|
Small Group Communication
"Some of your most important communication will take place in one group or another. It is estimated that over 11 million meetings are held each day and that at least 40 percent of your work life will be spent attending group meetings and conferences. A recent survey showed that the typical executive spends about 700 hours per year interacting in groups. That is the equivalent of two of every five days on the job. Thus, knowing how to relate to others in a group setting is not only vital if you are to attain personal success but also if you are to attain professional success." (Gamble & Gamble, Communication Works, p. 267)
Small Group- 3-13 members who do a job or solve a problem.
Characteristics of Small Groups
 Cultural Values
 Norms-expectations of how group members will behave
 Rules-formal and structured directions for behavior.
Types of Groups
Social Groups - Groups designed to serve the social needs of their participants.
Task-Oriented Groups - Serve to accomplish a task. They often have problem solving or decision making goals. Juries are one example.
 I nformation-Sharing Group - Meetings where people meet to be informed and to inform, or clarify, or hear clarification of goals, or to establish or maintain working relationships, information sharing becomes the purpose. Examples: corporations, schools, churches, families, and service clubs.
Learning Group-Purpose to increase the knowledge or skill of participants.
Participants in Group Discussion: Roles
Task Roles- Get the Job Done
Initiator-Expediater-suggests new ideas, goal, solutions, and approaches--often most creative and entergetic.
 I nformation givers and seekers- seek and give information: Most important because it is the foundation for discussion.
Critics-Analyzers- Look at the good and bad points in the information the group has gathered. Looks at how the total picture fits together.
Maintenance Roles- Focus on the emotional tone
Encourager- praises and comments on contributions and group achievements
Harmonizer- Compromiser-Help resolve conflict, settle arguments and disagreements.
Regulators - Regulate group discussion by reminding members of agenda or topic at hand: Give others a chance to speak
Small Group effectiveness
 Workable size-Ideal is 5
 An appropriate meeting place-
 Suitable seating arrangement-members should be able to see one another's faces.
 Best is circle/ second best in U
 Cohesiveness and Commitment-
Cohesiveness-feeling of attraction that group members have toward one another.
Commitment is the willingness of members to work together to complete the
 Group's task linked to effectiveness
Group Think-Irving Janis found that cohesive groups are victims of Groupthink
TROUBLE WITH GROUPS
Group Think
Groupthink occurs when groups let the desire for consensus override careful analysis and reasoned decision making. (Janis 1972)
 Group members think the group and its members are invulnerable to dangers.
 Members create rationalizations to avoid dealing directly with warnings or threats.
 Group members believe their group is moral
 Those opposed to the group are perceived in simplistic, stereotyped ways.
 Group pressure is put on any member who expresses doubts or who questions the groups’ arguments or proposals
 Group members censor their own doubts.
 Group members believe all members are in unanimous agreement-- whether such agreement is stated or not.
 Group members emerge whose function is to guard the information that gets to the other members of the group, especially when such information may create diversity of opinion.
Test to see if your group experiences Groupthink...
 Have you ever felt so secure about a group decision that you ignored all the warning signs that the decision was wrong? Why?
 Have you ever been party to creating a rationalization to justify a group decision? Why?
 Have you ever defended a group decision by pointing to you group's inherent sense of morality?
 Have you ever participated in a "we-versus-they" feeling---that is, in depicting those opposed to you in simplistic, stereotyped ways?
 Have you ever applied direct pressure to dissenting members in efforts to get them to agree with the will of the group?
 Have you ever applied direct pressure to dissenting members in efforts to get them to agree with the will of the group?
 Have you ever served as a "mind guard"--that is, have you ever attempted to preserve your group's cohesiveness by preventing disturbing outside ideas or opinions from becoming known to other group members?
 Have you ever assumed that the silence of the other group members implied agreement?
Group leaders can prevent Groupthink by:
 encouraging members to raise objections and concerns; devil's advocate
 refraining from stating their preferences at the onset of the group's activities;
 allowing the group to be independently evaluated by a separate group with a different leader;
 splitting the group into subgroups, each with different chairpersons, to separately generate alternatives, then bringing the subgroups together to hammer out differences;
 allowing group members to get feedback on the group's decisions from their own constituents;
 seeking input from experts outside the group;
 assigning one or more members to play the role of the devil's advocate;
 requiring the group to develop multiple scenarios of events upon which they are acting, and contingencies for each scenario; and
 calling a meeting after a decision consensus is reached in which all group members are expected to critically review the decision before final approval is given.
