Group Behavior in Organizations

a23ars

Chapter3_GroupBehaviorInOrganizations.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Group Behavior in Organizations

3Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effectiveness

Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe interpersonal skills and their importance in the workplace.

• Explain how our basic interpersonal relations skill set is formed and describe methods for further development.

• Identify and describe the major elements of the communication process.

• Identify the major communication flows in an organization and the type of information associated with each.

• Identify and describe three significant models of communication.

• Outline the basic obstacles to effective communication and strategies for overcoming them.

• Describe the relationship between positive interdependence and knowledge sharing.

• Define interpersonal communication and its impact on group effectiveness.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 77 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. Interpersonal skills are only important in face-to-face group work; they are not really applicable to virtual team settings. T/F

2. Our ability to recall the information we have heard degrades within a short period of time. T/F

3. Social skills are not trainable; like personality, you get what you are born with. T/F 4. One of greatest challenges to communicating effectively lies in how both the sender and

receiver filter the content of a message. T/F 5. In teams, members pool their KSAs through mass exchange or information capture. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction Bexco is a small engineering firm that takes a team-based approach to the work environ- ment. At Bexco, a team composed of five engineers has worked together for a little over 2 years. About 6 months ago, the team’s manager informed the team members that he had hired a new engineer to join their team. Team members received this news well, and they have spent the past 4 months adjusting to and training their new team member, Erik. During this time, team members have all worked with Erik in some capacity and have all experienced the same problem—Erik has trouble communicating with others.

The team is decentralized, meaning that all members share leadership and task roles and communicate directly with each other. There is no single leader through which to fun- nel communications, which allows members to easily share their knowledge and view- points. This has allowed the team to enjoy uninhibited communication and collaboration. Although the team members have demonstrated the way their communication network functions and have encouraged Erik to communicate directly with his team, Erik contin- ues to direct his communications toward the team’s supervisor rather than to his fellow team members. When Erik communicates with his team through the supervisor, he limits his ability to influence the team and its ability to influence him, which inhibits relation- ships. Additionally, when he does communicate with team members directly, his messages are often unclear and his colleagues cannot determine their meaning or the importance of the information. His communications typically contain important information but lack the context the rest of the team needs to understand their significance.

The team members want to help Erik improve his communication skills. They under- stand that everyone makes mistakes when they communicate; while such mistakes can sometimes be revised or explained, the exchange can never be undone. Both practice and empathy—understanding the perspective of the person with whom you are communicat- ing—will improve interpersonal communications over time. The team intends to help Erik grow his skills in this area by providing feedback on his communication and present- ing him with some guiding principles to effectively communicate.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 78 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

Whether we are employees, managers, part of a work group, or on a team, working together requires cooperation, coordination, and social interaction. Given adequate technical skills and material resources, effective performance largely depends on prop- erly using essential interpersonal skills (Klein, DeRouin, & Salas, 2006). Effective teams are characterized by using interpersonal skills to facilitate:

• sharing knowledge and viewpoints, • identifying problems (by voicing concerns), • solving problems and making decisions, and • resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative ways (Cannon-

Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Stevens & Campion 1994; Varney, 1989).

These processes are too complex to address in a single chapter. Problem solving, deci- sion making, and conflict management are individually dealt with later in the text. In this chapter, we define and discuss the interpersonal relations skill set, examine interpersonal behaviors and skills relating to communication, and explore their impact on performance.

3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value Interpersonal skills, or people skills, refer to a complex skill set that encompasses KSAs and behaviors that enhance the quality of our interpersonal interactions (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995). Interpersonal skills and the ability to work constructively in groups and teams top the list of the most valuable skill areas for job seekers, interns, employees, and managers at all levels and across virtually any operational setting, from accounting to the armed forces (Mun- son, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004; Klein et al., 2006). Everybody wants interper- sonal skills, but nobody seems to know exactly where they come from, what they are, or how to get them.

Where Do Interpersonal Skills Come From? As with skills of any type, interper- sonal skills can be learned, prac- ticed, and developed over time. We can consciously begin the process of honing these skills at any point in our lives and across any setting, pri- vate or professional. However, most of us develop an unconscious level of competency in interpersonal skills simply by living and interacting with others over the course of our life- time. Humans are social by nature, and from our earliest moments, most of us try to communicate with those around us via eye contact, facial expressions, body language, and

KIM JAE-HWAN/Staff/GettyImages

Today U.S. Marines receive special training in people skills and social interaction before going on overseas duty assignments.

Section 3.1

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 79 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

physical sensations, and we eventually graduate to using verbal communication as well (Klein et al., 2006). We develop a sense of social and behavioral norms from our early interactions with family and friends, and as we learn to read and interpret interpersonal behaviors and social cues. The greater our experience with interpersonal contact, the more easily and natu- rally we develop interpersonal skills (Miller, 2004).

As we grow older and experience more complex social interactions, we develop a standard toolbox for all our interpersonal exchanges. However, the experience and skills gained via social development may not fully prepare us for interaction in professional settings. Work- place relations can be difficult to navigate because they feature rapid development and fre- quent changes in employee roles, interdependence, expectations, and demands. Today’s reliance on technology-assisted communication, online project management, and virtual teamwork add an extra dimension of complexity to an already multidimensional process. Consider the difficulty of communicating emotional nuance and tone such as shared enthu- siasm, attentiveness, teasing, or sympathetic encouragement via text or e-mail. The limited ability to translate traditional interpersonal behaviors and social cues via technology make the development of interpersonal skills even more important for effective communication, coordination, and cooperation in the contemporary workplace (Caya, Mortensen, & Pinson- neault, 2013; Kimble, 2011).

Prior to the use of interpersonal skills as an umbrella term for the KSAs and behaviors we use to navigate and manage our interpersonal interactions, theorists approached this field of study with a “divide and conquer” approach. Formal and informal theories evolved, defining our ability to relate to others as social or emotional intelligence and connecting our level of intelligence with specific personality traits. Contemporary thought regarding the identifica- tion and application of interpersonal skills grew out of this early theory work (Landy, 2005), and the multiple dimensions of intelligence and personality represent factors that can poten- tially influence our ability to acquire and effectively utilize interpersonal skills. In the follow- ing sections, we examine different facets of intelligence and personality and their relationship to interpersonal skills. Let’s begin with social and emotional intelligence.

Social and Emotional Intelligence Long before interpersonal skills, member attachment styles, or social value orientation were considered significant elements of organizational behavior, E. L. Thorndike (1920) intro- duced the idea of social intelligence. Thorndike’s discussion was more a call to recognize multiple forms of intelligence than a serious investigation into interpersonal competencies; however, it did open the doors on this area of study and introduce the idea that cognitive abil- ity is multifaceted (Landy, 2005). Today theorists describe social intelligence as the ability to understand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during interpersonal situations and to act appropriately on that understanding (Marlowe, 1986; Klein et al., 2006).

Social intelligence has three basic components:

• Social sensitivity: the ability to perceive emotional and behavioral cues from our- selves and others; this represents our awareness of what is going on during a social interaction.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 80 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

• Social insight: the ability to meaningfully connect emotional and behavioral cues within a given context and to understand why we or others feel and behave in a par- ticular way.

• Communicative competence: the ability to accurately understand and interpret verbal and nonverbal messages from others and strategically control the messages we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980).

In action, social intelligence translates into social skill, or the ability to effectively read, com- prehend, and manage social interactions (Witt & Ferris, 2003). Social skill allows us to trans- late goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially effective behavior (Schneider, Ackerman, & Kanfer, 1996; Schneider, Roberts, & Heggestad, 2002).

The idea that human intelligence has not one but multiple dimensions inspired some research- ers to focus on our cognitive ability to perceive, express, and manage emotion (Gardner, 1983, 1999; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Emotional intelligence (EI) describes our ability to identify and express emotions, understand emotions and their underlying causes, integrate emotions to facilitate thought, and regulate positive and negative emotions in ourselves and others (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Our ability to deal with an interaction’s emo- tional content can profoundly affect interpersonal relations and conflict management.

There is a major debate on whether EI is trait or ability based (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). The trait perspective views emotional intelligence as innate (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), essentially treating EI as a collection of fixed personality traits. This approach has met with considerable resistance, both academically (see Locke, 2005; Landy, 2005)—because a constellation of personality traits cannot be considered “intelligence”—and in practice, because it shuts out the possibility that emotional intelligence can be learned or increased. The ability-based perspective offers a more optimistic view, conceptualizing EI as comprising relatively trainable cognitive abilities, capacities, and skills (Salovey, Mayer & Caruso, 2004). Either way, emotional intelligence has been effectively used as a tool for selecting and training employees whose primary tasks involve interpersonal interactions (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002; Cherniss, 2003). There is a tendency to confuse interpersonal skills with personality traits, and while they are different, there is some connection between the two. Let’s explore these topics more closely.

