The document summarizes a group project for a communications class where the group worked with the non-profit organization Room for Grace. It discusses how the group applied concepts around group relationships and roles from their textbook. Each member served different roles, such as the orienter, initiator, information seeker, and encourager. They worked well together as a team to research the organization and accomplish tasks, though one member was more quiet and difficult to communicate with. In the end, the group was able to help improve the mission of Room for Grace in the community.

1. Running head: A Movement for Improvement; Part 2 1
A Movement for Improvement Part 2
Alexandra Elizabeth-Paige Dahl
Dr. Dean Farmer
Organizational Communications
Campbell University

2. A Movement for Improvement; Part 2 2
A Movement for Improvement Part 2
There is nothing more stressful than your Professor saying those five words, “This is a
group project.” That’s when the moans, frustration, and stress rise to a different level. A lot of
students do not prefer group projects simply because of the individual amount of work, and the
stress of having to complete someone else’s part if need be. Through the studies in their book,
Organization Communication Perspectives and Trends, Papa, Daniels, and Spiker hit on the
topic of group relationships and the different roles, tasks, and development of each team member.
Specifically with our group we were able to define many of the aspects from precisely Chapter 9,
Group Relationships, and dealing with the traditional perspective. Our group had the opportunity
to work with the non-profit organization, Room for Grace, located in Coats, North Carolina.
Through all of our hard work we were able to accomplish many things as a team, and also
individually.
Within the traditional perspective of Group Relationships, Papa, Daniels, and Spiker talk
about the communication and organizational skills, and also the different roles each team
member played. Together as a team, we were able to define and overcome many obstacles, along
with distributing many roles and information throughout group members. Our group referenced
theoretical constructs from Papa, Daniels, and Spiker in the way of Organizational Subsystems as
a whole group, and Roles and Role Categories in Groups.
One way in which our group sharped communication skills as a whole was partaking in
organizational subsystems, such as quality circles. Our group consisted of six members, and
ranged from many different concentrations throughout the communication department. A quality
circle is defined as a group of employees who meet regularly to improve work productivity and
quality and try to solve any other relevant work-related problems, with a recommendation

3. A Movement for Improvement; Part 2 3
anywhere from five to fifteen people. This clearly described what our group was able to do as we
met regularly, every Wednesday, from ten to eleven at Wiggins Memorial Library on campus.
During this time we were able to interact, get to know each other, and get to know our non-profit
organization and leader. Also once we mastered the information, we were able to brainstorm
ideas, help each other understand certain parts of the paper and begin written our individual
portions. A second way we showed quality circles was having some of our group members,
Courtney, Amanda, Javonte, and I meeting with the founder and director of Room for Grace,
Jessica Moulton. This was a time for us to get her story, background and information about her
mission and what it was all about. We were able to work together as a team to come up with
many questions concerning the organization. This then, of course, led to more information that
we were able to discuss as a group and work it into our report. Lastly, some of the group
members, Courtney, Amanda, Javonte, and Devin were able to go to see and visit Room for
Grace in person. They were able to meet with the founder, Jessica, and also talk with the family
members that were currently living in the Room for Grace home. This gave background
information, along with personal information that made their story come alive and affect us
personally.
A second way in which our group referenced theoretical constructs was dealing with the
Roles and Role Categories in Groups. Within the traditional perspective of roles and role
categories for group relationships all members of the group served a specific part of the role
category. Under role categories there are many different tasks that described each member of the
group. First, Courtney functioned as the Orienter and as the Secretary. She did a phenomenal job
with keeping the group on track with updated information, reminders throughout the paper, and
edits that she completed. She wrote the introduction, the plan, conclusion, and helped everyone

