Organizational Behavior

OBHR 3310.007
Dr. Ford

Group Developmental Processes and Growth

Chi Do
Michael Rammal
Felix Tamez
Agnes Kirubi
Julio Cortes

Introduction
Throughout the 2015 spring semester, the McChickens (Michael Rammal, Chi Do,
Felix Tamez, Agnes Kirubi, and Julio Cortes) have been through a good amount of ups and
downs. We were given many assignments and challenges that pushed us to become united as one
and form ourselves into a functioning team. From day one, we were forced to team up with each
other at random and try to get to know one another. While everyone is friendly at first, we began
to see each others strengths and weaknesses as the semester went on. The more challenging the
project we worked on, the more we had to overcome our different obstacles. Overall, we
connected as a group and learned a lot about each others organizational behaviors and
characteristics. This Group Project has helped us self-analyze our group and focus on
developmental processes and growth during our semester.

Purpose
The main reason behind this project is to interact with one another and learn/experience each
others developmental process. We began this process in hopes to connect and accomplish our
goals. By doing these activities such as the KLLP, and group quizzes, we managed to grow
closer and connect. From an analytical stand point, we wanted to work and report to each other
our problems and successes. Overall, I believe the purpose of this assignments was to challenge
us to work together and analyze how each member works and develops through expressing their
organizational behavior.

Development Level
At first, we were just 5 random students who didnt know a single thing about one
another. Throughout the semester we were given many different challenges, some were
assignments, some were personal conflicts. Either the situation, we were able to see how we
could manage through or around these challenges. Each member of the group has distinct
attributes that they brought to the group.
With this being said, based on the 5 Stages of Group Development, we have managed
to evolve to the stage 4, Performing level. It took us about a month to really break through the
forming stage. We were all being overly friendly and tried to build personal relationships and be
accepted as a member of the group. The easiest and quickest level was going through the
storming level. We managed to organize and successfully divided into assignments clearly and
reasonably among the group. Stage 3 (Norming Stage) was probably the hardest and most
challenging/time consuming stage that we had to break through. When we began to know-and
identify with-one another, the level of trust in our personal relations contributes to the
development of our group cohesion. We faced a few challenges with getting some members

doing their part of the assignment but nonetheless, we managed to communicate these issues and
move forward. I would say that we successfully manage to break into the 4th level (Performing).
We are still in this stage, and are trying to work through it. When our group members were able
to evolve to stage four, their capacity, range, and depth of personal relations expand to true
interdependence. In this stage, we can work independently, in subgroups, or as a total unit with
equal facility. Our roles and authorities dynamically adjust to the changing needs of our group
and individuals within the group.

Facilitating and Hinder Factors

Throughout the process of working on assignments or this project, we faced a few
facilitating and hindering factors. The biggest of which was the fact that everyone had different
school and work schedules that involved us to work around. With this being the case, we had
trouble with working on this group project outside the class time. Some members of our group
either could not make meetings or were late. With either case, we had a slight field of disconnect
and communication problems. Some members of the group (name will be held confidential)
wouldnt show up to certain class days and had to be caught up. We had many instances where
some members were caught up in other class assignments and were not able to focus and deliver
on important aspects of our assignments/project. Felix, Julio and Chi have busy working
schedules and Mike and Angie have crazy school schedules. Juggling these things was not easy,
but we managed to get everything finished. Thankfully there were not any relationship issues
among the group. Everyone got along fairly well and were able to work together and complete
anything thrown our way.

