Title Group Survival
It’s a Mid-August day and you have just crash-landed in a desert. You and four other passengers are uninjured, but the pilot and co-pilot of the plane are deceased and the plane is destroyed. You are 70 miles from the nearest known habitation and 65 miles off course of your original flight plan. The temperature outside is 130 degrees and you have minimal water and scarce provisions. This was the situation that was presented to us as a group (Group C). Our task was to rank the provisions in the order we perceived their significance. Group C incorporated a synergistic decision making style, which combined problem solving and interpersonal relation skills to reach a cohesive group resolution that provided self actualization among group members.
Group C commenced the Desert Survival activity by determining a problem-solving process towards ranking the available provisions. We first decided to analyze the situation entirely before ranking. Group dialogue emerged concerning our main purpose and the obstacles in achieving it. Group consensus was swiftly attained in determining our main purpose, to “stay alive”, and the presumption that dehydration was our leading hindrance in reaching this goal. Discussion consisted of an encouraging, supportive, and non-judgmental atmosphere with active input and listening. These group dynamics quickly nurtured a set of norms, which were continuous throughout the Desert Survival group activity. Although these norms were not explicit, they were validated by all members’ attitudes and behaviors during the onset of our group interaction. The role of the Recorder was appropriated to Giovanna, and other key Group Tasks and Maintenance Roles existed but were shared collectively among group members. Furthermore, group members experienced a positive, productive, and a harmonious inception as a group, therefore, a strong sense of membership was fostered. Group C members had now materialized into “Team C” with set norms, a common goal, and a systematic approach in reaching our goal. The next stage set forth in our systematic approach was to evaluate and assess the consequences of staying or walking away from the crash site and how this decision would affect the group’s common goal.
After consensus was reached concerning our common goal to stay alive and the major threat to death being identified as dehydration, the next obstacle we discussed was whether to walk 70 miles to the nearest habitation or remain near the crash site. Although the team was quickly divided, we realized this critical decision adversely affected how we would perceive our provisions. With the established norms and open communication, members of Team C engaged in a supportive and encouraging discussion consisting of input, throughput, and output. Again, each member participated in the group discussion and initially gave their points of view and opinions. We clarified information, gave opinions, asked opinions, offered new ideas and...