Reflection Journal #7

When I applied to be in the LEAD with Honors cohort, I expected to have guidelines, structure, and design already planned out for us for our four year journey. While we do have some of that, such as our course structure, the way we govern ourselves was just messy and sloppy. Because of this course, however, we were able to answer questions that were all on our minds at our monthly meeting this past week. With that being said, had there been structure before we joined the cohort, we would have been able to have better group performance instead of wasting away all last semester on what our structure was going to be. Because of our sloppiness and indecisiveness last semester; this is most likely the direct reason we saw a decrease in membership by nearly 20%. As of now, we lost almost 30% of our original members, and the numbers are just going to keep dropping. It might be inevitable, or it might be something else that we need to discuss to make sure it doesn’t happen again for the future cohorts.

To maximize group performance, we will need to have someone just draw the line and take a vote on something, rather than bouncing around an idea for 45 minutes at each meeting. I know we want to have all our ideas on the table, but when we just keep brainstorming without deciding on what we want to do, it can drive a lot of attention away from our main focus during our meetings. We already have a leader during the meetings, but we need a monitor to make sure that we decide and come to a consensus instead of just leaving ideas in the wind and moving on to the next segment of the meeting. Also, there just seems to be a lack of interest among about half of the cohort, as some never contribute to the overall discussion and just choose to stay silent. That may be their personality, but personally, I would like it if we heard everyone’s ideas, instead of just staying silent and going with what the majority decides. This may be me playing devil’s advocate, but I feel as if it is necessary for our group discussion at our monthly meetings. Also, we seem to still be fuzzy on our group roles and assignments, and clear rules should be laid out accordingly to each position, so we know what to do to facilitate a better structure. Ineffective team meetings, role confusion, lack of interest and participation, and unresolved issues are all problems that we face in which we need to overcome to become an effective cohort.

For the next cohort, I’m glad that their structure will be a little different than ours, as their HON 1000 class will be a minimester. That would have been the best thing for us last semester, but there is no reason to dwell on past issues. The course structure for the next cohort is already better, and I feel as if they will probably have a better structure overall for both curricular and extracurricular purposes. We just need clear roles and effective team meetings in which I believe will enhance our group performance.

Reflection Journal #5

Since we are such a new cohort that is still under development, my partner and I felt that there were not many norms associated with the cohort. So as far as a request to have any change to the norms, I feel as if our new structure that was just established was made too recently to analyze the norms that come along with the structure.

However, we do have the structure of positions present in the cohort, and I have concerns that I think should be addressed properly. My first concern is that the four chairs: service, finance, activities, and communication; should not have any more authority than any of the respective committee members. For example, the communication chair should not have power to decide what the committee wants. Instead, the chairs simply should serve as a representative voice for the committee. From what I have heard, it feels like some chairs seem to think that they have power to decide what is best for the committee, and I don’t think that is a good structure to have. Also, these positions of leadership do not have any rules, regulations, or guidelines on what to do, so stepping into the position can be ambiguous. Especially with the service and communication committees, they do not have much of an active role or presence as do the finance and activities committees. If we want to equally represent, we have to be equal. However, since activities and finance for those activities play such a big role in this cohort, we could possibly see the merging of two committees into one. For example, service could be merged with activities since we only have three members in service currently and activities have nearly six or seven members. This could ensure efficiency and a clear consensus on the direction of the cohort, and I feel that it would be a big step in the right direction on what we want to establish ourselves as.

In my opinion, the communication committee is a conundrum in and of itself. Why do we have a committee specified for communication? I feel that communication is such a universal term that it should just be of habit that we have communication among each other. I know the communication committee is responsible for creating methods of communication among the members, but communication among one another is a self-governing topic. Instead I believe that the communication committee should be transformed into a promotion or marketing committee that is focused on advertising the cohort to outside sponsors and other potential companies. I believe that this will be beneficial to us as a cohort as well. Communication is something that we all participate in, and having a committee who governs how we communicate is pretty absurd (in my opinion). If we have a problem in the way we communicate, we should just be outright and state what problem we are having, instead of having pluralistic ignoranceThis will lead to the most effective method of operating as a cohesive cohort.

 

22034014_xl

Reflection Journal #4

When thinking about the performing stage in relevance to the LEAD with Honors cohort, I feel that because of the way the group is structured and that we are the first ones to actually participate in this program, we will mostly be stuck in the forming, storming, and norming phases. We are already in the second year of the four year program, and I feel as if we are trying to establish ourselves as a cohort mostly, which is taking up most of our time in the forming stage. Since we will have cohorts of the LEAD with Honors program that follows us, we are basically the ‘forming’ and ‘norming’ cohort. By the time we are finished doing all of this, we will probably see other cohorts that follow us do most of the ‘performing’.

The way our LEAD with Honors course schedule is set up is that we take the one hour class in the spring of our freshman year, a three hour course in the fall of our sophomore year, a three hour seminar course and a three hour internship in our junior year, a three hour capstone research seminar and a three hour capstone writing seminar in our senior year. Now let me put this into perspective for you. Since this is a four year program for advanced honors students, this program requires us, as students, to stay for four years. When choosing the cohort members, most of them are likely to have many AP, IB, and dual enrollment credits. For example, I came in with 9 credits and then gained 6 more over the summer, so I am a semester ahead of the average sophomore, and will be a junior by the end of this semester.

Now, with that in mind, think about the way the cohort is structured. In the freshman seminar class, we barely knew each other. Then, when this course comes along, we saw a drop in membership from 30 members to 24 members. I know for a fact that one of my friends dropped due to the way the structure is in requiring us to stay for four years, and also because of the fact that she plans on transferring. Membership retention is a big problem for us already. We already saw a 20% decrease in members. My other thought goes back to when we were discussing about the rewards of this cohort, and what it can offer us. Most said that the internship is the biggest reward. Since the internship is in our junior year, how many do you think we would see drop this cohort by the time that finishes? I feel that membership retention is our biggest problem facing the cohort today, and since we are so stuck in the forming and storming phase, it causes us to see this decline. The information that the book outlined about the rarity of the performance phase did not surprise me one bit.

As you know, I am a pessimist when it comes to this cohort, but only because I want to keep a rational mind when thinking about the development of the ‘first class’ to participate in this program. It isn’t to mean any harm. I know that we are free to decide what we want to get out of this cohort, but to actually align with the performance stage of group development, this idea of the ‘LEAD with Honors cohort’ should have had more time with development, BEFORE letting members join it, because even though it is a four year journey and we are setting a name for ourselves, I just feel like it was too rushed in the process of planning what the overall goal and mission of the cohort is. This is only my opinion though, as I know some other members of the cohort love to take action and love the way it is set up currently, however, I think we can all agree that the structure and the way the cohort concept was drawn up is a tad underwhelming. This, in turn, will assist us in NEVER reaching the performance stage, and we probably will not see the performance stage in action of the LEAD with Honors cohort for years to come.

keep-calm-and-be-pessimistic-5