Behavioral Patterns
Before getting into the behavioral patterns of our group I think it is important to mention
the diversity of the group because at least for me it is the most diverse group I have ever been a
part of while at UTD. First we have three males and two females. Only two people in the group
were born in the U.S. and those two were born in two different states. The other three all come
from different countries which are located on different continents which are Asia, Africa and
South America.
Starting with Julio who we as a group havent had much time to observe because of
scheduling conflicts between his work and the class, it would seem that Julio has been
experiencing role conflict this semester due his high level of expertise at his job. But in the few
times we have had to observe his behavior patterns he has showed signs of having a Type B
personality. When working on group assignments he was always calm, listened to everyones
opinion and took those opinions into account in the tasks we were given. Like I said we didnt
get too many chances to work together but I am sure there is more to him for example he has a
very technical job where his expertise is needed as well as valued and he is one of the youngest
employees at the company so that tells me there is a lot more to Julio than what we get to see in
class. And honestly I think it would be interesting to observe him at work to see what other
behavioral patterns that he displays.
After I got to know Michael, I found that he displayed terminal values. I noticed a lot of
individualism in that he always wore something stylish and that he enjoyed exciting things like
being an avid skateboarder. He told the group about how much he valued his family back in
Florida and that he was looking forward to a trip back home planned in April. One of the most

surprising things to me about Michael was that he does not consider himself an extravert, which
is funny because thats exactly what I thought about him when we first met. Michael shows signs
of three and a half of the big five personality traits. He was very open in group discussions with
his opinions and was even able to change my mind on one group discussion. He was very
agreeable and polite in taking in to account the ideas of the rest of the group. He was very
punctual and even went out of his way in the first meeting to let us know he was going out of
town for a week in April and wanted to know if we could keep him informed via text message
about any big developments in the class. I said he showed signs of three and a half of the big five
personality traits because he believes he is not an extravert. But I we observed him being
outgoing talkative and sociable which is the very definition of extraversion so since he says he
isnt and we say he is, I guess that makes him half of an extravert.
Agnes from what we observed has a mix of traits and values definitely not polarized to
one end of the spectrum. She displayed both terminal and instrumental values. An example of
terminal values is that she loves beautiful things. She is always wearing something very bright
with vibrant colors and she takes family very seriously. She left home in Kenya to come here and
get an education so that she can ensure a better life for her future family. As far as instrumental
values go, she is very broad minded, very tolerant of everyones opinion which would have been
invaluable if there would have been an antagonist in the group then I am sure she would have
been the voice of reason. During group activities she displayed three of the big five personality
traits. Agnes was very open to ideas and suggestions from the group as well as had some very
intellectual insight of her own. She was for the most part very organized and prepared for class.
But I think her best trait was that of agreeableness. By all means, she was the definition of

agreeableness. We did not notice high levels of extraversion, but I am sure that she is a much
more talkative and social person when she is in a more familiar social setting.
As for me I think I display signs of openness. I am very open to new ideas and in some
ways very creative. As far as me being conscientious, I would say I am extremely conscientious.
I live by schedules right now every hour of every day is planned for at the moment. The last
three years of my life have been pretty planed out as far as work and school go which has left me
with no work or school free days of my own. And it looks like my school schedule has dictated
what my next year is going to look like. I am an introvert and if I do display any extroversion, it
isnt much. This can be proven by the fact I have had the same five friends that I consider family
for the last ten years. I am not particularly good in large groups or around new people. On some
occasions, I have been known to display some degrees of neuroticism depending on different
stressors that I come in contact with at work. Dealing with 5 store managers 25 department
managers and 25 assistant managers can prove to be stressful especially on days that I have to be
at school by three oclock. But my very proactive type A personality is what made every member
of management for the company I work for in the north Texas region volunteer me over several
other candidates when the position became available.
Chi received a perfect score of 20, 5 points from everybody in the group, when we voted
on who we believed should be the leader of the group. From the beginning of the semester, Chi
displayed qualities of leadership. She was the first to grab her notebook and start discussing that
days particular activity. When it came to the group project, she has been the go between
coordinating with us on our parts and staying consistent with giving members of the group
advice on how we should go about and handle our parts. During the semester, we noticed that
Chi showed many different personality behaviors. We were able to observe some instrumental

values by hearing her account of going to the casino and only playing slots. She allocated herself
a certain amount of money to either win with or lose. We as a group recognized that going to the
casino can be pretty exciting but only allowing a certain amount to gamble with showed us that
she has a lot of self-discipline as well as self-respect. During the semester, we saw that she was
very open with her ideas and thoughts and encouraged us to do the same by wanting to know
what we thought. She was always dependable and well organized, for example no matter what
form we needed she had a printed copy or a picture of what we needed on her phone. Chis most
undervalued personality trait is extroversion in that she is not intimidated by new situations, new
people or working in groups with complete strangers. We said that her most defining trait was
her very high levels of self-efficacy and her proactive personality. She has a real lets get the
job done attitude that is complemented with her intelligence. And that is why we thought it was
best that she be the groups leader.

