John and Kelly were grouped together to work on a finance project. They had to come up with two research titles to present to the lecturer at the end of the term. Thus, they stayed back after class to research for topics so that they could work on it at home. As the computer lab was occupied by some students, both John and Kelly had no choice but to sit a distance away from each other. However, they agreed to inform each other of the topics once they have decided on it. After two hours of doing intense research, Kelly told John that her research topic was on the advantages and disadvantages of securitization. John was listening to music on his phone and thus did not acknowledge Kelly and continued with his research. Assuming that John heard, Kelly went back to her seat and continued with her work. After half an hour, John walked up to Kelly and told her that he would be doing on the benefits and drawbacks of securitization. Upon hearing that, Kelly argued that she had already worked on that topic and told John to select another topic. However, John stared in disbelief and insisted that he worked on the topic first and was not informed that the Kelly had been working on the same topic earlier.
What could have been done to solve the problem or to prevent the problem from happening from the start?
I find that this example relates very much back to our school life as students when misunderstanding occurs between groupmates as one of them might not be listening actively during discussions. However, in this scenario, I would assume that there was a conflict in the distribution of work and not on project topic since both John and Kelly are assigned to be in the same group?
ReplyDeleteMoving on, John and Kelly could have both played their parts to prevent the problem from happening from the start. For John, since Kelly was talking to him, he could have removed his earpieces in order to listen attentively to Kelly to understand and find out what needs to be done. That would also have indicated a form of respect for Kelly.
As for Kelly, she could have practised assertive communication by requesting John to paraphrase what she had said as a form of confirmation that John was listening and understood her. On the other hand, since she saw and knew that John was on earpiece as there was no acknowledgement from him while she was speaking, she could have requested him to remove them for a moment before she discusses with him on the project.
Since conflict has started, it is suggested that both John and Kelly find a place where they can sit down and work together on the project (collaborate) i.e. filter out the relevant and useful information and eliminate duplicate information before working on the rest of the assignment.
It is crucial that everyone practise actively listning i.e. it is a form of good communication skills.
The first issue that comes to mind is the lack of communication between the two of them.
ReplyDeleteNote that they agreed to inform each other of the topic. Thus, Kelly did the right thing by going up to John to update him about her choice of topic. However, it appears that the message was sent, but not delivered.
From my point of view, this is the fault of both parties. John should have took the effort to listen to Kelly. On Kelly's part, she should have made sure that John received the message and provided acknowledgement, and not assume that John had received the message. The lack of this two-way exchange thus led to a breakdown in communication.
Another possible alternative is to instant message the other party online, so that the message appears on the screen of the other party and will not be missed. Of course, the same points about two-way exchange should be followed here too!
Just my 2c! :D
In this situation, I felt that both sides are partially at wrong. Kelly did not ensure that her message was effectively communicated to John, especially when she sees no response from John. In addition, she immediately demand John to change his topic upon realizing the problem. This may be interpreted by John that Kelly does not acknowledge his hard work. On the other hand, John did not take into consideration that there may be a need for Kelly to inform him something and have both of his earpieces on his ears. By doing so, he is working individually and not working as a group with Kelly. In fact, he may be working with the mindset of ''I am just going to settle my own part''. There was a lack of self-conscious that he belong to a team.
ReplyDeleteAll these show that there is a serious lack of communication and teamwork between the two. They should have set ground rules for the team and communicate effectively with each other. Face to face communication will be preferred as it reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings.
Since the problem has occurred and they have put in a lot of efforts for the research, I think one solution will be that one of them continue with the topic and they share the research of what each of them have done. The person who got to continue with the topic will help the other in the research of a new topic.
This is a very fine example, Kee Yee, of how barriers in effective communication can develop over something as simple as two students doing an assignment together. You describe the scenario clearly and concisely, and you have received excellent feedback.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the effort!
There was clearly a communication breakdown between John and Kelly. Both parties should be held responsible for the fault. Kelly should have made an effort to ensure John received the message while John, on the other hand, should have removed his headphone when Kelly was talking to him.
ReplyDeleteJust a random thought – if both John and Kelly had domineering personalities (i.e. they don’t want to give in to each other), do you think the matter could be resolved amicably without any third party coming into the picture?
Hi Kee Yee,
ReplyDeleteYou had posted an interesting story.
I could not find any major grammar mistake in your post. But you can improve on some of the details.
"They agreed to inform each other of the topics once they have decided on it." Since each of them would be taking one topic, I think it will be better to use "They agreed to inform each other of the topic once they have decided on it."
"After two hours of doing intense research" I think for this sentence it will be better if you use "After two hours of intense research"
Overall I think you had a good post