4. A Movement for Improvement; Part 2 4
edit their portions. Secondly, Ms. Pat functioned as the initiator. She was able to contribute new
ideas and bring information to the table that went more in-depth with certain situations. Ms. Pat
gave the group new understands and new ways of thinking that helped us personally, and with
the paper. She wrote a part of the origin and causes of stresses dealing with different problems
Jessica is facing within her organization. Thirdly, Javonte functioned as the information seeker
and also as the encourager. He worked very hard to get his portion written in a timely manner,
but he was also very positive about the whole paper. He just didn’t center in on his part, but he
cared of the whole paper and the other members, and was very willing to help. He wrote the
portion about identifying the problems with Room for Grace. Fourthly, Devin functioned as the
follower. He was extremely quite when it came to sitting down and discussing the paper, and
mostly kept to himself. Although, he did get some of his work done, it was difficult to personally
communicate with him on behave of his shy behavior. He wrote a part of the origin and causes of
stresses. Fifthly, Amanda functioned as the initiator. She was able to see a different side of the
information and came up with great ways to help improve the non-profit, in ways that no one
else thought of. She wrote the issues relating to personal aspect. Finally, I believe I served as the
encourager and the “partner” to many members. I was able to help other members of the group
with their information, along with helping editing different parts. I wrote the course of action,
along with the rough draft of the plan.
All in all, I believe we worked well as a group and accomplished many tasks. Even
though there will always be set backs, and unwillingness from others to complete work we were
able to come out strong as a team. We get to walk away from this paper as a team knowing we
are helping to improve a great mission within our college community.

5. A Movement for Improvement; Part 2 5
Name: __Alexandra Dahl__
PEER ACCOUNTABILITY GRID
This peer accountabilitygrid allows you to reward or punish the level of each member’s
contribution to your team’s project. This information will be used by your instructor as a “guide”
for assigning the peer grade. He has the option of raising or lowering the points assigned to you by
the team based upon personal observations.
It is very important that you precisely follow the instructions provided below. Failure to do
so will result in points being deducted from the average of YOUR peer accountability scores as
follows:
o 2 points for each math point error. For example, if a peer’s points should add up to 92, but
you assign them 82, you will lose 20 points from the average of YOUR peer accountability
grid.
o 25 points for not providing the required justifications for your evaluation of each member’s
level of accountability in narrative.
o 10 points for distributing points incorrectly--e.g., distributing 20 points in a row that requires
up to 15.
o 20 points for up to 24 hours late; -0- credit for a project that is over 48 hours late. This is
assignment is considered late after it is taken up in class.
 Before distributing points on the grid, provide an insightful explanation of each individual’s
contributions (whether positive or negative) in your individual paper. After performing this task,
distributing the points on the grid will make more sense to you.
 Except for Number 1, no two persons may receive the same number of points.
 Numbers 1 and 2 are worth up to 20 points for each team member. (EG, #2 may look like this
across the row--20, 13, 4, 18, 19)
 Numbers 3-6 are worth up to 15 points for each team member.
 Be thorough, insightful, objective and honest (do not manipulate the numbers in order to
provide everyone with an “A”, especially since usuallynot everyone deserves an “A”).
 Do not use fractions or evaluateyourself.
 Check your math and your distribution of points. No column should add up to more than 100.

6. A Movement for Improvement; Part 2 6
Team Member . . .
1. Was on time and attended or arranged to
contribute to all team meetings. (20 points)
20 20 20 15 20
2. Did his/her fair share and completed
delegated assignments/responsibilities in a
timely manner. (20)
18 20 17 8 19
3. Made useful and substantive contributions
to the team. (15 points)
14 15 13 0 12
4. Contributed to efficient group procedures.
(15)
14 15 12 0 13
5. had a constructive, open-minded, and
cooperative attitudetoward the team and the
assignment. (15)
13 15 12 7 14
6. Overall, how valuable was this team
member? (15)
13 15 12 7 14
TOTAL
92 100 86 37 92
TEAM MEMBER’S LAST AND
FIRST NAME IN ALPHABETICAL
ORDER
Conway,
Patricia
Davis,
Courtney
Height,
Amanda
McCray,
Devin
Perry,
Javonte