Groups & Leadership

0:01Hello and welcome to our section on communication in groups and leadership. Again, it's all about

0:07groups and leadership today. Two very important things. So, I'll share and we'll jump right into

0:13our course content for this video assignment. The objective being to understand and apply the skills

0:22of effective group communication. And groups are a big part of society, working in teams. Anything

0:28beyond the size and scope of one person -- and that's most things -- it's going to take teamwork,

0:33groupwork, to get that done. So effectively working in groups and teams, that's really the

0:39essence of our functioning society, and without it, we kind of collapse, don't have a society.

0:44So let's talk about characteristics of effective work groups. And a work group is simply a group

0:49with work to do. They have a goal to accomplish or task to complete. Those goals should be clearly

0:56defined. Each person in that group should know what the goals are, what they're supposed to

1:01be doing, what's my job, my responsibility, what are my goals, and what are the goals of the group?

1:06So basically, what are we trying to accomplish? And then what am I supposed to be doing to help

1:12accomplish that? That seems obvious, but sometimes those goals are not clearly defined. If I don't

1:18know what I'm supposed to be doing or how to contribute to a group, it's going to be hard to

1:22do. So, two, the best number of diverse members. There's no set number. The best size of a group or

1:29for a group is the least amount needed, the LEAST amount needed to do the job effectively. So, you

1:35can't have too many people in a group. Like the old saying, "Too many cooks can spoil the broth."

1:40It just means that people can distract each other. They might feel like they shouldn't be there or

1:44why am I here and that could be a downer. So the best number is always the least amount for getting

1:50that particular job done, depending on what it is, and that can vary widely across situations.

1:55Of course, effective groups are likely composed of diverse members or people with diverse backgrounds

2:01and viewpoints. Treat that like a toolbox -- extra resources, different points of view,

2:06ways of doing things. They can catch things you might miss. You might catch things they

2:10would miss. Give you ideas you could use or the whole group could use, and you could give

2:15them and the whole group ideas as well. But that is basically more options, more opportunities,

2:21more potential to get things done well. It's a big toolbox, so treat it that way. Number three,

2:28cohesiveness. This is closeness or tight-knit. If it's a cohesive group, the group feels a sense of

2:35closeness. They're tight-knit. They pretty much want to be there. They're happy being there. And

2:40they've got that bond overall, just like the bond and unity, the family feel of a winning football,

2:46a basketball team, any kind of sporting event in that. But any team at all can have that going

2:51on. They feel that sense of, again, commonality, closeness, even maybe like family. That's really

2:57strong. And that can help them stay fired up, do well, and get the job done nicely. A comfortable

3:03climate. That's huge. If you look at a classroom as a group, it pretty much is. If somebody asked

3:09a question of me in class and I said, "Whoever said there's no such thing as stupid questions

3:14never met you. That was stupid as can be. Please never speak again." Well, that's pretty mean

3:20and future questions probably wouldn't get asked because, again, the professor is mean and shutting

3:24that down. It's not a comfortable climate. The group might well stagnate with no questions,

3:29little conversation, little interaction, and people being nervous about voicing any opinions

3:35or disagreements that could help the group. But I'm not going to voice them because if I get shut

3:39down or the leader's a jerk, why WOULD I? We want that comfortable climate across the board. Member

3:46support and reinforcement. Have each other's backs. That's easy in good times. It's even

3:51more valuable in challenging, trying times. So stay together, pull together, and have each

3:57other's backs, even in challenging and difficult times. It's not saying do all the work for them,

4:03but it's saying be supportive to help them do the work for themselves and for the group,

4:08on the group's behalf. Achieving progress and recognizing and even celebrating group success.

4:15Nothing wrong with that. When your group does well, accomplishes something, reaches a milestone,

4:20anything like that, take some time to acknowledge that, give some kudos, maybe even celebrate that.

4:25I'm not saying celebrate as far as party time. Let's book a hall and, you know...but we can at

4:29least say, "That was really good work, that's cool," and point out the fact we are so much

4:33closer now to getting done. "That's a big deal, so nice done," and just basically take a moment for

4:41the group to collectively pat itself on the back and that can keep the group feeling good, which

4:46can help them stay focused and basically stay the course for the remaining work to be done. That's a

4:52nice way to keep the group fired up and motivated. That can be a refreshing thing with a whole group

4:57as well. Groups should watch out for groupthink. Be really careful to avoid groupthink. Groupthink

5:03sounds good as a word. "Groupthink." That's a thinking group. NO. Groupthink means basically the

5:11group -- instead of having critical thinking and really analyzing decisions and discussing them,

5:17no -- the group goes along to get along, and critical thinking and discussion -- all that

5:22good stuff, analyzing -- goes out the window. So the idea is if I'm in a group and somebody brings

5:28up an idea, I don't really like the idea. It's got some concerns, in my view. I think it might be a

5:35bad idea, but I like the person. I like the group I'm in. Nobody else is saying anything. I don't

5:41want to rock the boat and make waves and shoot their idea down and sound mean and hurt their

5:45feelings. And nobody else has said anything, so maybe it's just me and their idea is fine. Okay.