Team performance
Feelings on the performance of our group are going to differ from group member to
group member based on the level of optimism in their personalities. I feel that we definitely did
not perform as well as we could have on the project as our Group Performance level scores of
52.4 and Group Performance Satisfaction level of 45 clearly reflects based on the ratings of
satisfaction and task effectiveness scale. The groups team effectiveness scores are as follows. For
Work Goals, we scored our selves a 4.6. The Work Goals were not exactly clear, and there was

some confusion amongst the group members until the last minute when we finally got the ball
rolling on the project. Involvement and Commitment with the group received a 4.2, because as a
group we waited till the last minute to get started on the project but once we did start it all came
together pretty well. For Division of Duties and Responsibilities, we scored a 4.6 because there
was some confusion of division of duties in the beginning, but once again when we finally got
started the confusion disappeared. The group scored Trust a 4.6, and now that we are nearing the
end of the semester, that score would probably be higher as a group since we will depend and
trust one another more for future help and advice in our own specialties. Our problem solving
skills received the highest score of a 5.2. For Discussing Problems, the group scored a 4.3
because when we did get around to discussing problems we did excelled. All of these scores are
out of 6, which is not bad but as a group but we feel like we waited till the last minute to get the
project done. In my opinion, we underestimated the group project by putting it aside till the last
minute. As a group we kept saying its due in April so we have plenty of time to work on the
project. The fact of having a projects due date so far away was a damaging facilitator in the
prioritizing of the group project. It made more sense at the time to spend more time on the other
roles in our individual lives. Then April arrived a little sooner than we expected, and we were
left scrambling to assign parts of the project and didnt get too many chances to meet up and put
our parts together. As far as in class assignments went, we worked great together in that
everyones input was valued and respected. In my groups defense, nearly all of us have
experienced role conflict throughout the semester by having full time jobs and some of us even

have to work over time. One of the group members Chi is a science major and has some very
challenging classes across campus that took precedence when the group project due date was so
far away. Another one of the group members occasionally and randomly has to babysit his two
and half year old goddaughter. While another group member has a very technical job that is his
first priority and that particular group member was very forthcoming with that information when
the group was in its forming stage at the beginning of the semester. Any feeling of
underperformance by the group on the project is a direct result of the individuals in the group
having to over perform in other areas of their lives outside the group. I know the group is capable
its just that we are an extremely busy group with lots of obligations.

Kendall Life Languages Profiles (KLLP Analysis)

How an individual communicates with another plays a vital role in understanding oneself
and monitoring success in forming relationships with others as part of team performance. By
building on the productive character qualities of ones primary and descending life languages
and working to overcome the unproductive ones, one can learn to better performance in terms of
communication skills and be a more well rounded, successful person in the long run.
The KLLP is comprised of seven languages that are divided into three categories:
cognitive, emotive, and kinetic. The seven languages include responder, producer, contemplator,
doer, mover, influencer, and shaper. Each person has the ability to speak all seven languages at
different levels. The emotive category deals with languages of the heart while kinetic is the
category that represent the action languages. Lastly, cognitive is the category that represents the
thinking languages. Based on the emotive category, there are two languages, influencer and
responder, that fall under it. Approximately 13% of the population comprised of Influencers.
Some key characteristics of influencers are they are relationship-oriented people, are
enthusiastic, outgoing, are solution-oriented by intuitive means, and innovative. Responder
people account for 30% of the population and some of their qualities consist of: sympathetic and
compassionate, very strong but gentle, have many friends, and are joyful. Based on the kinetic
category, mover and doer languages fall underneath it. Mover accounts for 7% of the population
and some of their traits include: bold, direct/assertive, courageous and heroic, acts fast, and
action/results oriented. On the other hand, doer language accounts for about 25% of the

