There is a couple things I enjoyed in this chapter so I am going to list them each reflecting a little:
- It was interesting, and something I understood, that groups do not mean numbers but mean commonality. Think of groups as hereditary, common social interests, maybe even common disinterests. It is what brings a group together to connect that instills it as a group. I consider my group to be small but we all connect. It poses the question as to being part of multiple groups, is that normal? DO we compartmentalize the people in our lives into groups based on commonality?
- This kind of answers by above questions in some ways: the five types of groupings are formal, advisory, creative, support, and networking
- The characteristics for the withstanding of a group and the ability to communicate effectively includes cohesiveness, interdependence, commitment, norms, roles, and cultures
- I really like the characteristics that the book uses to describe groups, and I wholeheartedly agree with their statements. There is a certain set of skills that each group requires in order to prosper. They can be different, but have similar morals, beliefs, and purpose. If a whole group is passionate about something, there is no stopping them.
- I liked that this chapter said that leadership comes in different forms, there is not always one sole leader, and sometimes a leader is not possible. It is hard to measure who has upper leadership over others, except in the realm of the workforce where it is purposely divided into positions. The example of military positions and rank was helpful in me understanding this concept. I think the purpose of a group weighs on the question whether a leader is needed or not. It poses a question, are there some causes that would be better off without one sole leader? Think of big social movements with multiple leaders, how do we declare who is a leader and who is not?
