Now that we are more familiar with each other and the rules of the game, we were able to address some of the problems from the first game when we played this time around. We were able to play the game more seriously and avoid any cheating in our favor. All decisions were final and could not be reverted. We did a good job communicating and our team worked together well to clear all of the objectives and make it to safety. Using the articles on communication styles, I was able to identify each team member’s style: Austin is Assertive, Logical, Influencer. I am Assertive, Logical, Conscientious. Eric is Submissive, Connector, Conscientious. Harley is Submissive, Thinker, Steady. Lauren is Submissive, Logical, Steady.
Our entire team was Assertive or Submissive, which is great for a strong team, rather than aggressive or manipulative styles. Our team had logical and thinker styles, which allowed us to form good methods to winning the game. Finally, our team had a few different styles: Influencer, Conscientious, and Steady. This was good because nobody on our team was dominant. If anyone were, we’d fight over more of the decisions. On the other hand, since we weren’t all submissive, we may have never made any decisions. Myself and Austin acted as the Assertive “leaders” of the team, guiding the game along.
When observing fisher’s model, a lot of what Fisher described was found in how we played the game. When we first met we had short interactions with each other. This was our orientation stage. We learned the rules of the game, which made us interact with each other. This was out conflict stage. As we began to play, the game got smoother to play and we got more comfortable with each other. This was the emergence stage. Once we met back together to play the game again, our team was more connected and engaged in the game than the first round, so we were able to communicate better since we were comfortable with the rules. This was the reinforcement stage.