Personality and Interpersonal Skills Personality traits are often confused with social skills. They tend to be lumped together, par- ticularly in our evaluations of an individual’s positive or negative interpersonal skills. For example, in an interview-based study of the interpersonal communication skills human resources managers most valued in other managers, many cited personality traits as well as effective communication and other interpersonal skills (Bambacas & Patrickson, 2009). This is understandable, since our personality traits, and others’ perception of them, can signifi- cantly impact our ability to acquire and use interpersonal skills in the real world. Individu- als who tend toward introspection and shyness, for example, will likely have less interaction experience and thus lower skill development in areas such as cooperation and verbal com- munication. However, these individuals may also be more practiced—and skilled—in areas such as being mindful of others and listening effectively.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 81 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

However interrelated they may seem, personality traits and social skills are distinct. Indi- vidual personality traits are considered relatively fixed and enduring, whereas social skills are relatively trainable (Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Leary, 1995). Another major difference lies in their practical use: Social skills can counteract the presence of less sociable personality traits, but the reverse tends not to be true (Klein et al., 2006). For instance, socially pleasing per- sonality traits such as extraversion and agreeableness will not make up for a serious lack in social skills. However, personality can affect our ability to acquire and strategically use inter- personal skills, thereby affecting performance effectiveness in group work and teamwork. We all have areas within our interpersonal skill set that our personality and background have brought to the fore. Capitalizing on these and improving areas in which we have less experi- ence or skill can counteract potentially negative personality effects on group performance (Leary, 1995).

So just what are interpersonal skills? Now that we have some background on where they come from and understand the theoretical foundations of contemporary concepts, it’s time to look inside the interpersonal skills toolbox.

The Interpersonal Skills Toolbox Although there are more than 400 individual skill and behavioral components recognized as part of the interpersonal skill set, most are related to the basic issues surrounding commu- nicating, managing interactions and relationships, and correctly interpreting social dynam- ics and cues (Klein et al., 2006; Bedwell, Fiore, & Salas, 2014). The components originally perceived to make up social intelligence—social sensitivity, social insight, and communicative competence—are nice and concise, but tell us little about how people are supposed to achieve these abilities or which skills will strengthen them. In today’s workplace, expertise in using interpersonal skills calls for competence across several key areas that represent both subtle and overt skills. The basic subtle and overt skill sets are outlined in the paragraphs below.

The Subtle Skill Set Subtle skills affect interactions indirectly. They deal primarily with how we think and perceive or are perceived by others. Although we can actively engage these skills during an interaction, they are not an overt part of the exchange. The subtle skill set includes critical competencies in the following:

• Perceptiveness • Self-presentation • Mindfulness • Cognitive flexibility • Intercultural sensitivity

Perceptiveness involves acute sensitivity to and observation of interpersonal behaviors, atti- tudes, and communications; the interaction and its context; and the elements affecting each of these. Unlike perception, which is often skewed, skilled perceptiveness requires seeing and hearing things with as little distortion and bias as possible. This is a necessary compo- nent of effective group performance (Trower, 1979; Klein et al., 2006). Nowhere is this more

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 82 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

apparent than in interpersonal interactions, in which each individual has a unique perception of the situation, the interaction, others, and him- or herself. During and after the interaction, the group generates another shared perception of what happened and what was (or was not) accomplished within the exchange. As we will see later in the chapter, what we perceive and how we interpret it profoundly affect our interpersonal relations.

Self-presentation involves influencing the reactions and images others have regarding our ideas, image, and self. This is a vital aspect of social interaction and is key to organizational success at any level (Baumeister, 1989; Klein et al., 2006). We all engage in self-presentation behaviors that are motivated by our desire to establish, manage, and maintain an appropri- ate personal image in the minds of others (DuBrin, 1997; Klein et al., 2006). The process by which we attempt to influence others’ perception of and reaction to our image is referred to as impression management. It includes demonstrating punctuality, good humor, sensibility, helpfulness, appropriate dress, friendliness, and approachability (de Janasz, Dowd, & Schnei- der, 2002). People working within an organization, either individually or as part of a group or team, are all to some degree dependent on the goodwill and cooperation of others. Self- presentation is therefore an important skill regardless of our specific position or job require- ments (Klein et al., 2006).

Mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves during interactions in order to inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). To do this, we must be able to read and evaluate our own and others’ reactions, as well as an interaction’s efficacy in terms of how the process is (or is not) accomplishing desired outcomes. Mindfulness is always useful, even after an interaction is over. However, as we grow in practice and competency, being mindful during an interaction allows us to read the situation and adjust our interaction or communi- cation tactics to be more effective. Mindfulness is also a key factor in strengthening existing skill areas and developing new ones.

Cognitive flexibility reflects our ability to shift perspective, supplement and revise existing mental models, consider conflicting information and evidence, and create new mental mod- els when existing ones are no longer effective (Hayes, 2002; Ionescu, 2012). This helps us avoid jumping to conclusions, making biased assumptions, and stereotyping or prejudging people or situations. Cognitive flexibility is useful to both task work and teamwork processes. It enhances our critical-thinking and creative problem-solving skills and supports the devel- opment of positive attitudes and relations between members.

Intercultural sensitivity reflects our awareness and understanding of cultural differences and our ability to perceive and relate to how people from other cultures will interpret an interaction, communication, situation, or event (Dunbar, 1996; Klein et al., 2006). Key pro- cesses involve keeping an open mind, viewing differences as interesting rather than frighten- ing, developing understanding and empathy for other people and worldviews, acknowledg- ing that “normal” is a flexible concept, seeking feedback on perceptions of our own behavior and customs, adapting to the unfamiliar, and constructively managing confusion and conflict. Intercultural sensitivity is a valuable competency within today’s organizational environ- ments, which are characterized by an increasingly diverse workforce. Employees at all levels can benefit from understanding how differences in cultural values and norms affect behavior and communication (Arai, Wanca-Thibault, & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; de Janasz et al., 2002).

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 83 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

Next, we describe the overt skill set competencies that complete our toolbox.

The Overt Skill Set Overt skills directly affect interactions. When these skills are engaged, they become active elements of an exchange. The overt skill set includes critical competencies in the following:

• Verbal expression • Nonverbal expression • Listening • Persuasion • Cooperation • Coordination • Conflict resolution

Verbal expression involves communicative competency in both writing or speaking. This requires us to accurately interpret verbal messages from others and strategically control the messages we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980). Language is complex in that certain aspects of grammar, word selection, word meaning, and vocal tone can significantly change or be differently perceived because of context. To be effective, not only must communications be clear, but the sender’s intention and the receiver’s interpretation must align as closely as possible. Learning to effectively express ourselves is one of the most valuable and critical interpersonal skills we can develop, and communication is considered one of the most desir- able skills when making hiring or promotion decisions (Klein et al., 2006).

Nonverbal expression involves communicative competency in both reading and nonverbal sig- nals and cues. This is an important feature of interpersonal interactions. Nonverbal commu- nication encompasses a diverse range of sensory and behavioral cues, including facial expres- sions, physical gestures, movements, postures and orientations, interpersonal spacing and touching, and vocal and visual cues (DePaulo, 1992). Individuals with poor social skills tend not only to miss or misunderstand nonverbal communications, they also underutilize or mis- use them when communicating with others (Trower, 1980).

Listening involves mindfully and perceptively assimilating verbal communication, paying attention to the speaker and the content of his or her message, and recognizing and acknowl- edging the speaker’s communicative intent and expectations regarding our response. Listen- ing is a critical competency for collaboration, particularly in interactions involving decision making, problem solving, conflict resolution, and negotiation. Teams engage in all of these processes from the moment they begin collaborative goal setting. We will discuss specific dimensions and processes of competent/skilled listening in more detail later in the chap- ter. Listening is considered one of the most valuable interpersonal skills that employees, and especially managers, can employ in the workplace (Klein et al., 2006; Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996).

Persuasion involves consciously manipulating interactions to encourage others to adopt spe- cific attitudes, behaviors, viewpoints, or courses of action (Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996; de Janasz et al., 2002). People employ three basic vehicles for persuasion: credibility, rationality,

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 84 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

and emotional appeal (Verderber & Verderber, 1986). Persuading others through credibility requires that the persuader be perceived positively and have the ability to inspire confidence. This aspect involves self-presentation. Persuading others with rationality involves logical rea- soning skills—part of the critical-thinking skill category. Persuading others through emotional appeal requires perceptiveness, mindfulness, self-presentation, cognitive flexibility, listening, and some aspects of intercultural sensitivity, enabling one to identify and understand others’ emotional buttons and adjust tactics midstream. All of these require communicative compe- tency. Persuasion is a pervasive element in interpersonal interactions (Klein et al., 2006).

Cooperation involves working together and/or in support of one another to achieve a mutu- ally beneficial outcome. Essential processes include identifying and making positive associa- tions between our own and others’ interests and goals; determining mutually beneficial tasks, activities, and processes; modeling and encouraging prosocial and supportive behaviors such as offering assistance; pacing activities to fit team schedule and needs; monitoring others’ reactions to our behavior; and clarifying misinterpretations or miscommunications (Salas, Sims, & Klein, 2004). Although different personality types and backgrounds can predispose us to or away from cooperative attitudes, cooperation competency—like any skill—requires time and practical experience to develop. Being able to work cooperatively is a highly valu- able skill in today’s job market (Klein et al., 2006).

