Steve Prevette said:
Yes, each group had at least one withdrawn person not contributing. This does happen in the "real world" often. As managers (and especially team leaders) one should be on the look out for those that are always chiming in and those that never chime in. You may have to as a team leader take a more active role and actually seek out the quiet ones, and make sure to ask "What do you think about this question, Tom"? Then at least you stand a chance of surfacing all of the ideas available. It may also be an outfall of the competitive environment that the quiet people are unsure of themselves and thus be quiet unless specifically brought out. There are also differences in human personalities.
Paramount in any discussion about "group dynamics" is the issue of who the group leader is (skills, education, aptitude, political alliances) and how the leader becomes the leader (elected by group or selected by outside authority.)
The ideal leader gets the "biggest bang" from the group resources. Most leaders, however, squander their human capital. For proof, just look at the average business corporation and how its leaders misuse, abuse, and otherwise squander their human capital, despite all sorts of lip service to the contrary
[insert mindless generic public relations statement about people being "our most valuable asset" here.]
A good leader will draw out and fairly evaluate opinions from shy members of the group.
Summary:
It is important to understand the "not-so-subtle" cues set forth by the authority figure (teacher or corporate executive) when setting tasks for the group or groups - ranging from
"do or die" (the group that succeeds keeps its job, the other group is fired [ala "Apprentice"]) to
"fat bonus," cues which say COMPETE, not COOPERATE.
In Quality, we continually talk about "root cause." What is the true root cause
[of noncooperation] in a classroom situation when the instructor creates two or more groups as part of setting the assignment?
In my opinion, it is definitely NOT cultural or social bias on the part of the students except to the extent students take their cue from the [supposedly] wiser and more experienced instructor.
(Talk about being set up to fail!)