Group Think:
The Space Shuttle
Gouran, Dennis & Randy Hirokawa, and Amy Martz. A Critical Analysis of Factors Related to the Decisional Processes Involved in the challenger Disaster. Central States Speech Journal FaII1986 page 119-135.
"On Jan 28, 1986 the highly successful American Space Shuttle Program tragically ended 73 seconds into launch. One of several missions involving civilian personnel, the flight of Challenger was to symbolize the inseparability of space exploration and the future of education. Instead, millions of people sat witness to a tragedy that was to become the most significant setback in the history of the United States space program and one that would quickly attract the label 'The Challenger Disaster' ."
Within days, President Reagan appointed a commission to determine the cause of the accident The Commission conducted an extensive investigation. "Its inquiry produced the finding that the primary cause of the accident was a mechanical failure in one of the joints of the right solid rocket booster, in which and O-ring malfunctioned."
"The Commission discovered that what proved to be the cause of the accident had been, in some quarters, a continuing concern, especially in the several months immediately prior." "Members of the Commission appropriately concluded that there was a contributing cause-'FLAWS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. and that the accident was rooted in history."
"Numerous opportunities to prevent the launch presented themselves in the 20 hours that preceded; but on each occasion, one or more influences surfaced and reduced the chances for altering the collision course upon which NASA had set itself.
 Perceived pressure to produce a desired recommendation and concurrence with those initially opposed to the launch.
 An apparent unwillingness by several parties to violate perceived role boundaries
 Questionable patterns of reasoning by key managers
 Ambiguous and misleading use of language that minimized perception and risk
 A frequent failure to ask important questions relevant to the final decision
" A simple act of disagreement.. was to undermine the respect which NASA had achieved and which it must now struggle to regain. "
Abilene Paradox
The Ersatz Decision also known as the Abilene Paradox (Harvey, 1974) is called the fake decision. An entire group decides to do --and did--something that nobody wanted to do.
"Organizations frequently take action contrary to the desire of any of the members."
The ability to manage agreement. It happens because of :
 Action anxiety
 Negative fantasies (fear of separation)
 Scapegoat (placing blame)
Solution:
Own up to your own beliefs and feelings
The Boiled Frog Theory of Non-Decision
by Tichyand Sherman (1993) compares a group to frogs in water. They note that if you put frogs in water and gradually turn up the heat they don't jump out because they don't notice the gradual change in temperature. Many organizations have "croaked" because they did not see gradual changes in the environment --auto, steel, construction, electronics. They did not change so they died.
Paradigm Model
Individuals have the idea that group work is bad. The PARADIGM or thought model needs a shift. (Similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy)
The four step process goes like this:
 "You believe something is true that is neither true nor false.
 Second, you take action in concert with that belief. If, for example, you believe that meetings are awful, then you will not take much action to make them better.
 The third step is that the "feared result" occurs. The meeting is awful--worse, even than you could have imagined.
 Finally, there is a "gotcha" phase, in which the believer takes a perverse sense of satisfaction in his or her presumed initial correctness" (Tropman 1996).
Harvey, J.B. (1974). The Abilene Paradox. Organizational Dynamics.
pp 17-43.
Janis, Irving (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
taken from Gamble, Teri Kwal & Gamble, Michael.(1987)
Communication Works. New York: Random House
Tichy, N. & Sherman S. (1993). Control your destiny or someone else will.
New York: Doubleday.
Tropman, J.E. (1996). Making meetings work. London. Sage.
The Bystander Effect
Behavior Alone and in Groups:
Safety in numbers? Better think again.
The bystander effect
The probability of getting help declines as group size increases.
Estimate of % who will help across a large number of studies:
 75% if bystander alone
 53% if bystander in the presence of others
Factors
 Ambiguous situations where one looks to others for clarification
 Diffusion of responsibility phenomenon
Group polarization
A phenomenon that occurs when group discussion strengthens a group's dominant point of view and produces a shift toward a more extreme decision in that direction.
Will the collective wisdom of a group produce a conservative choice in decision making? Quite the contrary!
Risky shift
Groups arrived at riskier decisions than individuals...but
Later research changes risky shift notion to group polarization
DISCUSSION IN GROUPS
 Choose a topic
 Brainstorm
 Identify the Problem
Question of fact: Deals with what is true and false
Question of value: Whether something is good or bad
Question of policy: About what actions "should" be taken in future
 Analyze the problem
 Find & evaluate solutions
 Choose a solution
|