Coordination involves managing task interdependencies within the performance process flow (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Essential processes include mapping tasks and activities to sup- port specific and measurable goals; handling resource allocation, task and activity assign- ment, sequencing, and synchronization; and integrating member contributions and effort (Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Cooperation and coordination are both integral to effective group and team performance. Their value is not limited to group work, however; both are considered critical skill competencies for interpersonal interaction in the workplace, regardless of whether one is working alone or in a group or team (Klein et al., 2006).

Conflict resolution involves reconciling people, ideas, and viewpoints; discussing and achiev- ing closure on negative reactions and behaviors; negotiating a mutually acceptable outcome; and restoring positive relations between participants. Although conflict resolution requires a variety of skills, core competencies include perceptiveness, listening and communicative competencies, mindfulness, self-presentation, intercultural sensitivity, and mediation. Key processes include fostering constructive communication and feedback, avoiding or mitigating destructive communication and feedback, keeping an open mind, engaging in rational rather than emotional debate, identifying similarities and demystifying differences, modeling and encouraging a climate of cooperation and positive perceptions of diversity, and synthesizing viewpoints and perspectives to construct mutually beneficially outcomes (Johnson & John- son, 2013; Smith, 2001). Conflict resolution is another competency that is high on the list of most desirable employee skills (Klein et al., 2006).

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 85 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

Next, we will overview some of the techniques and strategies for developing interpersonal skills.

Developing Interpersonal Skills With an increasing awareness of the effect that interpersonal skills have on the workplace, organizations are now spending more to train employees in this skill set. In fact, more than half the training budget in organizations across all industries is dedicated to improving employees’ interpersonal skills (O’Sullivan, 2000; Landy & Conte, 2004). Common sense sug- gests that training methods should be carefully selected based on specific abilities and needs; however, selection is more typically determined by organizational and individual constraints (i.e. time, money, and other resources, as well as employees’ willingness to participate). While

Business Applications: Interpersonal Relations Are Critical in the New Millennium

In the age of virtual workspaces, we might assume that technology skills would be more impor- tant than people skills. Management, human services, and even sales are increasingly moving into virtual realms where teams coordinate, customer service reps placate, and negotiators . . . negotiate—all in the intangible office space of the Internet. The lack of physical connection in our workplace interactions can lead us to think that interpersonal skills are obsolete—but in fact, it is just the opposite. Now that we have less tangible interactions, it is more important than ever that we pay attention to the people behind the computer screen.

Rather than downgrading people skills, our transformation from an industrial society to an information-based one has many employers placing a premium on interpersonal relations, effective communication, and integrity (Zehr, 1998; Robles, 2012). Technical skills, though necessary, are not enough to keep us employed in the new millennium (James & James, 2004). Current and future managers and leaders emphasize the importance of interpersonal rela- tions and other soft skills in the tech-assisted workplace (Robles, 2012; Mast, Jonas, Cronauer, & Darioly, 2012)—and these skills have some unlikely advocates.

While the armed forces have a reputation for creating ultrastrong bonds that last years beyond members’ active duty, they are not well known for managing with soft skills. This, however, has begun to change. In his 2011 TED Talk, Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal described how managing teams in active duty after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fostered a realization that in this era of techno-communication and virtual management, interpersonal skills are profoundly important to managers and leaders.

Critical-Thinking Question In his TED Talk, McChrystal describes the need to personally connect, build trust, and mean- ingfully communicate over distance via technological interfaces. As an online class, you, your classmates, and your instructors face a similar issue. Describe some of the methods you think facilitate meaningful communication and build bonds within this class on the online forum, as well as areas where you feel there has been a significant failure to connect.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 86 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

interpersonal skill training can be directed toward specific areas of cognitive and behavioral ability, the most successful development occurs when these areas are woven together in a training program that combines information, demonstration, practice, and constructive feed- back (Bailey & Butcher, 1983; Harrison, 1992). Here we examine formal and informal strat- egies that have acknowledged success rates and are frequently selected by organizations (Klein et al., 2006).

Formal Training Strategies Of the formal strategies employed to develop interpersonal skills, role playing is by far the most popular and successful (Berry, 1998; Connerley, 1997; Muchinsky, 2003). In particu- lar, a specific role-playing technique known as behavior modeling is often used. Applying the principles of Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory to interpersonal skill development, behavior modeling consists of a multistep process in which employees:

1. observe real-time or filmed interactions in which participants demonstrate both positive and negative behaviors (Baldwin, 1992),

2. practice recognizing negative behaviors and engaging in positive behaviors by par- ticipating in role-playing exercises, and

3. experiment with using these new behavioral skills in real-world settings.

In a study of behavior modeling exercises used to improve listening skills, researchers found that role-playing sessions that broke tasks into smaller, more manageable practice units expe- rienced greater success in skill development (May & Kahnweiler, 2000).

Sophisticated technology has increasingly enhanced the effectiveness of computer-based role-playing and virtual simulation training as well (Holsbrink-Engels, 1997). One such role- playing simulator is used in Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) training centers, where a computer-based training program allows agents to practice picking up verbal and nonverbal cues to detect deception during interviews (Olsen, Sellers, & Phillips, 2004). Teams in both the military and civilian industrial sector are using computer-based role-playing and simula- tion training to improve communication and other interpersonal skills (Salas, Burke, Bowers, & Wilson, 2001).

Informal Training Strategies More commonly and easily applied than their formal counterparts, informal strategies can be highly effective and have the added benefit of being useful to a teamwork process. Common informal training strategies include the following:

• Goal setting • Coaching • Mentoring • Providing feedback

These strategies can all help informally develop interpersonal skills, and they pull double duty in teams because of their usefulness in facilitating effective performance. Let’s take a quick look at how informal strategies accomplish all this.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 87 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

As we learned in Chapter 2, goal setting helps team members stay motivated and focused on team tasks and activities by providing a framework of clearly understood, specific, and mea- surable performance goals and expectations; a system for evaluation; and planned discussion and revision points. Goal setting is often one of the first collaborative activities in which a team engages. When a formal strategy such as the SMARTER goals model is used, collabora- tive activities and objectives are clearly identified, organized, and broken down into manage- able segments. The whole process is mapped out to be accomplished in a relatively short time frame. For these reasons, goal setting makes excellent practice for developing interpersonal skills such as coordination, cooperation, mindfulness, perceptiveness, listening, and verbal expression.

Coaching involves analyzing the performance of a team and each of its members, offer- ing insight into problem areas, and providing encouragement and making suggestions for improvement at both the individual and team level (DuBrin, 2005). Coaches can objectively assess team members’ individual interpersonal skill competencies and needs, as well as make recommendations for how to consciously work on developing skills during team interactions.

Mentoring is similar to coaching, yet distinct. Whereas coaches take a more general approach, mentors are committed to developing a long-term personal relationship with individual team members whom they feel can benefit from their knowledge and experience (DuBrin, 1997). Like coaches, mentors objectively observe and offer members specific feedback and suggestions for developing interpersonal skills. Unlike coaches, however, mentors will engage in one-on-one training exercises (such as role playing and behavior modeling) to help their protégés succeed.

Feedback represents any form of communication that offers individuals information about themselves, their attitudes, their behavior, their performance, and/or the effect they have on others (Mill, 1976; Klein et al., 2006). Feedback can be positive and indicate areas in which an individual has succeeded in some way, or it can be negative and focus on failures or shortcom- ings. Both positive and negative feedback can be constructive, however. Constructive feed- back is intended to aid personal development and performance. Giving constructive feedback on an individual’s performance and interpersonal skills can instill confidence in his or her existing skills, identify areas in need of improvement, and offer practical assistance in further skill development.

Communication is paramount to all of these techniques, as it is to all interpersonal interac- tions. While communication skills are encompassed within the interpersonal skill set, com- munication itself is a process, and one that occurs within any interaction. The remaining sec- tions in this chapter deal with the communication process, overcoming basic obstacles to effective communication, and the relationship between communication and group effective- ness. Let’s begin with an overview of the communication process.

3.2 The Communication Process Communication represents the comprehensive exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task-related information. It is the process of sending and perceiving meaning via sig- nals and messages. These activities can be both conscious and unconscious. In face-to-face

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 88 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Message

Channel

Sender Receiver

Hello!

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

interactions, for example, we pay conscious attention to both the messages we are sending and those we receive. Body language, however, may simultaneously send signals by which we unconsciously perceive each other’s apparent emotional or affective states (i.e., confidence, excitement, anxiety, or disdain). Though often unintended, these signals influence our per- ception and interpretation of conscious communications. As we become more practiced in interpersonal skills and develop our understanding of the communication process, we can more easily shift from unconscious to conscious control of our verbal and nonverbal commu- nications and our perception of these in others.