5:52Well, what if in that situation, three other people are thinking the exact same thing I am,

5:57but they're all thinking the same thing, too, as far as "I don't want to be the one. I don't want

6:01to speak up. I don't want to say anything. I don't want to rock the boat." So, because no one speaks

6:07up, NOBODY speaks up. And the idea -- good or BAD -- goes through unchecked, unchallenged, that's

6:14what we go with. Turns out it WAS a bad idea. Dang it. I should have spoken up. I could have stopped

6:19that potentially and helped things out, but I didn't. I didn't do my job. So that is groupthink,

6:25when basically no one challenges things. The group goes along to get along, and I'm not going

6:31to speak up. So nobody speaks up and that can be a really bad thing. You want to get along in

6:37a group, but you want to do your job and part of that is being an analyzer and challenging things

6:42if they need to be, and pointing out weaknesses and saying "This is a bad idea. I mean, let me

6:47explain why, but I have some concerns with this." Do your job in that group setting. Group decision

6:54methods as far as getting things done. There are more than three, but we'll cover these three here.

6:59One is the expert opinion method. With this, an expert comes forward, is chosen, or they choose

7:05or appoint themselves, with the idea being I have expertise, experience, and knowledge in this field

7:11or area. That means I can help the group. And that seems reasonable. In fact, it often works well.

7:16The issues might be, though, is the expert good at delegating authority? If they take on everything

7:22and then complain about being overworked, that's on them. That's their fault. In the meantime,

7:26the other people are doing nothing. They might be thinking, "Well, then, why am I even here? I mean,

7:30just give it all to them. I shouldn't have to be here. This is ridiculous. This is stupid." So,

7:34that could be an issue. Is the expert REALLY an expert? Can they back that up? And are they

7:40looking out for the group? They could be an expert and have the expertise, but maybe not be after the

7:46group's best interests. So, basically, are they trustworthy? Are they worthy of this status as the

7:54group expert if they're going to be appointed one or come forward in that sense? Majority rule. This

8:00is simple. Whichever side has more or most support WINS. We go with their decision. So majority rule

8:08is basically half plus one. One-half plus one, or whichever side has more support, more or most

8:16support. It's the basis of democracy. America is not a COMPLETE democracy. We have the Electoral

8:22College, but at its core, we use majority rule basically all the time for our laws, for

8:29government and whatnot. With the idea being it's fair, it's quick, and it's reasonable. "We'll take

8:34a vote. All right. We tally up the votes. Okay. Well, this side won. They had the most." Everybody

8:40had a fair shake. Everybody's vote was counted. It SHOULD have been. Everybody had their voice heard.

8:46What's not to love? People would say, "Well, I'll tell you what. I lost. My side was a losing side.

8:52Lost by one person. That one person was probably a... we knew what was best. We didn't win. We

8:58should have won. That's not fair. I don't like it. I'm going to shut down and not participate,

9:03not go to the meetings anymore. I don't like this group." Now, you might say, "Okay, well, they're

9:08just being fussy and being a baby." But majority rule always has a losing side or losing sides. If

9:15those people on those sides can't get on board, if they shut down or won't contribute or participate,

9:21that could be an issue. It goes back to ANY of these methods are only as good as the people

9:26that make them up. But this one guarantees there's going to be a losing side or two.

9:31It also really challenges is what's popular always what's right? Is what's most popular -- biggest

9:38numbers -- always the best idea, the best choice? Well, NO. But that's what wins with majority rule.

9:47Unanimous decision. It's like majority rule only much tighter. We're going to toughen it up a lot.

9:54With unanimous decision, it's not a majority -- it's EVERYONE. Everyone has to agree or no

10:00decision is made. Jury duty is a good example of this, played out every day across America. If you

10:06got 12 jurors and it's 10 to 2, we don't have a decision yet. It's got to be unanimous. All

10:1412 would have to agree. The idea is if all 12 DO agree, it should be the best decision. Otherwise,

10:21all 12 wouldn't have agreed! So if all 12 do, yeah, it was the best decision. If not,

10:27surely somebody would have shot it down, would have said no, would have basically said, "Uh-uh,

10:32let's discuss this more." If it gets through with all 12, it should be the best decision.

