Out of the five ways that people behave during decision making, I believe that initially I was the avoidance character. I felt like the professor just let the class run buck-wild. People were even bashing his test format and his response seemed indifferent, so I did not really want to be part of this unregulated chaos.
After listening for twenty minutes or so, my brain started feeling restless; I was hearing a lot of selfish ideas and I felt that the argument was going nowhere. At this point, I feel like I took upon two merged roles - "Compete to win" and "compromise." I started yelling at some point because I was frustrated and irritated, but the point I wanted to get across was that we should first find some lesser things that EVERYONE can agree on.
The most prevalent behavior of decision making that I observed in the classroom was the "compete to win" mentality. That kind of method stands out the most, because those people have all outbound and no inbound. It was kind of irritating. Avoidance wasn't something as easily observed - I just noticed many people that didn't have any input at all during the chaos.
I feel like if I were the "leader up front," I would have been just yelling at people to shut up and talk one at a time. I think I would have fun being in a place of power, but people probably wouldn't like my methods of trying to get a clear compromise. However, I would be mostly neutral and try to interpret the things people suggest into more understandable means.
(Late post)