At a minimum, communication requires a sender, a receiver, and a message sent via a com- munication channel between them (see Figure 3.1). Senders initiate messages by encoding the information they want to share. When we encode, we translate information- encompassing mental models into informative and expressive language. Knowledge, ideas, feelings, and thoughts are translated into a message, or a symbolic representation of infor- mation in a condensed form. Spoken or written words, images, physical models, and body language are all messages that have been encoded and sent through a particular medium, or channel. Personal and tech-assisted conversation, phone, e-mail, texting, and social media are just some of the channels through which we communicate. Once a message has been sent, receivers accept and decode the message—by processing and interpreting the information— and take appropriate action or respond.

Figure 3.1: Basic components of communication

The most basic components of communication are a sender, a receiver, a message, and a communication channel.

Message

Channel

Sender Receiver

Hello!

Direction of Message Flow Workplace communication is often categorized in terms of the direction a message takes on its “journey” through organizational hierarchies (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Table 3.1 provides an overview of the directional message flows found in the workplace, including downward, upward, lateral, external, and grapevine communications.

As shown in Table 3.1, the separate categories are typically associated with specific types of messages (Canary & McPhee, 2011). Whatever direction they travel in, messages are sent via communication channels.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 89 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

Communication Channels Communication channels represent the media through which messages travel. Channels can be characterized by media type, degree of receiver participation, media richness, and organizational acceptance. Each of these dimensions can be used to describe communication

Table 3.1: Workplace communications categorized by message flow

Message direction Description Examples

Downward communication

Messages that move from higher to lower levels of organizational hierarchy (i.e., from managers to group or team members, or from upper to middle management).

• Procedural, goal, and task directives • Initiative and change announcements • Clarifications and explanations • Employee feedback and appraisal

Upward communication

Messages that move from lower to higher levels of organizational hierarchy (i.e., from team member to project manager, or from midlevel to upper management).

• Job- and task-related issues and activities

• Accounting and performance reports • Requests or suggestions for

improvement and change • Grievances and disputes • Employees’ feelings or needs

concerning their work, their coworkers, and the organization

Lateral communication

Messages that travel between employees of equal or equivalent hierarchical rank (i.e., between team members, between same-level managers, or between union leaders and corporate managers). It can also include coordination communications that flow diagonally across organizational departments and hierarchy.

• Usually task- or project-related messages

• Activity coordination within or across groups and departments, and related project responsibilities and issues

• Discussion among colleagues or peers regarding messages from higher or lower levels of hierarchy in order to process the information or problem solve an issue

External communication

Messages that flow between organiza- tional employees or representatives to a variety of contacts and stakeholders outside the organization. Messages in this category tend to fall into two major subcategories: Most are related to the organizational business process, and some are related to organizational public relations.

• Organizational business process: Sales, customer service, advertisement, financial reports to stakeholders, acquisitions, and negotiations

• Organizational public relations: Press releases and product, marketing, and productivity announcements

Grapevine communication

Messages that travel outside of organiza- tionally established lines of communica- tion. These typically include work-related information, happenings, or issues that for whatever reason feel more comfortable or accepted in an informal conversation or interaction.

• Unpublicized organizational needs, issues, or happenings

• Prospective transitions or changes • Issues or relationships between

organizational employees or between various divisions and groups

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 90 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

channels in a different way. Together, they offer a comprehensive understanding of what media channels are and how they affect our communications.

Media Type Channels characterized by media type are fairly self-evident and easy to identify (Berger, 2011). Face-to-face channels include all same time, same place in-person interactions (e.g., speeches, team meetings and discussions, brown bag lunches, conversations in formal and informal gatherings and groups, and so on). Digital channels include technology-based inter- personal interactions (e.g., texting, voice mail, intranets, social media, wikis, etc.), as well as real-time virtual communication spaces (e.g., videoconferencing, chat, electronic meetings, and so on). Print channels include online and offline written media that do not integrate social interaction (e.g., reports, memos, written announcements, newsletters, informational web pages, books and e-books, journals, articles, and so on).

Degree of Receiver Participation Marshall McLuhan, who predicted the Internet 30 years before its invention and coined the modern usage of the terms surfing and global village (Levinson, 1999; Getto, 2011), also proclaimed, “the medium is the message” (McLuhan 1964/2001, p. 25). He argued that the communication channels we choose impact our messages by engaging receivers in different ways. McLuhan used the terms hot and cool to differentiate between the receiver participa- tion levels associated with each media format. Hot media (e.g., lecture, film, radio/podcasts, and print) provide a wealth of information stimulus and require little participation. We are engaged through passive involvement—we need only to watch and listen. Cool media (e.g., the web, social media, and face-to-face interactions) require a significantly higher degree of participation, since we are actively involved in communicating informative and expressive details. Meaningful communication via cool media depends heavily on an individual’s ability to communicate information, express emotion, and engage communication partners.

Media Richness Daft and Lengel (1984) developed the concept of media richness to help communicators select the best channel for a given situation. They proposed that a channel’s communicative ability should match a message’s complexity, in terms of how much and what type of informa- tion is conveyed. For example, complex personal messages that require expression and tone to be interpreted are not well expressed through a quick e-mail or text message. The degree to which a channel can convey message complexity represents its media richness. Factors that affect a media channel’s communicative ability include its capability to convey multi- dimensional information, effect communication, and change understanding, as well as the availability and speed of feedback along the channel. Daft and Lengel outlined a continuum running between rich media, those with the highest communicative capabilities, and lean media, those with the lowest capabilities (see Figure 3.2).

Face-to-face channels are considered to hold the richest media, followed by interactive, real- time digital channels. Media rich channels are considered optimum for complex, multidi- mensional exchanges such as negotiation or problem solving. Tech-assisted communications such as e-mail, phone calls, and live chats lack some elements of sensory input and therefore rest midcontinuum. Finally, print channels and other noninteractive media, such as recorded announcements, are considered media lean.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 91 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Lean Media Rich Media

Print Tech- Assisted Exchange

Face-to- Face Exchange

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

Organizational Acceptance Media selection is also influenced by organizational culture and social norms, which affect member thinking and attitudes toward specific channels and how they should be used (Fulk, Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1987). Formal channels are those established by the organiza- tion or its members specifically for communications related to professional activities and pro- cesses (such as company e-mail or official memos). Informal channels spontaneously emerge according to individual choices for transmitting personal, social, and even work-related mes- sages (Langan-Fox, 2001). Multioption, tech-assisted personal messaging has become the norm, blurring the lines between established and emergent channels.

Listening—which thanks to technology can span all of the descriptive categories discussed here—is also considered a communication channel. According to Harris and Nelson (2008), it is the channel most commonly used. Ironically, listening is also the most commonly fallible of all communication channels. Before we get into the details of what makes or breaks effective communication, let’s round off our examination of the basic components with some visual models of the communication process.

Communication Models Researchers have been modeling the communication process for years, each one building a new layer of understanding for this complex interaction. There are three communication models of particular note to our study of interpersonal relations within groups and teams: the transmission model, the interaction model, and the constructionist model. Each focuses on a single aspect of contemporary communication. Taken together, they build a comprehensive picture of the basic communication processes that occur today. We will begin with the oldest and most simplistic communication model, which conceptualizes messages as transmissions.

Figure 3.2: Media continuum

Media channels move from lean to rich on the media continuum. Noninteractive channels are considered the leanest form of media, while face-to-face is the richest.

Lean Media Rich Media

Print Tech- Assisted Exchange

Face-to- Face Exchange

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 92 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Message Message

Signal Received

signal

Information source

Transmitter Receiver Destination

Channel

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

Transmission Model The transmission model describes communication as a linear, one-directional process in which messages move from a sender to a receiver (Ellis & McClintock, 1990). In this model, the sender or transmitter is the primary actor during communication. The receiver is a rela- tively passive target that serves as an end point for the transmission process (see Figure 3.3).

First developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949), the transmission model was originally built to mirror radio and telephone technologies. Although it still does a fair job of modeling one-way, asynchronous, technology-aided communication (i.e., tweets, posts, and some forms of e-mailing), the transmission model lacks the depth and complexity needed to accurately describe dynamic interactions. It does, however, provide a firm foundation for later, more sophisticated theories, such as the interaction model.

Interaction Model Slightly more complex than the transmission model, the interaction model describes com- munication as a cyclical, two-way process in which the sender and receiver alternate roles and interactively generate meaning via messages and contextual feedback (Schramm, 1954, 1997). In this model, both parties actively engage in message exchange, alternating quickly and easily between the roles of sender and receiver (see Figure 3.4).

The interaction model acknowledges that senders and receivers are mutually influencing entities and that communication takes place within various contexts that range from psycho- logical to environmental. We discuss contexts in greater detail later in this chapter. The inter- action model simplifies and describes the ongoing communication and feedback cycles that fuel our interaction; however, it does not entirely capture what actually occurs as we interre- late. This is addressed more clearly in the constructionist model of communication.

Figure 3.3: Transmission model of communication

The transmission model of communication assumes messages move in a linear, one-directional process.

