PART 1- HRMN 302 6380 Organizational Communication

PART 1- HRMN 302 6380 Organizational Communication

I need a reply/response to these discussion board answers. Just read the discussion board answers, and respond to the information you read by also adding your own point of information about each topic itself to each discussion board answers not about how to correct the person answers by saying he or she needs to add more information or saying you agreed without stating why. Just four to six Lines response each. Please I need good and quality response to these discussion board answers. Please I need good and quality reply, and pls i want you to add more information about the their answers n your contribution to my classmates answers and topic.

WRITE THIS ESSAY FOR ME

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.

Get Help Now!

HRMN 302 6380 Organizational Communication
Question to my classmates answers below
Activity
This week we’re focused on group communication. Think of a problem encountered in the past by a group of which you are a member. Begin your analysis by defining the group. What type of group was it? At what stage of development was the group? And then share your thoughts about how the group communicated to solve the problem.
Use the Seven-Step Framework we learned about this week and identify which step(s) the group utilized in their resolution efforts. Do you think that if the group followed the full seven-step framework, resolution would have been quicker or less contentious? Develop and post your analysis and then share thoughtful comments on a classmate’s ideas.
My classmate answers

Maria Vazquez
When I started working for my current employer, I used to process retirement claims for the federal government. We were divided in section and each section had about 15 to 20 employees performing the same duties. One morning, our supervisor called three of us into his office to propose a form a team who would be responsible for processing all those retirement claims with aging date over 100 days. The three of us accepted the proposal and we started to put a plan together to complete this job. The situation got stressful when we were informed on our second meeting that we needed to have this project completed before the end of the fiscal year, which meant that we only had two (2) months to process about 600 claims (defining the problem.) It is easy to process 15 to 20 cases when those cases are completed and no development is needed; however, these particular cases where so old that development was needed for the majority of them. Most of the applicants were separated from their agencies for more than, and on those events, it is more difficult to locate the missing documentation (analyzing the problem.) The team decided to screen all the cases and separate cases that needed extra time and effort to process from those that can be process right away (establishing criteria.) There were two proposals on how to handle this situation: one, process all good cases and develop for the missing documents on those incomplete cases, but we had the time restriction on our backs; the other proposal was to split the team responsibilities (considering possible solutions.) The team decided that the best course of action was to split the responsibilities. Two of the team members would process all those cases that were good to go; while the other team member would contact the applicant and possibly the agency to obtain the missing items on those claims that needed development. If we were unable to obtain the missing documentation, we would process the case and flag it to follow-up as a post-adjudication case because it is critical to obtain the missing documentation to file it in the case (deciding the solution.) The team was able to process the designated number of retirement claims within the prescribed period at the expense of ending up having a large number of post-adjudication actions as a result of processing cases with incomplete documentation (implementing the solution.) After the project was completed, the team member were responsible to follow up on those post-adjudication actions by investing more time in contacting applicants and former agencies to obtain the information needed to close the retirement claim (following up on the solution.) It took us another two months to completely clear all those cases, but the work done was beneficial for our section because we were able to handle the backlog timely and efficiently.
According to Table 19.2 Tuckman’s Linear Model of Group Development in our reading for this week, my group was at the forming stage because we were all seasoned claims specialist functioning in an independent environment. At the end of the project we were able to achieve positive results and reached our goal.

Erin Guzman
One of the many groups I am a part of is the children’s ministry team at church. This is a secondary group as it does not meet all of my interpersonal needs. I would say this group is somewhere between “norming” and “performing”. We are constantly having members join the group and leave the group so I would have to say this group is also “adjourning”. When members leave the group it is usually because they are leaving the church altogether or another group within the church needs them.
A problem that we faced over the summer was we were lacking volunteers to help out in the classrooms. Summer is a busy time for families as they are taking vacation and participating in other activities. So over the summer the number of people who serve in the kid’s ministry drops significantly. Each class needs a minimum of one adult and 2 helpers, although working with a two adult minimum is the preference. Our problem was there was not enough staff and volunteers available to meet the needs of the ministry.
Before any formal communication went out there was communication among the members of the group, via word of mouth, regarding how the upcoming weeks’ schedule of volunteers was lacking. Eventually there was an email sent out to all the team members describing the situation we were in. Some emails went back and forth between team leaders and members. We were all encouraged to reach out to other church members who may not be serving anywhere and see if they are able to give us a hand to get us through the coming months. This idea drew in one or two people but not enough to cover all the open slots. The next plan that was implemented was to ask parents if they would volunteer. This happened during pick up and drop off. This also drew in some people. Finally, it was decided that we should make an announcement during service letting everyone know that we are shorthanded and requested people volunteer.
I think my group did a good job of defining and analyzing the problem. We knew that the problem was that we were short staffed in the kids’ classes. We were able to analyze the problem by looking at the schedule. By doing so we were able to conclude that this was an issue that only extended through the summer months and that the majority of our regular volunteers’ reasons for not being available was due to summer activities. The criteria for the solution was finding ways to get people to volunteer. We knew that it would be important to stress that this was only a temporary need so that people wouldn’t feel like they were committing to something long term. I also think we did a good job discussing possible solutions. Everyone had ideas about how to get people to sign up. The one thing I think we could have improved on was implementation. I think it would have been a better idea for us to make a church wide announcement first and see what kind of success we had with that. If that didn’t work, then I think it asking parents at drop off and pick up would have been the next best option. I feel like the way we went about recruiting people may have made them feel pressure to volunteer because they were being approached at every angle.
In the end we did make it through the summer with extra volunteers and by combining some of the classes when needed. Overall I think we did a good job solving the issue. Our problem solving strategy did resemble the “7-step framework” but could have been executed better.

Mable Henderson

Last fall, I was part of a group developed to issue a new rulemaking for the minimum amount of financial protection required for nuclear power plants. The group was established to coordinate the issuance of a rulemaking and notice to the public. It was at the beginning stages of completing the assignment. This rulemaking was federally mandated and included the need for a federal register notice to the public.

The problem was that we only had a few months to issue the new rulemaking and notice, but new guidance was pending that threatened our ability to issue them in time. In addition, some members of the group wanted to enhance the rulemaking notice to incorporate other updates that were also needed. However, those additional enhancements would have increased our risk of not being able to issue the rulemaking in time. In order to decide the best path forward, we held several meetings with multiple different offices and individuals who had previous experience with similar tasks. In addition, we had to play somewhat a waiting game for the pending guidance that would determine whether or not we could issue it in time.

Ultimately, we decided to issue the rulemaking and notice “as is” without making any enhancements because we were convinced th