, October 13, 2007, I will ask Beth more “what questions” about the items she wants to buy instead of simply dismissing them as bad ideas (given our budget and health situations this is a serious issue on most grocery shopping occasions). As these tiny little conversations almost always lead to conflict, I will adopt a mindset of inquiry to try and better understand Beth’s perspective on buying or not buying certain items in an effort to break out of my own preconceived mindset and shy away from advocating my own personal opinion.

I believe that both of these strategies will allow me to better raise conflict when I feel it should be raised, and better manage difficult conversations that come up throughout the course of the day, whether they are about small things (like buying groceries) or large things (like dissatisfaction and boredom in the workplace).

Experimentation on Social Capital

As my experience in the small group receiving feedback about myself clearly reflects how feedback can increase my social capital, my experimentations in this area naturally follow from this conclusion.

1) During my next weekly conversation with my supervisor on Tuesday, October 16 at 1pm, I will ask my supervisor for specific feedback on how she perceives me within the organization and what aspects of my performance are strongest and weakest.

2) Additionally, I have set up a meeting over coffee on Thursday, October 18 at 10am with a close colleague whose personality is very different from my own, and during this meeting I will also ask for feedback about how this colleague perceives me and what aspects of my performance in the organization she perceives to be the strongest and weakest. From my experience in the small group, it is clear that I am most likely to affiliate myself with others who I perceive as being like me, which as a natural tendency, does not allow me the opportunity to learn more about how others that are not like me perceive me, and consequently, prevents me from developing relationships with others who are not like me.

My hope is that in initiating these conversations to receive specific feedback about how I am perceived I can reduce my own hidden and blind spots and increase my social capital, just as it occurred in the small group experience. At the same time, I hope to find that my opening the door to give others the chance to give me feedback outside of the formal performance evaluation process might encourage them to ask for feedback as well. Currently, feedback is extremely rare within my organization, is almost exclusively given only during annual performance evaluation periods, and others within the organization generally seem to be disinterested in both giving and receiving feedback. If I can model this behavior within my individual supervisory and peer-to-peer colleague relationships than I may be able to encourage others to do the same, and at the same time, develop strategies for myself to act on the feedback I receive that I would like to change for the future.

References

Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of

Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.

Forsyth, D.R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L, & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career

success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237.

Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what

matters most. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Appendix A – Learning Style Inventory

AE = 33

RO = 27

AC = 36

CE = 24

A small box in the Converger section of the grid was the outcome.

Appendix B – Conflict Style

Calm – Private

Avoiding (9)

Compromising (8)

Cooperating (8)

Harmonizing (7)

Directing (7)

Storm – Private

Cooperating (9)

Compromising (7)

Harmonizing (7)

Directing (6)

Avoiding (6)

Calm – Public

Directing (9)

Compromising (8)

Cooperating (8)

Avoiding (8)

Harmonizing (7)

Storm – Public

Directing (8)

Avoiding (8)

Cooperating (6)

Compromising (6)

Harmonizing (4)

Appendix C – Appreciative Feedback Exercise

Dear Marissa:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

refreshing. I felt that your innocence and inexperience in professional organizations at this point in your life was tremendously, well, as I said, refreshing.

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

a perspective and energy that hasn't been hardened and destroyed over time by the nonsense of organizational life.

The role that I think you played in the group is…

opinion seeker. I think you were very curious to know more about others thoughts or feelings to compare them to or inform your own.

What I like most about you is/are…

your positive outlook - you seem to always try to find the good in things.

I appreciate…

how well you receive feedback. You really don't ever seem to get defensive or try to justify something (either positive or negative) when you get feeback and I admire that.

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

A magical mask that allows anyone you are communicating with to see and hear you at the exact level of experience and age they feel is necessary in order to hear your message exactly as you want it to be heard. Batteries not included.

Sincerely,

Evan

Dear Jessica:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

all over the map. I felt that you went through lots of different emotional or mental shifts throughout the time the group spent thogether.

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

an openness to putting yourself in the spotlight. You shared a lot about yourself - your personal experiences, history, achievements, and flaws, and really encouraged others to share about themselves as a result, or at least I think so.