Message Message

Signal Received

signal

Information source

Transmitter Receiver Destination

Channel

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 93 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Encoder

Interpreter

Decoder

Message

Interpreter

Encoder

Message

Sender/ Receiver

Message

Sender/ Receiver

Negotiated/ Constructed Meaning

Section 3.2 The Communication Process

Constructionist Model The constructionist model describes communication as an interactive negotiation of mean- ing (Cronen & Pearce, 1982). Under this model, meaning is not a set construct. Rather, the meaning of a single word can change depending on its context, the way it is used, the physical and emotional cues given during an interaction, and its socially accepted meanings. Accord- ing to the constructionist model, communicating is not just a simple exchange of information. When we communicate we share meaning, and that meaning is jointly constructed (see Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5: Constructionist model of communication

According to the constructionist model of communication, as we communicate, we negotiate and coconstruct meaning.

Message

Sender/ Receiver

Message

Sender/ Receiver

Negotiated/ Constructed Meaning

Figure 3.4: Interaction model of communication

In the interaction model, communication is perceived as an interactive exchange cycle that takes place within multiple contexts.

Source: Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3–26). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Encoder

Interpreter

Decoder

Message

Interpreter

Encoder

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 94 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

In many cases jointly constructed meaning occurs before any communicative interaction. This occurs when certain gestures or expressions have been indoctrinated into our cultural under- standing, such as using a thumbs-up to indicate approval or readiness (good job; all set) or using the abbreviation LOL (laugh out loud) to indicate humor in text-only communications. At other times, we discover the need to co-construct and negotiate meaning during an inter- action. Consider this exchange between 39-year-old Kylie and her 72-year-old mother, Ailene:

After setting up Ailene’s online account, Kylie says, “Great, let’s test it out. Who do you want to chat with?” “What do you mean?” asks Ailene. Kylie points out Ailene’s contact list and tells her she can chat with any of the people who are currently online. “But won’t they be too busy to talk to me if they are already online?” Ailene asks. “If they are,” says Kylie, “they’ll just refuse to chat. It’s OK Mom, pick one.” Ailene looks at the list and picks up her phone, “Ok,” she says, “I guess I’ll see if Cindy has time to chat.” “What are you doing?” asks Kylie. “I’m calling to chat with Cindy, like you said,” answers Ailene. Kylie sighs.

What just happened? Before texting or online chatting became the norm, saying “let’s chat” had a whole different meaning. Kylie and Ailene both assumed they had the same under- standing of what the word chat means. However, it is clear that they are talking about two different things. In order to communicate, each person must realize what the term means to the other. They must establish a common ground and negotiate a shared meaning in which understanding can occur. Here, the common ground is that both Kylie and Ailene expect to test Ailene’s new online account by chatting. To negotiate meaning, Kylie must acknowledge Ailene’s understanding of the word chat and expand on it by sharing her own. Ailene may adopt Kylie’s use of the word, or together they may decide to use a qualifier, like online chat. Once a shared meaning is understood, Kylie and Ailene can communicate: “Let’s try this again,” says Kylie. “Just click on Cindy’s name to start an online chat.” “Ok!” answers Ailene.

To sum up, the transmission model views communication as a linear, one-directional process that features an active sender and passive receiver. The interaction model describes commu- nication as a two-way, interactive exchange of messages and feedback between two or more active sender–receivers. The constructionist model acknowledges that sender–receivers interact not only to share information, but also to negotiate and co-construct meaning. The addition of this perspective is particularly important in fostering group effectiveness because it facilitates positive interdependence and helps maintain member relations. Coming to a mutual understanding and shared meaning can be difficult, however, and diverse perspec- tives and interpretations can become barriers to effective communication. We will address basic obstacles to effective communication and strategies for overcoming them in the follow- ing section.

3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication The complex coordination and interpersonal cooperation that enable group and team work depend on clear, concise communication (Kanki & Palmer, 1993; McIntyre & Salas 1995, Stan- ton 1999). Yet communicating effectively is no easy task. Ironically, part of the problem is that we tend to think we are already good at it—we have plenty of practical experience, after all. Most of us spend 70% to 80% of our waking hours communicating in one form or another (Bebe, Bebe, & Redmond, 2011). However, effective communication goes beyond our ability

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 95 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

to hold our own during a conversation (Stevens & Campion, 1994) or to chat on- or offline. Effective communication describes the clear and accurate exchange of information, con- cepts, and contextual meaning (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995).

This may not sound difficult, but as anyone who has ever played the game of telephone can attest, even simple communications can be misheard, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. Teams are particularly vulnerable to miscommunication because members are highly inter- dependent and tend to work in complex, dynamic conditions. Operational settings that fea- ture multiple information sources and recipients wreak havoc on effective communication and information management. Information loss and distortion can obstruct the team, leading directly to task and performance failures. They can also indirectly contribute to negative out- comes by creating or exacerbating misunderstanding and conflict. Mismanaged communica- tion is one of the most commonly cited causes for interpersonal conflict and performance failure in teams (Salas et al., 2000; Jelphs, 2006).

Why is miscommunication such a common failing? The answer is complex, but like many complex things it can be broken down to its base components. The communication process depends on a series of interpretative interactions that occur when we process and filter infor- mation, translate linguistic meaning, and listen to communications. Each of these represents a basic obstacle to effective communication—a point in the communication process where information loss and distortion will inevitably occur. In the following sections, we will exam- ine each of these obstacles in turn and outline strategies for overcoming them. Let’s begin with information processing and filtering.

Information Processing and Filtering Information loss and distortion can occur at any point in the communication process. The first opportunity for mishap occurs as the sender begins to condense and encode informa- tion to produce a message. The information we want to communicate does not sit placidly in our heads, prepackaged into attractive and appropriate servings like groceries on supermar- ket shelves. Instead, we generate continuously evolving mental models that encompass our ideas, feelings, and thoughts, as well as all of the situational variables, knowledge, history, and expectations that are associated with or attached to them. To produce a message, we must first process all of that information, assigning values based on our expectations and desired outcomes for the communication. Next, we filter information to encode it into the message we believe most likely to promote our desired outcomes. Message quality depends on our skill and experience in managing these processes.

Sending a clear, concise message increases the likelihood that we will experience effective communication but does not guarantee it. The most common cause of loss and distortion lies in the fact that when we encode and decode a message, senders and receivers use separate and unique codebooks. That is, we process information within a personal framework based on individual viewpoints, experience, knowledge, understanding, and values. The differences between these frameworks are even more distinct when a message travels across cultures. Just as senders hold a mental model of the information they want to send, and a framework for processing, evaluating, and encoding it, receivers decode messages by interpreting and extrapolating meaning subjectively, altering the intended message—potentially beyond rec- ognition (Barnlund, 1970). This distortion occurs because decoding represents a second round of information processing and filtering, performed within a new framework that results

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 96 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

in a revaluation and reinterpretation of message content, associated expectations, and desired outcomes. Effective communication occurs when the sender and receiver get similar results— the closer the match, the more effective the communication (Tubbs & Moss, 2006). This pro- cess is made more difficult by the presence of communication noise.

Communication noise represents various distortional elements that affect communication clarity. These can include excessive information (such as redundant, superfluous, or overwhelming message content); communication barriers (from func- tional, cultural, or cognitive diver- sity); and channel-specific limita- tions (for example, the inability to view body language via e-mail, or the tendency to remember only half of what we hear). Communication noise comes from several sources. Some is included in the initial message from the sender. Other noise is associated with channels we choose, and still more is introduced during message decoding.

Groups and teams can mitigate the loss and distortion inherent in the communication pro- cess—and thereby facilitate effective communication—by developing shared mental models. Shared mental models capture the communal, organized understanding and conceptualiza- tion of knowledge or beliefs that are relevant to how the group or team functions (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Shared mental models significantly increase the likelihood of sender/receiver matchup. This is one of the prime reasons they are so useful in teamwork. Next, we take a closer look at information filtering and processing styles and outline some strategies for managing these for effective communication.

Unconscious and Conscious Filtering Every moment of an interaction floods us with sensory and communicative data. This is true even for online communications, for although we experience limited sensory input from mes- sage senders, we still take in sensory information from our own context that influences how we perceive a message. Cognitively, we simply cannot give equal attention to all the informa- tion we take in. Instead, we automatically filter, or pick and choose the aspects or character- istics that seem to be most relevant and meaningful (Fitousi & Wenger, 2011). Information filtering can be an unconscious or conscious part of our communication process, and there are three basic styles in which it occurs: selective perception, emotional filtering, and practi- cal filtering.

Ever hear the saying, you see what you want to see? Selective perception occurs when we selectively see, hear, or pay attention to (or alternatively, do not see, hear, or pay attention to) specific aspects or characteristics of an interaction or event. Selective perception is a largely

Stockbyte/Thinkstock Images/Thinkstock

Communication noise can come from various sources to distract the receiver from decoding the intended meaning of a message.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 97 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

unintentional consequence of the way we unconsciously filter information based on personal experiences, background, expectations, motivations, or interests. We might be predisposed to see the best or worst in someone based on our expectations. A belief that nonnative English speakers communicate poorly, for example, can cause us to overly focus on relatively small grammatical errors, even if the speaker is actually doing a good job of getting his or her point across overall.