10:38Issues there. Was that jury, as an example, truly unanimous? Or was there a forceful or

10:45charismatic or bullying foreperson on the jury or somebody that just had that sway? Or maybe

10:51they pushed people, made them feel bad. "I can't...It's 10 to 2! What's wrong with you

10:56two morons? Let's get out of here. You're holding us up. You like staying here in this hot room,

11:00not getting paid?" Because you're not working your real job with jury duty. You're often not. Would

11:06those two holdouts have the strength to keep holding out, to stand their ground and say,

11:10"No, we're going to discuss this." There's a movie all about -- a great movie -- that

11:14details this. "Twelve Angry Men." It points out the potential weaknesses of unanimous decision.

11:21It's also not good for quick decisions, for emergency decisions, or for simple decisions.

11:27Where should we go get lunch? Unanimous decision might take forever and we still would never eat,

11:33but it does have its time and place. Member roles and leadership in groups. When groups form,

11:40people in groups often take on certain roles. They don't always realize it,

11:44they often don't. They're often based on their personalities. People have different traits but

11:49basically the roles come through from the people based on how they are and their personality,

11:55and what they value overall. Let's look at some. The initiator. This person gets the conversation

12:01going, gets things in a different direction, gets them moving in a different direction. Basically,

12:07they initiate discussion, initiate conversation. They might say, "All right, what are your ideas on

12:13this?" Or, "All right, let's hear the content about that," or "We've covered that, I think,

12:18pretty well. So, let's chalk that off as being done. We've got our decision. Let's move on to

12:23this." They're keeping things going, initiating a continuing progress within the group. Information

12:30or opinion givers and seekers. You can see that and that's self-explanatory. You have the analyzer

12:36and they do what the name says. They analyze the content and reasoning of the group's decisions

12:41or the group's input. This is the anti-groupthink member and they might be frowned upon if somebody

12:47thinks "They're attacking my idea" or "They were kind of critical of that.." But thankfully,

12:53these people exist -- otherwise, there might be groupthink. So appreciate the analyzers.

12:58You can be one yourself. In fact, you SHOULD if you need to. That's part of doing your job. Then

13:04we have the orienter. The old taskmaster. This person lets the group know they're off track and

13:09basically tries to make sure they STAY on track. Typically a Type-A person, "Let's get those

13:15sleeves rolled up and get to work and get this done." So, they're really big into meeting goals,

13:20getting things done, staying on task...pardon me. Maintenance roles. We have some of these as

13:27well. They help the group maintain a good climate and get things done. So, that's good, too. The

13:32gatekeeper. They try to ensure equal or balanced speaking time. Everybody has a chance to speak,

13:38not just those that speak first or speak loudest. And they're kind of watching and they might even

13:42say, "Sally, you seem concerned about something. Do you want to say something?" Or, "Larry,

13:48you look a bit...anything on your mind? You look a bit concerned there or a bit confused." So, maybe

13:53the shy people need that extra encouragement, a little motivation to speak up. That can be great

13:58when they do. The gatekeeper helps make that happen. Encourager, as it says, they provide

14:05encouragement, support, and reinforcement. Like, basically, the group cheerleader to keep

14:10that group fired up, motivated, and basically, enthusiastic or you could say energetic, even,

14:16but that can really be a source of refreshment, of strength, and motivation overall. So, that's

14:22a really important role. They keep the group fired up. Harmonizer, the peacekeeper. These people help

14:28the group relieve frustration and handle conflict. So, they're kind of the group empath. They're

14:35keeping an eye on the climate of the group. Are we getting along? Having productive conversation

14:40and discussion? If they sense stress or frustration, they might encourage taking a break,

14:46even killing time, making a joke or talking about something else, a little bit of loafing or goofing

14:51off. That could be a good thing if it helps the group clear their mind. They get refocused or it

14:56helps ease frustration or tension. That's what the harmonizer is looking for. That's where they come

15:02in. Self-centered, negative roles, things we DON'T want to see in groups. The aggressor. They want to

15:10improve their own status by blaming, attacking, and criticizing other group members. So, it could

15:16be a real...well, a real burden, a real weight on the group. Confront them. Remind them a group is

15:22professional setting. It should be professional and courteous and respectful. So call them out.

