Student Senate Meeting Analysis

The meeting I attended took place on May 2nd, from 2:00pm-4:00pm in the Perigreen room. The meeting however, did not last until the aforementioned ending time, it was instead unanimously adjourned at 2:47pm after all agenda business had been discussed. During the proceedings of this meeting I analyzed how the formal and informal group roles intermingled, with some student board members relying on their informal roles more than their formal. I also noted the number of participants and how that affected the dynamic of the meeting, as well as observed the social and task dimensions and how they affected the productivity and cohesiveness of the student senate meeting.
According to “In Mixed Company, Communicating in Small Groups and Teams” by

Rothwell explains that as groups increase in size (number of members), the complexity increases. (Rothwell: 66) He gives the perfect example of how scheduling meetings for groups of 15 to 20 members is significantly more difficult due to conflicting personal schedules and the like than it would be for a smaller group. He also describes how the number of members has an effect on the amount of participation, concluding that large groups experience a higher lack of participation than smaller groups (Rothwell 67). The student senate meeting could be considered a large group of people, 6-8 permanent members, however their closeness was that of a smaller group, where everyone participates and feels comfortable to speak their opinion and disagree. I did, nonetheless, see how the student senate struggled with obtaining a perfect attendance for the meeting, as some members were not present. I also noticed that within the group there was a smaller sub group of 3 or 4 members that seemed to be more closely knit with each other. The rest of the members were still respected and included but not shown the same banter and affection. This revelation did not surprise me because I have experienced these sorts of intergroup dynamics before. It is clear that the larger the group the harder it is to be cohesive with everyone and therefore subgroups form between people who become closer acquainted with certain group

Members called upon to relay information that they were asked to find out about or report on something they had supposedly agreed to do last meeting were not completing their tasks. The close relationships between the president and other board members made it so these shortcomings were brushed off. Individuals within the subgroup did not seem to worry about being embarrassed or scolded because they were among close friends. The social dimension as the textbook calls it, was more present than the task dimension, as individuals seemed more invested in socializing and maintaining relationships than insisting on tasks being done. I also took into consideration that it was the end of the semester and with that comes more disarray as people wrap up finals and plan their summers. Therefore, tasks given in a group, especially a group with such high social dimensions are more easily forgotten and more easily forgiven. During the final minutes of the meeting I had a sense that at this point in the semester productivity was most likely very low and would probably rise again once the new semester began in the fall and everyone showed up energized from the summer. I predict that when things are running smoothly that the student senate can achieve a lot of things for our campus because the task and social dimensions are