Selective perception can be tied to our personal interests as well. For example, in an early study on selective perception in the workplace, researchers asked 23 mid-management exec- utives from various organizational departments to read a case study that described a steel company’s organizational processes and activities (Dearborn & Simon, 1958). The executives were then asked to identify the issue of highest priority within the organization. Answers were varied; some prioritized sales, marketing and distribution, others prioritized organiza- tional alignment, and still others focused on human relations and teamwork. This disparity of results occurred because each executive selectively perceived the situational aspects that most closely related to their department’s priorities and needs.

Our emotional outlook during an exchange can also influence the way we perceive and inter- pret information, resulting in unconscious emotional filtering. For example, individuals with a negative outlook tend to scrutinize communications with suspicion and in great detail, whereas individuals with a positive outlook tend to feel more confident about their opinions and take information and messages at face value (Sinclair, Moore, Mark, Soldat, & Lavis, 2010; Griskevicius, Shiota, & Neufeld, 2010). Consequently, happy people are easier to persuade (Brinol, Petty, & Barden, 2007). Under extreme emotion—good or bad—we tend to disregard our objective and rational thinking processes altogether and turn to emotional judgments instead. Emotional filtering is at play when a conflict between coworkers escalates to a per- sonal level, with each perceiving the other as deliberately working against them regardless of the facts of the matter.

Practical filtering reflects a conscious intent and effort to filter information toward a par- ticular purpose or goal. This can include filtering message content:

• for clarification, brevity, and tone; • to infer specific intentions or expectations; or • to guide or persuade others toward a particular outcome, viewpoint, or opinion.

Sometimes our desire to avoid conflict or be perceived positively causes us to consciously filter information to give it a particular slant or spin. We may present only positive aspects of a situation and avoid sharing concerns or problems because we fear censure, loss of face, or negative response. Or we may manipulate messages to present the information—or our- selves—in a favorable light. A good example of this is when we tell colleagues or a manager what we think they want to hear instead of our true opinion. Similarly, we may also con- sciously filter our communications to support a particular idea or viewpoint that we wish others to adopt. These spin tactics are a go-to tool for media and public relations experts, who routinely filter information to creatively present facts and/or present a biased interpretation of a product, event, choice, or situation.

Strategically managing both conscious and unconscious filtering is a key to effective com- munication. So how do we achieve this? Mindfulness plays an important role. Recall that mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves during interactions in order to

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 98 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). Effective communication requires us to be mindful of our potential to skew or warp messages via the filtering process. To mitigate nonproductive filtering, we must do the following:

• Strive to be aware of and understand unintentional filters (in others and ourselves) that can engage selective perception and/or shift message meaning or interpreta- tion. This includes reading emotional cues and being sensitive to cultural differences between group or team members.

• Consciously choose how we process message information, and understand the way in which this affects our ability to interpret important communications.

We take a closer look at message processing next.

Message Processing When we process information, our first decision is how much of our attention and cognitive ability to engage. When deciding which brand of strawberry yogurt to buy in the supermar- ket, for example, we tend not to worry about doing preliminary taste comparisons or brand research. Instead, we often opt for a habitual or familiar brand choice or simply select the one with the most appealing picture or price. This is an example of automatic processing (Petty & Brinol, 2008), a relatively superficial consideration of information and evidence involv- ing generalizations based on our past experiences and what we do or do not like, value, or believe. In automatic processing, unconscious filtering is high.

Now imagine shopping for a new car. For most of us this involves more than simple compari- sons of size, color, or price. We might research the durability, efficiency, and safety of various makes and models, as well as special characteristics, styles, and accessories. Then, once we select a vehicle, we may compare the cost to lease or buy, and shop around for the best deal. This detailed consideration of information and evidence relying on logic, critical evaluation, and the gathering of significant facts and data represents controlled processing (Petty & Brinol, 2008). Controlled processing requires far more time and effort than automatic pro- cessing, but it also helps reduce unconscious filtering and counteract conscious nonconstruc- tive filtering because we pay far more attention to the realities of the information or situation we are taking in.

So how do we consciously select how to process messages during communication? We can be better prepared to shift between automatic and controlled processing by understanding that certain factors increase our tendency to engage in one or the other:

• Interest level. When we are interested in message content or outcome, we tend to process information more carefully. Team members who are invested in communi- cations via commitment to task work or teamwork will be more likely to engage in controlled processing during communication exchanges. Interest level is one of the greatest predictors of whether we use controlled or automatic processing (Blanken- ship & Wegener, 2008).

• Knowledge. We are more likely to engage in controlled processing when we are well informed of a communication’s context or subject matter. This is because we have already tagged the content as important or of interest and outlined some of our own ideas and conclusions regarding the situation or information. Well-informed receiv- ers are more likely to demand more detailed information and will also require more

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 99 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

logical persuasion to change an opinion or agree to a solution or tactic that differs from their own expectations (Petty & Brinol, 2008).

• Personality. Some people simply desire or require more information than others to process a situation, form an opinion, or make a decision (Worthington, 2003). These individuals will opt for controlled processing. Others may be more impulsive or intuitive with their processing or lack the patience to get into more detail (Briggs- Myers & Myers, 1980). Automatic processing is likely habitual for these individuals.

• Message characteristics. Combined message characteristics such as media richness, required participation level, and available processing time all help determine our tendency toward automatic or controlled processing. For example, a video commer- cial may be higher in media richness than a magazine article, but neither requires the viewer to actively engage and respond. The determining factor here would be processing time—the video offers very little, while the article’s process time and depth are chosen entirely by the reader. We tend to use automatic processing with video commercials, whereas we use more detailed processing with an article we take the time to read.

By understanding what type of processing we use for which situations, we can more strategi- cally plan how filtering affects our communication process. Next, we look at how language barriers challenge effective communication and how those challenges can be overcome.

Language Barriers Language is our basic means of communication, and the foundation for knowledge shar- ing and creation (Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005). But language can either bring us together or keep us apart. The normalization of the Internet and the use of tech-assisted communication have shaped an increasingly global workplace with virtually networked employees and teams. This environment creates a high potential for miscommunication or misunderstandings based on language and contextual differences. Obviously, people who work together require a basic level of competence in a shared language. Until recently, it was generally believed that adopting English as the lingua franca, or common working language, for global business would effectively erase language barriers (Tietze & Dick, 2013; Youssef & Luthans, 2012). However, simply speaking the same language does not guarantee shared meanings (Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013).

Language codes are culturally agreed-upon dynamic systems of symbols that help us orga- nize, understand, and generate meaning (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1993). With around 6,000 language codes in use around the world (Crystal, 2005), language is simultaneously one of our most useful communication tools and most easily erected barriers. Learning a language is not just about learning its words, however. Many words have several definitions, to be used in dif- ferent contexts. Meanings can further shift depending on how we use particular words, who we are talking to, and the tone of our presentation (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). A bed of roses, for instance, is quite different from the type of bed we sleep in. Likewise, the saying “it’s no bed of roses” refers to a difficult or unpleasant situation. Language codes also have other rules we need to follow in order to effectively communicate. To achieve language competency, we must learn the following:

• Word definitions and how they shift in context and conversation. • Proper grammar, so we can connect and communicate our concepts.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 100 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

• Conversational patterns for how to communicate smoothly across various topics and settings.

• Language conventions for acceptable topics, conversational politeness, and for addressing others in particular settings or of particular status (compared to our own). For example, we may call our boss by his or her first name outside of formal work settings but use a title in the office.

Failure in any of these areas can result in language barriers, or communication difficulties that arise from the inability to speak, interpret, or comprehend a shared language at a level sufficient for developing common understanding. So how do we overcome language barriers if establishing a lingua franca is not enough?

On a practical level, there are several guidelines both native and nonnative speakers can fol- low (Berger, 1996; Leung, Lu, & Liang, 2003):

• Be patient and persistent when communicating information and concepts and when explaining contextual meaning.

• Recognize contextual differences but resist stereotyping, which blocks our ability to get to know one another and develop mutual understanding.

• Be sensitive and accept differences in cultural scripts and norms for interaction. • Be mindful that in interactions, discomfort and conflict may stem from differences in

cultural scripts and norms for social exchange, rather than personal issues between members.

Language barriers tend to aggravate existing frictions between group members, which impedes collaborative problem solving and constructive conflict (Von Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004). Furthermore, linguistic diversity itself can be a source of negative emotions between native and nonnative speakers of the lingua franca on the team (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015). Whether the team’s working language is English or something else, nonnative speak- ers can feel restricted by their language skills, perceive themselves as lacking professional standing or respect, fear negative performance appraisals, and experience stress, embarrass- ment, frustration, apprehension, or shame during interactions (Harzing & Feely, 2008; Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2012).