15:28Let them know that's not how we do it in a group. Give them a chance to change and still be on board

15:33and still contribute. If they can't or won't and insist on being aggressive, I would cut them off

15:38because this person, if they're unchecked and won't get on board, really can come across as

15:43a jackass, bring the whole group down, and even destroy the group. The Joker. Nothing wrong with

15:49jokes and humor. That's not the issue. The issue is with the Joker, it's just too much. EVERY time

15:56is joking time. Every time is time to goof off and laugh, and things don't get done. And that

16:02becomes a huge distraction which can really hurt a group. So the joker, if you have one in a group,

16:08remind them "That was funny. We appreciate that, but we got to get this done. Let's get back to

16:12it." Withdrawer. This person, if they don't get their way, they withdraw. It's like, "I'm taking

16:19my ball. I'm going home. I didn't get my way. I'm going home." Well, that's selfish, childish,

16:26immature, and weak. That's weak sauce. If there's a withdrawer in the group, let them know: "We

16:32still need you. We can still contribute. I hope you will. We can still do some cool things." And

16:38hopefully they get on board. If they won't still get on board, then cut them off because they've

16:44cut themselves off. You might as well just finish it for them, but encourage them to stay with the

16:49group and and, again, stay on board. The blocker. As the name says, they block ideas, suggestions.

16:56"We can't do that. That won't work. That's not going to happen. That's not going to fly." Okay.

17:01With the blocker, then ask them why. "WHY won't this work?" "WHY do you think this has no chance?"

17:08"Why can't we try this?" And even more so, "What would you suggest instead?" The blocker is kind of

17:14tearing things down. I see this. NO. I see that. NO, that's not going to work. NO. Okay. Well,

17:21then what would you do? Build us something instead of just tearing everybody else's ideas down. Give

17:27us your suggestions if you think ours won't work. Leadership. It's a process of influencing

17:34people to accomplish goals. Really important because without leaders, we don't really have

17:39a functioning society. It's a big deal. So there are perspectives of leadership, different views

17:44of it. One is called trait theory or leadership traits. This just says the best leaders typically,

17:50across history, have the same traits in common. Persistence, tenacity, integrity, confidence or

17:58a strong work ethic, a belief they can and SHOULD BE in charge and be leading overall. They can take

18:03and give constructive criticism. That's a big one overall. And they have this sense of purpose and

18:09they're highly driven and motivated to recognize and achieve that purpose. There's many other

18:16traits as well. A sense of humor can certainly factor in. Being able to bounce back from things

18:21and laugh at oneself and just take the most out of negative situations. Listening to others,

18:27not blaming, attacking, or criticizing others for doing their job, especially if they say something

18:33that's truthful, but you didn't want to hear it. Well, that means you don't want to hear the truth,

18:37which means you're being stubborn and silly. So, again, all those traits that can encourage

18:42effective leadership. It's like a blueprint for leading well, but there is no universal blueprint

18:46for leading well. So, there's no guarantee. You can have the traits and still not lead well if

18:52you've got some other weaknesses that take you down in that sense. You might not have

18:57all the traits but still be able to lead for other reasons. I've got connections. I know

19:03people. I'm charismatic. I can manipulate people even, perhaps. There's all sorts of reasons,

19:08but at its core, these traits certainly can help and should be looked into. Situational leadership.

19:15This just says the best way to lead, that depends on the situation. So the best leaders analyze the

19:20situation. What's going on? What are my goals? What's my tasks or my task? What are my resources

19:27as far as people, monetary resources, commodities, time? And this one says, "Know the people that

19:34you're working with." If it's a huge group, know people that can report to you on their behalf. And

19:40that way, you can use that knowledge to basically assign the best people for the best tasks. Stay

19:46on top of things. Of all the ones, this encourages leaders know the people that you're working with,

19:52the people on your team. And then how you lead depends on the situation at that given point in

19:58that given time, and it might change next week or next month. So you always take in the situation,

20:04analyze what's going on -- all those factors I just mentioned -- and then lead based on

20:09the situation at that time. Transformational leadership. Here, the leader wants to change or

20:16transform the company, the group, even society. They try to do it in three steps. Step One,

20:22a transformational leader has to get the group motivated, excited, and fired up. So, I'm going

20:28to get you feeling that way, get you motivated, get you believing, enthusiastic for this. We

20:33want to make these changes, get you on board. So, charisma, communication skills, speaking skills

20:39are a must for transformational leadership. Step Two, now that you're hopefully on board, well,

20:45what's the resources? What do we need? What's needed here? And the leader basically makes

20:50that clear. "I need x number of people. I need these resources. I need these supplies. I need

20:55this money, these donations, these contributions," you name it. "I need your support. I need you to

21:01write letters." But they lay out what's actually needed. And then Step Three, the gameplan. What is

21:07the actual gameplan or strategy for achieving those changes? And that's our nitty-gritty.

