Reflection 2

Date of meeting: Thursday, June 4th
Location of meeting: I was sitting on my home computer
Time of meeting: 5:17pm - 6:51pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson, Kristen Underhill, Jason Nesler and Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Everyone was present
Names of any guests attending: No guests


We had to change dates for groups. When Amy and I first met, we agreed to meet Monday and Wednesday mornings at 10:00am. However, just has that happened we had to change groups. Amy & I stayed in group 3 while we got 3 new people. We ended up at square 1. For the next few days, we had to rearrange our schedules to accommodate everyone. The previous group (the three that entered out group) agreed to meet on Wednesdays at 5:30pm. I agreed to it. I said that I could Monday - Friday mornings and Wednesday and Thursday evenings since I normally don't work those two evenings. Amy had to change her schedule a little bit. So we agreed Wednesdays at 5:30pm. For this week, we had to move it to Thursday at 5:30 since I had a previous appointment I had to be at that evening.

Due to time constraints (Amy had to leave at 6:00 central time since she had to get ready for work), we started to discuss the Survivor project. It turns out that no one really watches that show. So we decided to go with the one that was posted on D2L (season 17). Unfortunately we had problems trying to watch the video since it was all clips, and not the full episodes.

After discussing what we were going to do, we went on to the case study. But before that, we discussed who was going to do the summery for the week. Now back to the case study. We agreed that the norms to the group listening to the presentation were: casual, casual dress and drinking wine. However, the "friends" presenting were just a little off. First, they showed up on time (when normally they're 30 minutes late), dressed in professional clothes when normally they were jeans and making a business like presentation. The following violations happened: Free speaking (the friend told his friend to hold all questions until the end), didn't tell the consumers what company they were working for, treating these people like strangers instead of friends and brought in props. But more importantly, when criticized, George and Margret took it the wrong way. Friends can handle other friend's criticism. They went the wrong way about that.

We all agreed that we saw no supportive communication at all. There was a little spontantaneity at the beginning (calling the friends about the business opportunity) but after that, we didn't see much of anything. It all went downhill afterwards. We also agreed that there was a little group cohesiveness but was lost when the norms started to break. There was also discomfirming responses, impersonal responses, a trangential response. Then we discussed how these four could over come their conflict. We agreed that the author and his wife may have over reacted to some of the conflict. We discussed how George and Margret could have had presented themselves a little bit better and stop trying so hard to make a sale, but more importantly, stop being secrative towards the company. Other people might think it's a scam.

Basically in this case study, we mainly just discussed it. We pretty much agreed on everything. I think we did that because it was our first time as a group and didn't know each other. I'm sure as we go further into the semester and have more meetings, we will have more more arguable discussion where people are going to agree and disagree. We ended the meeting by agreeing to meet on Wednesday at 5:30pm.