These reactions influence nonnative speakers’ perceptions of native speakers, and vice versa. For example, overwhelmed by negative emotions during team interactions, nonnative team members tend to distrust or resent native speakers and view them as arrogant (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015). They may cope by avoiding or withdrawing from interactions that involve comprehensive discussion (e.g., knowledge sharing, collaborative discussion, and problem solving) or by reverting to their native tongue, if member diversity permits the creation of cultural subgroups (Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014). Native speakers often feel excluded and disrespected by these behaviors and perceive them as rejection or unwillingness to collabo- rate or knowledge share as a team (Hinds et al., 2012). Consequently, all team members end up feeling excluded, devalued, and disrespected.

These dynamics are not limited to linguistic differences based on nationality—they can also arise within teams that bring together different functional cultures. One study noted, for example, that a divisive subgroup formed when two members specializing in IT intention- ally lapsed into highly technical language during disagreements. By excluding other mem- bers from the conversation, they effectively took control of the debate (Ranieri, 2004). As

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 101 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

would happen in the context of national linguistic diversity, this damaged the team’s ability to resolve the conflict and effectively collaborate, and it caused frustration and other negative emotions among team members.

Negative emotions triggered by linguistic and cultural diversity drive interpersonal conflict and erode collaborative efforts (Hinds et al., 2014; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015). This further damages communication between members, strengthens the tendency to form divisive sub- groups, and can instigate a vicious cycle of negative emotions and process dynamics (Hinds et al., 2012, 2014). The resultant losses to team performance and effectiveness adversely affect outcomes at the organizational level as well (Harzing & Feely, 2008; Hinds et al., 2012). While intercultural sensitivity is key, listening is perhaps the most critical skill competency for deal- ing with language and contextual barriers.

Learning to Listen Listening is the mental process of extracting meaning from sound. This seems easy in theory, but in practice it is quite complex. Listening involves a cyclical process of receiving sensory input and interpreting that which we receive into meaningful elements. This process is made more or less difficult by the amount and complexity of the information we receive. When we listen to recorded music, for example, we can close our eyes; this sensory deprivation has little effect on our interpretation of what we hear. During interpersonal communication, however, we can receive potentially meaningful information from all of our senses. When our listening skills are engaged in interpersonal interactions, the interpreting process involves combining what we hear with what we see, feel, experience, and know.

Skilled Listening Skilled listening is one of our most valuable tools for interaction (Klein et al., 2006; Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996). It requires more than simply extracting meaning from sound. Listening competence requires a veritable web of other interpersonal skill competencies, including per- ceptiveness, intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and mindfulness. While we practice all of these, we must also remember to pay attention to what is actually communicated during an interaction. Although more than half of our communication time is spent listening (Johnson, 1996), we typically retain only 25% of the information we hear (Treasure, 2011). The abil- ity to recall verbally communicated information is also an important facet of skilled listening. Nobody’s memory is absolute, and our ability to recall what we hear degrades quickly over time. Most of us will forget roughly 50% of what we hear immediately after hearing it, accu- rately recall about 35% after 8 hours have passed, and around 20% the next day (Hargie, 2011). This is because most people do not fully listen when others talk. Typically, we are also busy:

• making judgments, • preparing our response, • contemplating our own ideas, or • thinking about other things we need or want to do.

So what exactly does skilled listening entail? In the workplace, listening can be broken down into five practical dimensions:

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 102 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

• Informational listening prioritizes complete understanding and recall. Rather than evaluating or interpreting communications, we primarily direct energy toward accu- rately recalling what we heard. When we listen to news or progress briefings or ask for directions to the nearest coffee shop, we are engaging in informational listening.

• Critical listening prioritizes the analysis of communication based on what is pre- sented verbally and what is inferred from the message context. Critical listeners can accept, dismiss, or withhold judgment on messages while seeking out more informa- tion. This is particularly useful in persuasive exchanges or when the speaker’s logic or objectivity is in doubt.

• Empathetic listening prioritizes putting ourselves into someone else’s shoes and trying to understand what others are thinking or feeling. This is considered the most challenging form of listening because stepping outside our own experience and worldview is counterintuitive and not easy to do (Bruneau, 1993). Empathetic listening is key to conflict resolution and helps maintain positive interpersonal relations.

• Active listening prioritizes pairing externally perceivable positive listening behav- iors (such as making eye contact, adopting an encouraging posture, and referencing statements made by the speaker) with positive cognitive listening practices (such as paraphrasing, summarizing, and asking clarifying questions).

• Passive listening prioritizes quiet attentiveness that fosters the feeling of “being heard” and absorbing both informational content and the meaning the speaker is trying to convey. In a way, passive listening combines informational and empathetic listening. Like active listening, it requires physical cues of attentiveness, such as adopting an encouraging posture. However, passive listeners refrain from making comments or having interruptive reactions; they give the speaker “room” to express him- or herself without interference.

Developing Effective Listening Skills So how do we become more effective listeners? First, it is useful to know and understand our default listening orientation. As seen in Figure 3.6, listeners can be categorized into four basic orientations. Although some people shift listening orientations on a situational basis, many unconsciously revert to a single preferred orientation, particularly in times of emo- tional or cognitive stress (Worthington, 2003). Identifying our default listening orientation and the ways in which it affects our interactions allows us to focus mindfully on these aspects of our behavior during an exchange. This helps us consciously redirect our tendencies during important communications and strategically organize our interactions to work synergisti- cally with our default style. We’ll take a look at how to do this in just a moment. First, examine Figure 3.6 and try to identify your own listening style.

Mindfulness, perceptiveness, cognitive flexibility, constructive feedback, and practice can enable us to evaluate our existing listening skills, identify areas to further develop or use to better effect, and develop more effective listening skills over time. The following steps offer a helpful guideline for this process.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 103 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Action Oriented

Prioritizes addressing the needs and feelings of others over task-related content.

Easily frustrated by information that is inaccurate, excessive, or poorly organized.

Enjoys processing complex messages and prefers detailed information with multiple perspectives.

Prioritzes task completion and goal accomplishment. Tends to be impatient with detailed or irrelevant information.

People Oriented Action Oriented

Content Oriented Time Oriented

Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication

Step 1: Evaluate existing listening skills and identify a default listening orientation. It is use- ful to engage in both self-evaluation and assisted evaluation involving constructive feedback from others. Although self-evaluation does not require knowledge sharing, it can certainly benefit from it. Beginning with self-evaluation, moving to assisted evaluation, and following up with a more informed self-evaluation allows us to enhance our mindfulness and make our perception more accurate. We become able to practice these skills throughout the process, noting differences in how others perceive our listening skills. We can also observe how our own perceptions change after we receive constructive feedback. Once we clearly understand our default listening orientation, we can move on to the next step.

Step 2: Review the five practical dimensions of listening and analyze potential strengths and weaknesses within them. Our existing listening skills will likely be strongest in the areas that engage our default listening orientation. We can identify areas of potential strength and weakness by comparing our default listening style to elements of the five dimensions. For example, a people-oriented listener will likely be better at empathetic listening than a time- oriented listener, but he or she may be less skilled in critical listening. Both people- and time- oriented listeners may struggle to stay focused during informational listening. Another round of assisted evaluation and feedback can help confirm our evaluation of our listening strengths and weaknesses.

Step 3: Engage in conscientious practice. With conscious attention and effort, we can learn to listen more effectively in all the dimensions. This requires self-monitoring and control to note when we fall into a default orientation that runs counter to our listening needs and to strategically shift our energies toward those areas where we are not naturally strong. We can also adapt the way we interact to better align our orientation with listening requirements. For example, action- or time-oriented listeners can strategically manage information exchanges by setting formal meeting rules or by simply informing others of their preference (e.g., “I’m pressed for time, just give me the highlights”). Likewise, content- or people-oriented members

Figure 3.6: Basic listening orientations

Which listening orientation describes you?

Action Oriented

Prioritizes addressing the needs and feelings of others over task-related content.

Easily frustrated by information that is inaccurate, excessive, or poorly organized.

Enjoys processing complex messages and prefers detailed information with multiple perspectives.

Prioritzes task completion and goal accomplishment. Tends to be impatient with detailed or irrelevant information.

People Oriented Action Oriented

Content Oriented Time Oriented

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 104 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

can ask constructive questions during information listening (e.g., by asking for details or clarification, or personalizing the information by asking about member roles and opinions regarding the information).

To sum up, effective communication depends on our communicative competence and our ability to overcome the major obstacles that impact communication. The next section covers how communication contributes to group effectiveness.

3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness Group effectiveness is a highly studied area of group dynamics. The multiple perspectives from which it has been examined have identified many factors that influence it in different settings. Strategies for improving effectiveness include cohesion, mental models, transac- tive memory, diversity in KSAs, communication, leadership, and interpersonal dynamics. At the heart of all of these concepts, however, is the fact that effective performance depends on (a) facilitating positive interdependence and (b) maintaining member relations. We accom- plish these through two key communication processes: knowledge sharing and interper- sonal communication. Let’s examine these key processes by taking a look at the relationship between positive interdependence and knowledge sharing.