21:14"Here's how we actually get this done." Examples of transformational leaders: Martin Luther King,

21:21Jr. is one. Adolf Hitler is another. These were both transformational leaders. They checked the

21:27boxes for the criteria. Fiery speeches getting people motivated and energized. Sure, they both

21:33checked the boxes. What's the resources needed? Well, that was laid out as far as what they wanted

21:40and needed in terms of resources. And then the gameplan or strategy, yeah, that was laid out

21:45as well. My point is -- I do it (the examples) on purpose -- if you have a transformational leader

21:50and they're on board with what you think and want, your ideals and morals, it can be a great thing.

21:56If it's the opposite and that leader you find despicable, evil or wicked -- immoral -- and you

22:01think, "My goodness, if they take hold, it's going to be the downfall of me." Well, watch out then,

22:08if that's the case, because if the power does take hold from that leader, it could be a wonderful

22:13thing, could be a horrible thing. Or somewhere in the middle. Formal versus informal leaders. Formal

22:20leaders lead by title, position, or appointment. Informal has power through other means because

22:26they're respected. They've been there forever. They know all the gossip. People talk to them.

22:31Hopefully, both sides line up. If you're a formal leader, you want informal leaders on your side.

22:38Vice versa. That's good to strive for. To emerge, yourself, as a leader. Participate in discussions.

22:45Get yourself noticed. Get your name out. If you're shy, you might be overlooked, not get

22:49a chance to lead. Come to meetings and gatherings well prepared. Do your job. You want to stand out,

22:55but you want to stand out in a GOOD way, not for the wrong reasons. You want to be competent. C.

23:01Listen to feedback from others. Take their ideas. They might know more than you. They might have

23:05experiences you don't. That worker who might be below you could save your day with their idea or

23:11their advice or input. That's not going to happen if you don't encourage it or punish those who give

23:16you feedback you asked for, but you didn't like what they had to say. That's hypocritical, stupid,

23:23wrong, and weak. So, don't do that. Stimulate creative and critical thinking. Transformational

23:29leadership. Critical thinking is always huge. So, what can we do next? How can we improve this? How

23:34do we stay on top? Give me this. Give me more. Do you think, think, think? Always striving to

23:40improve, stay on top, and succeed. Gender and leadership. We'll close out here. Leadership

23:47is often linked still with the stereotypical masculine style of communication. Besides that,

23:53research shows leaders are sometimes -- or often, even -- evaluated differently based

23:58on their gender with the idea being if a male leader is kind of tough and in-your-face and

24:05"Get this done!" and "Chop-chop," he might be seen as maybe a jerk, but still he runs

24:10a tight ship. He gets things done. "I don't like Jack, but Jack's a good leader. I'm not hanging

24:16out with him. He's not my best buddy. We're not going to go out for dinner together. But,

24:20I mean, as a leader, he gets stuff done." Whereas Jane -- if a lady leader is doing the same thing,

24:27you know, be tough and in-your-face and "Get this done!" and "Move, people. Move!" She might be seen

24:32as witchy. "Who's that witch think she is talking that way?" So there could be a double standard

24:37overall. Whereas if she's not that way, she might be seen as too touchy-feely, too emotional, things

24:42like that. And guys can be seen that way too. They're often viewed as weak then. Too emotional,

24:47too much baggage. But again, if Jane toughens up and says, "Get this done. Why you standing here?

24:53Get to work." It's not the same, sometimes, as far as how it's evaluated, she might be seen as a jerk

24:59or a witch. So, I think for ladies, especially when it comes to leadership, do your best to

25:04lead by example. Show the naysayers and doubters they're wrong in your performance. Give them a

25:10chance to get on board, but lead by example. Let performance be what gets the deal sealed.

25:17And basically, your performance might help silence them. But if they've had a chance to get on board

25:22and you've done your best to lead by example and performance, and they still can't or won't get

25:27on board -- after a while, at some point, it comes down to you or them. You might have to transfer or

25:32even fire them to keep your position alive in that sense. That's still the double standard sometimes

25:38I think women may face when it comes to leadership positions. That's it for the section. Appreciate

25:43your time, as always. Look forward to seeing you soon for our next section. Until then, take care.

25:50[Manually reviewed and captioned May 2026]