In the previous semester, I was a member of a group that had volunteered to train people on First Aid and offer services when an emergency arose. Since the members of the group had a common purpose of training the people and offering the services when the need came up, it would be referred to as a secondary group. The group had to work together for the purpose of having fully trained individuals who can be volunteers in emergencies in the future (McLean, 2010). Also, it had to prepare the members to be perfect in handling emergencies and offer support whenever required.
However, the group was having a communication problem in terms of the order by which the message would be dispensed. People did not understand who was the best placed to give a command. Following the lack of proper communication structure, it was difficult to measure the authenticity of a message. As a result, the group was in constant chaos following a message which was not delivered. The challenge came up in the norming stage where the members were supposed to set rules in terms of roles for the members, ranks, status, and determine how they would be expected to communicate.
To ensure the problem did not prevent the group from attaining its goals, the group members suggested for a meeting to elect leaders. After convening a meeting the members were required to elect a leader who would be most suitable for the group. Each member was supposed to write on a paper the most preferable candidate. The elected leaders became the leaders of communication and every authorization for the group had to come from them to avoid confusion.
It is evident that the group did not take time in coming up with the solution to the problem at hand. A number of critical steps were ignored posing as a threat to the welfare of the group in finding the most outstanding solution. The group skipped the first four steps and focused on the last three. The group decided on the solution, implemented it and made the follow-up. Although the group succeeded in finding a solution, it was not the most profound.
The situation could have been better if the group followed the seven steps to come up with the solution to the communication problem. Through the first two steps, the group could have identified and analyzed the problem. Understanding the problem in a better way could have been instrumental in coming up with the most outstanding solution. The first two steps of the framework would have influenced the third one of establishing criteria. The criteria could have been useful in defining the manner in which the communication could be handled (McLean, 2010).
Also, the fourth step could have been more instrumental in coming up with a solution. The group should have come up with a number of possible solutions and developed a way of choosing the best. However, the failure to consider more solutions limited the group to one idea, which could have been obvious but not efficient. As such, it could have been more useful for the group to consider all the steps so that it may come up with the most suitable solution to the problem (McLean, 2010). As such, a commitment by the individuals to a process which would ensure progress for the group would have been attained if the members considered the Seven-Step Framework.
Need a custom essay? Get help from paperboy paper writing service.