population, and their characteristics are they are detail and action oriented, focused on shortrange goals, and stays busy. Moreover, the shaper, producer, and contemplator languages fall
under the last category of cognitive. Shaper language consists of 13% of the population, and their
traits are they are ambitious driven, efficient organized and successful, long-term planner,
visionary people. Producer language account for 3% of the population, and these people are
philanthropic/giver, responsible, most well rounded, and are gifted money handler. Lastly, the
contemplator represents 9% of the population, and they are loyal stable people, logical thinkers
and delay decision-making under the end, the most brilliant, studious quiet and reflective.
The KLLP measures the intensity levels in communication with each Life Language
having its own individual intensity. The strength of the intensity score reveals the level of energy
for that specific Life Language. The higher the Intensity score, the higher the drive to
communicate. High Intensity is often an indication of someone who will fight for their opinion to
be considered and to exercise control whether directly or indirectly and will do more to maintain
communication and relationships. On the other hand, a lower Intensity scores indicate those who
generally do not compete to be heard, although they may have valuable contributions to make
and are sometimes overlooked or ignored.
Also part of the profile is the gap range, which measures the distance between the two
nearest Life Languages. Thus, the greater the gap, the more effort it takes to move from one Life
Language to the other. The smaller the gap, the easier it is to move between the two Life
Languages. Yet, a high or low score is neither better nor worse. A High Range means that the
individual tends to stand out in his or her Primary language and has a more definable behavior
and communication style; however, that individual may have more difficulty communicating

with those who speak his or her weaker languages. A Low Range may mean that the individual
tends to communicate
easily with all the languages, but may be less predictable and understandable to others, and
sometimes even to themselves.
Ultimately, taken into play the various amount of information the KLLP has given, one
can fabricate a cross- talk between individuals. A crosstalk is a measurement of two
communication styles. The more similar the descending order of the seven life languages, the
fewer crosstalks two people will have, and the more different the descending order of the
languages, the more crosstalks that will be generated between the two people. Crosstalk is
defined as crossed communication meaning the number of life languages one must cross to
share the same language. Thus, by generating a crosstalk between group members, one can seek
similarity and differences between the life languages spoken. A low score means there is little
conscious effort required in establishing and maintaining a relationship while a high score means
definite conscious effort is required to establish and maintain a relationship. The purpose of the
crosstalk is not to account for a better high or low score but to handle each relationship in a
healthy way by speaking a common language that complement the other persons primary
language, and thus differences will be overcome and more efficient communication will take
place.
To analyze our life languages better, the group members took a KLLP assessment online
and the communication preference results are shown in table 1. Notice that three people fall
under the cognitive category with two of them sharing the same contemplative primary language,
which means these two people are similar in their communication style and may share similar

personal characteristics. The group members spoke different primary languages and all three
categories are represented, which signifies the diverse unique communication styles for the
group. Additionally, the diverse languages spoken have help progress group developmental
process in that a responder person brings sympathy and compassion to help members of the
group in times of personal and academic needs, a shaper in helping the group stay organized and
perform tasks in an efficient manner to achieve the end goals for this project, a contemplator to
reflect and think logically for the groups performance, and a doer to keep the team busy and
pumped in completing this detailed assignment.
Table 2 shows the gap range and overall intensity in the languages. All five members
have high overall intensity meaning they have a drive to communicate and want their opinions
heard. Some can argue that with such a drive, dissimilarity and conflict will arise during the
earlier stages of development probably the storming phase, yet the members communicate with
one another in a respectful and thoughtful demeanor and want contributions from each one in
order to progress the developmental process. The gap range yields a low to moderate score,
which may mean that the members tend to communicate easily with all the languages, but may
be less predictable and understandable to others, and sometimes even to themselves. In terms of
team performance, having a low to moderate range score may be more beneficial to achieving
the task/goal since members can relate and communicate more easily with one another across all
languages as opposed to members with high score who may have a harder time to connect with
others.
Ultimately, table 3 illustrates the results for the cross-talk between each member and the
average per person in the McChickens group. All five members have an average moderate
crosstalk score, which may mean that there is some conscious effort required to establish and

maintain a relationship to overcome any hindrance in the group. The moderate number here also
means that these members cross through a fewer life languages in order to share the same
language and connect easier with one another. Thus, one advantage of being similar is that there
is harmony, compatibility, and predictability, which further complement the groups efficiency in
team performance. All members connect well on both a personal and academic level in terms of
professionalism and diversity, and the KLLP data further emphasizes the similarities and
differences in each members life languages in order to help identify and understand the
productive and un-productive qualities to become a better, competent team player in personal
and social settings.

print different version.