The role that I think you played in the group is…

encourager. You did a great job giving positive feedback to others in the group.

What I like most about you is/are…

your storytelling ability, unless of course the story is related to the general utility of salt tablets.

I appreciate…

how naturally you are able to express your feelings and emotions in the moment, as it is difficult for me sometimes

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

A mental (and perhaps physical as well) straightjacket, to assist in receiving positive feedback more easily and when necessary to express yourself in more of a linear fashion.

Sincerely,

Evan

Dear Jaime:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

paradoxical - sometimes I experienced you being highly engaged and at other times I experienced you being highly withdrawn.

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

the attitude that risk-taking in an uncomfortable setting is very hard, but an important first step in exploring what it outside of the comfort zone

The role that I think you played in the group is…

opinion giver. You did a good job providing your own opinions, feelings, and values throughout the time the group spent together.

What I like most about you is/are…

your ability to articulate things concisely and effectively

I appreciate…

your sharing about your family and personal history, as it made me want to do the same

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

a stress ball - to squeeze for yourself when in unstructured environments, or to give to others to squeeze in structured environments

Sincerely,

Evan

Dear Christal:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

on-and-off. When you spoke up and were "on" your contributions were great and when you were more quite and "off" I didn't really have much to observe.

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

a profound sense of how significant personal history and experiences can be in shaping how we look at and approach the world and others around us.

The role that I think you played in the group is…

observer - I think you were most often comfortable observing the conversations of the group and processing it in your own head

What I like most about you is/are…

how you know exactly what you want for your son - that's really admirable

I appreciate…

when you share personal stories about yourself, I really felt I got to know you well when you do so.

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

a big sign that says "It is acceptable to sing in meetings" - since you let us know that you are really comfortable when you are singing, why shouldn't you be able to proclaim singing as a good option to communicate at all times?

Sincerely,

Evan

Dear Amy:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

calming. Even when you raised what you thought would be a conflict for the group you did so very politely.

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

a sense of comfort in taking risks to explore yourself, which I think in turn provided the group with that same sense of comfort.

The role that I think you played in the group is…

harmonizer. I think you wanted others in the group and the group as a whole to feel good.

What I like most about you is/are…

your ability to be funny and not take everything so seriously.

I appreciate…

that you are struggling as a minority (female) within your organization, as I am doing the same as a male within my organization. Weird, huh?

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

a special ray-gun that emits waves that reduce testosterone and task-oriented behavior in men - really, does that need more explanation?

Sincerely,

Evan

Dear Penny:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

very positive - I know we've talked about how we share some similar attributes and I think that made my interactions with you in the group to be very positive and natural.

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

a lot. I think you did a lot of sharing about yourself and asked good questions to encourage others to share about themselves as well.

The role that I think you played in the group is…

facilitator, and frankly, I didn't find anything wrong with that although I recognized that it might have caused you some internal conflict - honestly, it's a great skill, but of course we had a designated facilitator

What I like most about you is/are…

energy for continuing to push yourself and learn more about yourself and others despite your professional experience

I appreciate…

how well you really try to listen and take in what someone else is saying, as I hope that I am able to do that well myself also

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

a time machine - so that you can go back and re-experience or re-work through any negative group or personal moments that you would want to revisit.

Sincerely,

Evan

Dear Mary Beth:

The way I experienced your behavior in the group is…

largely unknown - honestly, I'm not sure I observed your behavior enough to really know how I experienced it

What I think that you contributed to the group is…

a quiet voice

The role that I think you played in the group is…

observer - for the most part, it felt that you were outside the group looking in

What I like most about you is/are…

how you knew you needed some time to get away from the group that one Friday night and how you took it.

I appreciate…

when you shared about how hard it was for you to make sense of your experience in the group, as I really identified with it.

A symbolic gift that I would like to give you for use in future groups is…

A megaphone - a dual purpose gift - to let everyone else here how important your contributions can be/should be taken, and to rise above those in future groups who talk too much, like myself

Sincerely,

Evan

LRNG 602

Group Dynamics and Team Learning

Fall 2007

Personal reflection application essay (PRAE) checklist

Please self-score and attach to your assignment. Electronic copy will be due on Wednesday, October 10 by 8:00 PM. Please bring paper copy to Ann Baker’s class on Oct 12.

