February 20, 2008            GROUP EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT EXAMPLE

To:  Tom Drake

From:  Bingo Twango

Subject:  Self and Group Evaluation of English 313

Introduction

This memo evaluates my performance, as well as my group’s performance (Bingo, Rufus, Betty Lou, Billy Bob, Angelica, Spot) working together on the Audience Analysis assignment, in Tom Drake's Spring 2008 Business Writing class, section #04.  This evaluation was specifically assigned by you, Tom Drake, in order to learn what each group member thought of their group and the other members in it.

Generally, our group worked well together to complete the assignment, overcome adversity, climb ever mountain, search high and low... and protect truth, justice, and the American way.

Criteria

The criteria our group decided to uphold are as follows.  All group members must:

·         Do the work assigned to them by the group

·         Show up to the agreed upon meetings

·         Be accountable for their portion of the work

·         Communicate any problems encountered with the group. 

Furthermore, Betty Lou was the agreed upon general editor of any work the group produced.   Rufus was in charge of taking notes.  Because Spot is functionally illiterate but over 21, he was in charge of buying the beer.

Individual Strengths

 All members of our group adhered to the standards set by the group, with the exception of Betty Lou missing one meeting, although she emailed her work to the group so her absence was inconsequential.  The specific strengths of the members of the group are:

·         Rufus is highly sociable, often propelling the conversation in the group helping to produce a very positive group atmosphere conductive to communication.  For example, when we first got together he kept the conversation going and made us feel at ease by making us laugh.

·         Betty Lou is a very strong technical writer.  We sent her all the final drafts and we received all the points for editing, so we owe that grade to her.

·         Billy Bob acted partially as leader of the group, stepping up at group meetings and helping guide the group process.  Whenever we’d all sit around staring at our shoes, Billy Bob would dig up the outline and ask us questions.

·         Angelica acted partially as leader of the group, stepping up outside group meetings, putting together all the individual work the group emailed him, creating the group project.

·         Spot was a large help when editing our projects as a group.  He brought his laptop to the meetings and typed everything up.

·         I, Bingo, also helped edit all group work, and worked partially as a leader, helping guide group discussion and editing.

Individual Weaknesses

While our group was able to effectively complete all assignments, there were a few noticeable individual weaknesses in the group.  Fortunately as a group we were able to recognize these weaknesses and thereby downplay any affect they’d have on individual performance.  Nevertheless, these weaknesses were:

·         Rufus’s natural loquaciousness can get a bit out of hand some times, like the time he jumped up on the table and started howling like a baboon.

·         Betty Lou’s amiability translated into a moderate lack of assertion. For example, she told me one on one a couple of her ideas but never brought them up with the group.

·         Billy Bob’s large workload, both through campus and through outside employment, gave the impression that he was overly busy.  He always showed up 20 minutes late for every meeting.

·         Angelica’s natural niceness and sociability kept him from taking a leadership position.  Perhaps this was because of his/her recent sex change, but it would have been nice if he would have led the group at least once.

·         Spot’s natural organization and ‘go-getting’ often had him take control of the project without full group consultation (which never ended up bad, but in other cases might have).  Spot insisted on being the “leader” at every meeting and probably did 80% of all the talking. I think that if he toned it down a bit the shyer members would have spoken up more.  He also shot down others’ decent ideas more than once; for example, when I brought up the need to have different audiences, he just blew me off.

·         My own natural quietness at times prevented me from fully speaking my mind, for fear of being abrupt and rude.  

Numerical Summation Of Individual Contributions

Based on the above criteria and descriptions of individual strengths, weaknesses, I would rate each group member’s over-all contribution to the group project as follows.

 ·        Rufus: 7/10

·        Betty Lou: 9/10

·        Billy Bob: 7/10

·        Angelica: 8/10

·        Spot: 9/10

·        Myself: 7/10

Group Strengths

As a group we were highly successful in effectively breaking down all assignments into even portions, as well as assigning portions to specific group members that played to their strengths, thus making all group work easier.  Specifically, our group strengths are:

·         An ability to create a balanced workload for all group members

·         The recognition of individual group member’s strengths and weaknesses, allowing the group to work extremely efficiently

·         A positive group atmosphere, conducive to communication

·         A shared responsibility of a good work ethic, propelling each group member to complete their portion of the workload, attributing to an effective use of time. 

Group Weaknesses

As a group we had no single leader, which at times led to wasteful energy being expended in useless directions.  For example, because we at times lacked coordination as a group, our first attempt to compile a policy produced many variations of the same policy.  Upon communication the group realized the desired policy was still unclear.  The actual group weaknesses were: 

·         Lack of a single leader entity, at times causing lack of coordination among the group

·         Lack of a single consistent editor, at times leading the whole group to attempt editing, which caused a disorganized editorial process.

Despite these few weaknesses, our group’s strengths managed to overcome via individual hard work, a group amiability, and an effective work and communication environment.

Summary

Despite what few weaknesses we had as a group and as individuals, we worked effectively and efficiently, playing to the groups strengths to cover individual weaknesses.  In the future, few changes would and should be made.  These changes will not drastically affect the group, because all the hard work and individual responsibility helped our group work almost to peak efficiency.  The changes I would make are:

·         A single group leader, designated at the beginning of the group

·         A single group editor, designated at the beginning of the group, who edits the very first draft as well as the last, which must be approved by the group

·         More out of class group communication, encouraging a greater group cohesiveness.

With these simple changes I believe our group would be tweaked up the last step to top group efficiency and effectiveness, allowing our group to function as best as possible.  Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and opinions about the group, I hope this memo was sufficiently easy to read (and grade), and that you found my comments and observation both worthwhile and valuable.