Table 1: McChickens communication preference based on KLLP analysis

Chi Do

Agnes Kirubi Michael

Rammal

Felix Tamez Julio Cortez

Overall
Intensity

71.82 (High) 77.64 (High)

74.73 (High) 74.73 (High) 77.64 (High)

Gap Range

35.91 (Low) 40.97

(Moderate)

30.35 (Low)

70.81 (High) 60.69

(Moderate)

Table 2: Mcchickens Overall intensity and gap range

Cross-Talks

Chi Do

Agnes Kirubi Michael

Rammal

Felix Tamez

Julio Cortez

Chi Do

24

22

12

10

Agnes Kirubi

24

34

22

28

Michael
Rammal

10

34

20

Felix Tamez

22

22

20

18

Julio Cortez

12

28

18

Average

17

27

17.5

20.5

16

Table 3: McChickens cross-talk analysis

Future Prognosis
As the Mc chickens, we plan to continue meeting up in the future to continue brainstorming on
self-improvement as we strive to achieve our individual goals. Our group connected from the
first day we met. After the introduction, we realized how different we were and looked forward
to learning from one another since everyone has something to bring to the table. We all worked
with an attitude that was understanding and supportive of team efforts and innovation.
Throughout the semester, we shared ideas, offered advice and come up with solutions that were
as a result of everyones contribution.
We are very strong as a team, very unique; thus the reasons why we intend to keep our team
spirit on is based on our composition:
Individuals: A group is as good as the individuals who form the group. We are all dedicated and
consciously aware of their roles and their responsibilities towards accomplishing their group and
organizational objectives.
Group size: we are a small group of 5, hence more effective than a larger one. This makes it
easy for us to solve to agree on issues and solve conflicts
Group norms: we have already developed informal guidelines of behavior and a code of
conduct concerning attendance, performance and interpersonal interaction that provides some
order to group activities and operations. Though unwritten everyone knows the rules and follows
them

Synergy: As a group we perform better than we would as individuals.

Leadership: we have a strong group leader selected by consensus and we feel she provides
proper guidance
Cohesiveness: we posses a high degree of cohesion that is highly motivating in achieving the
group goals
We plan to rotate roles so everyone takes responsibility for accomplishing shared goals. We will
lead one another and improve future meetings quality by:
Establishing and ensuring each other's commitment to clear mutual goals of selfimprovement
Honestly communicating ideas and feelings accurately and clearly.
Encouraging each other to actively participate, acknowledge others' contributions.
Influencing each other to become a better people.
Engaging in constructive controversy by disagreeing and challenging ideas or proposals
Promoting creative decision-making and problem solving.
Recognizing achievement, large and small.
Maintaining harmonious interpersonal relations, based on understanding and respect for
differences.
And so... "We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately."Benjamin
Franklin

Conclusion
As mentioned earlier, connected from the first day we met, we were able to develop such
characteristics as dedication and cohesiveness in our group development.
We made full use of our potential capacities, and each team member felt that they were part of an
effectively functioning group that has a high degree of group loyalty, effective skills of
interaction, and high performance goals.
We learn quite a lot about each others cultural backgrounds and appreciate the uniqueness of
each member and the contributions made to accomplish an efficient team.

Works Cited
Bauer, Talya and Berrin Erdogan. Organizational Behavior. Flat World Knowledge, Inc.
Irvington, NY. 2013.
"KLLP Results." Life Languages. Web. 15 Apr 2015.
< https://www.lifelanguages.com/the-kllp>.
Dr. Ford, David. PowerPoint chapter presentations.