Your name: Evan Baum Date Submitted: October 9, 2007

Instructions: Please circle appropriate choices and attach to your PRAE

Concrete Experience: (10 points)

• Does the paper contain an objective, thorough description of what happened in my group[1]? (Narrate what happened without your interpretations. The focus should be on data and not on analysis.)

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• Does the paper contain a subjective description of my feelings, perceptions and thoughts regarding what happened in my group? (Share what you felt during the event/experience. No justification or exploration of your feelings is needed at this stage)

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

Common challenges:

1) Not writing about your feelings

2) Skipping important details

3) Writing too much about others and little about self

4) Not writing about Thursday, Friday or whole-class sessions

Reflective Observation: (12 points)

• Have I looked at the group experience(s) from different points view?

(In addition to listing your own views, consider what other interpretations might be possible).

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

Have I written about the role I had played and its impact on the outcomes of the group dynamics (for example, was I an active, serious participant or a passive, hesitant member)? Also, have I written about how my behavior/participation might have affected others and the overall quality of the group experience? (Write about the impact of what you did before focusing on others’ roles. It is a requirement that you focus on your own actions and feelings before writing about what others should have done)

•

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• Do the different perspectives add deeper meaning to my understanding of group dynamics and will that be evident to the reader?

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

The reflections in this section have brought to surface the following four themes for me for further exploration of my personal learning. They are:

Theme 1 Disclosure; Theme 2 Ambiguity & Authority; Theme 3 Conflict; Theme 4 Social Capital

Common challenges:

1) Not having multiple perspectives (listing one perspective only which might be your personal view or reflection)

2) Not listing four themes

3) Reflecting more on others’ behavior or the group and less on self

4) Raising questions or listing issues without grounding them on data/CE (Examples: Raising questions about power, norms, etc though there is no mention of contributing events in CE)

5) Not exploring the nature or level of your participation in your small group

Have

Abstract Conceptualization: (25 points)

• Have I related concepts from assigned readings (texts) to the group experience?

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• In relating concepts/ readings to the experience, have I described what the readings are, or what they signify, instead of merely mentioning the concept, author, or a book?

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• In trying to make sense of my experiences, have I used concepts/ readings from all texts[2] instead of just one source?

Used three texts Used two Used one Used none

• Have I conceptualized all four themes? Yes/No

• Have I devoted equal attention to all themes? Yes/No

Common challenges:

1) Not elaborating on reading

2) Listing readings only instead of describing them (related to #1)

3) Having AC based on themes that were not discussed in RO

4) Writing about theories or using readings without clarifying how they apply or relate to specific CE elements (For example, writing a whole section on theories of norms or power without showing how it applies to a specific experience related to norm or power that you must have mentioned in CE.)

Please note that this section carries 25 out of the 60 points allotted to the PRAE. You must use readings extensively to do well in this part. Use Forsyth, Stone et al, (Schein, if you have the book) and any other reading you find relevant (such as the social capital articles sent to you by email). It is not enough to mention readings. Explain what the readings are and show clearly how they apply to your specific experiences (CE) and reflection (RO).

Active Experimentation: (13 points)

• Have I described possible actions that would improve my effectiveness in the future in a situation/context (e.g., project teams) like this?

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• Have I described the generalizations I can make from what I have learned from this experience to my work environment? (If you are not working now, consider a relevant prior work environment)

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• Are my A.E. plans described specifically, thoroughly, and in detail?

To a great extent Somewhat Only minimally

• Have I written at least one AE for each of the four themes that I have discussed in RO and AC section? Yes/No

Common challenges:

1) Not having AE for each theme developed in RO and AC

2) AE looks more like an intention statement rather than an action plan. Merely expresses a desire/plan/hope to do something different, but doesn’t state specifically the action component.

3) Coming up with AE statements that are not linked to the CE->RO->AC flow

4) Not mentioning the context of application (Where and when will I practice or implement my A.E. steps?)

-----------------------

[1] “Group” primarily refers to your small group but includes whole class activities

[2] One of the texts, Process Consultation, was not available to many of you and hence you won’t lose points for not using the book.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download