Group members cannot make good
observers because they are involved in participation. So it is difficult to
multitask as an observer during participation. Moreover if a participant is
observing there are high chances that he can miss out on critical insights that
can be crucial in devising a plan to optimize the prevailing abilities of the
group.
On the contrary, a consultant can
observe the nitty gritties in a group keenly because his focus is on
observation as a third party. The consultant can help with tips on improvising
the existing skills of the group. The consultant’s advice is useful in growth
and development of the small group. The consultant’s evaluation of the group
can help enhance the performance of the group in terms of critical thinking,
communication, higher order thinking skills, and solutions to redundant
problems. In fact to make the best possible use of these evaluations, the group
can allocate specific times to periodically analyze their shortfalls and strengths.
Good evening Team Player. I liked your post however I wanted to point out something that the book mentioned. It states that "when outside observers are not available, many team development programs suggest appointing a group member to be an observer". The book adds that this task is handed around among the group so each member becomes more insightful.
ReplyDeleteI agree that "if a participant is observing there are high chances that he can miss out on critical insights that can be crucial in devising a plan to optimize the prevailing abilities of the group" however if that participant is designated as the observer or consultant he/she primary focus is to just be the consultant/observer and not participate with the group.
I agree with the second part of your post but I just wanted to give you my take on why group members can be good observers.