Positive Interdependence and Knowledge Sharing As you may recall from Chapter 2, we defined positive interdependence as the constructive interrelations between members that support the group’s existence and enable cooperative action. In that chapter, we described group performance as a state of positive interdependence in which members work cooperatively toward a mutually beneficial outcome. We also estab- lished the concept that group energies and interactions work along two distinct but simulta- neous activity tracks: teamwork and task work (Morgan et al., 1993). We can use this informa- tion as a framework to better understand positive interdependence by separating it into its base components of interdependence and cohesion, as seen in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: The components of positive interdependence

Activity dimension Interdependence component Cohesion component

Teamwork Socioemotional interdependence repre- sents mutual dependence and influ- ence on social relations and standing, emotional state, and well-being.

Interpersonal cohesion refers to the level of attachment and camaraderie between team members.

Task work Task interdependence reflects the degree to which members rely on each other to perform tasks and achieve goals.

Task cohesion reflects the team’s shared valuation and commitment to tasks, task work activities, and goals.

Sources: Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Beal et al., 2003; Kozlowski & Bell, 2001, 2003; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 105 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Attachment

Knowledge Sharing

Trust

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

Different types of groups must develop and maintain each of these components to different degrees. To illustrate this, let’s revisit the differences between work groups and teams. Though both are task groups, their interdependence and cohesion requirements are quite different.

Work groups are led by a single, clear leader who controls positive interdependence by directing and managing individual motivation, efforts, and accountability. Task interdepen- dence is low, since group tasks and activities are coordinated and connected only through the work group leader. Task cohesion is largely superfluous in this case, although a well-run work group may develop a shared identity, with the group leader as a rallying point. Likewise, interpersonal cohesion needs only to be sufficient to foster a positive working environment, although long-standing work group members often develop some level of informal attach- ment. Socioemotional interdependence is mainly expressed by adhering to designated roles and hierarchy and by members’ respectful interactions.

Team members are largely self-coordinating, and positive interdependence is reflected in the basic elements of collaborative performance, demanding high levels in each of the teamwork and task work components. Despite their differences, both work groups and teams foster positive interdependence and maintain member interrelations through a self-supporting cycle of attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing (see Figure 3.7).

Attachment encompasses the extent to which team members feel they are part of the team, are included in team activities and processes, and look forward to working with other members. In work groups, this translates to a sense of being valued and appreci- ated by the work group leader and an air of mutual respect among work group members. In both types of task groups, trust reflects members’ intention and ability to be vulnerable to each other and to the group. In teams, this is founded on the expecta- tion without guarantee that all members will act in support of the team and treat each other consider- ately and benevolently (Rousseau et al., 1998; Whit- ener et al., 1998; Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al., 2003). Work group members trust that the group leader will monitor and manage interactions so that members are treated fairly and in a considerate and benevolent manner. So how does knowledge sharing fit in?

The Integral Role of Knowledge Sharing In both work groups and teams, attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing form a system of mutual support. This is because knowledge sharing is the primary means of accomplishing the following:

• Script sharing and assimilation • Clarifying group agendas and goals

Figure 3.7: Self-supporting

cycle of attachment, trust, and

knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is the key component in actively maintaining this cycle.

Attachment

Knowledge Sharing

Trust

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 106 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

• Coordinating group tasks and activities • Giving and receiving feedback • Demonstrating trust and inclusion

Knowledge sharing is also a prime factor in developing shared mental models, putting every- one on the same page regarding the following (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993):

• Physical resources (e.g., equipment and tools) • Human resources (e.g., member KSAs, preferences, and work methods) • Tasks, goals, performance requirements, and problems • Developmental and task-oriented processes

Knowledge sharing is not always a direct exchange or assimilation of information, however. It is also a way that group and team members can access diverse KSAs.

Tapping Diverse KSAs In work groups, leaders access the KSAs of subordinate group members as needed, keep- ing track of individuals’ expertise and accumulated task knowledge. By contrast, team mem- bers pool their own KSAs, but they do not do this by mass exchange or information capture. Instead, they create a kind of information network based on a general awareness of everyone’s task-relevant KSAs (Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Understanding who knows what allows team members to keep each other updated with relevant task information and access distributed KSAs at need (Wegner, 1995). When this behavior is adopted as a shared script, it becomes a collective system for encoding, storing, and retrieving distributed information (Wegner, 1986, 1995; Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985). Within this system of transactive memory, indi- vidual team members are responsible for knowing one piece of the cognitive puzzle, collect- ing and sharing information relating to their particular KSAs, and passing along information that falls outside their area to other team members. The patterns by which information is accessed and shared reflect—or are mirrored by—a group or team’s internal hierarchy.

Communication and Hierarchy When we consistently interact within small groups, we develop patterns of communication. Referred to as communication networks, these patterns reflect the way in which group mem- bers share and access information and how they deal with external communication to and from those outside the group. Communication networks can be viewed as relatively small and simple, encompassing only group members; or vast and complex, encompassing all the myriad connections and contacts each group member has available to them in any context. Looking at the group only, the communication network between members follows the group’s internal hierarchy. In organizational groups and teams, this reflects the group’s responsibility structure, or accepted distribution of leadership roles and responsibilities. Figure 3.8 offers a simplified illustration of two distinct responsibility structures common to small groups and teams, referred to as circle and wheel.

The circle model reflects a shared responsibility structure in which all members of a team carry out leadership tasks and roles. This creates an all-channel or decentralized network in which team members actively communicate with each other on all aspects of performance and information is shared equally. The wheel model reflects a group or team with a single

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 107 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Circle Model Wheel Model

Candice

Deon

MonicaAmar

Chen Amar Deon

Monica

Candice

Chen

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

strong leader. This creates a leader-centric or centralized network in which the leader con- trols communications and distributes information to other members, who have little or no exchange with each other. This format is most typical of work groups; however, teams with a strong leader may shift between a leader-centric and an all-channel network, depending on their process needs. For example, a team leader may use the leader-centric pattern when communicating new project parameters or giving individual feedback but shift to an all- channel network for collaborative discussions and processes.

Figure 3.8: Circle and wheel responsibility structures

The circle and wheel structures are reflective of all-channel or leader-centric communications.

Circle Model Wheel Model

Candice

Deon

MonicaAmar

Chen Amar Deon

Monica

Candice

Chen

Internal hierarchy can dramatically impact the group’s effectiveness by increasing or decreas- ing the flow of communication. While restricted networks like the wheel model provide a sta- ble organization for small group communication, they can also limit flexibility by restricting the ways in which information travels through the group. If Deon has information for Monica and Amar, for example, it must go through Chen. Leader-centric groups are more rigidly coor- dinated and do not engage in group discussion. This typically allows centralized groups to perform with greater speed and efficiency, but decentralized groups are more effective in dealing with complex activities and processes that require members to tap diverse KSAs (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). While these networks reflect internal hierarchy, the reverse can also be true. If new patterns of responsibility or leadership roles emerge within a team, the patterns of communication will redistribute themselves to reflect the new hierarchy. If this differs from the old one, then the group may find itself transitioning from a centralized to decentralized network, or vice versa, as it mirrors a new arrangement of member relations.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 108 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

Member relations develop as a group or team comes together to perform. Maintaining these relations is imperative to keeping that performance effective. Next, we examine the role of interpersonal communication in maintaining member relations and facilitating group effectiveness.

Maintaining Member Relations Communication is the tool we use to develop and manage the interrelations between group members. Working together requires us to cooperate, coordinate responsibilities and tasks, and navigate any conflict that arises. Maintaining positive member relations is critical if we are to succeed at any of these activities. We’ve looked at how knowledge sharing facilitates group effectiveness by supporting positive interdependence between group members. Now, we examine interpersonal communication, a specialized category of communication that con- cerns the ways in which people relate to one another.

Interpersonal communication is the process that people use to:

• interactively construct, negotiate, and manage meaning; • influence each other; and • develop and maintain relationships (Dainton & Zelley, 2005).

Skilled interpersonal communication facilitates cohesion and conflict resolution. It also enhances employees’ commitment to collective goals, group leaders, managers, and the orga- nization as a whole. However, skillful interpersonal communication can be difficult to achieve, as it involves enhancing our verbal expression skills with the full range of other interpersonal skills, particularly:

• mindfulness, • perceptiveness, • intercultural sensitivity, • self-presentation, • persuasion, • listening, • cognitive flexibility, • nonverbal expression, and • conflict resolution.

Principles of Interpersonal Communication There is no quick way to master interpersonal communications. We spend our entire lives building awareness and developing our skills in this area. However, there are a few helpful principles that can be usefully applied to any interpersonal interaction:

• Interpersonal communication involves mutual influence. Any time we interact with others, we engage in mutual influence. Interpersonal communication involves mutual influence on a profound level. This is important to truly grasp and compre- hend; if participants are not open to being influenced as well as influencing others, interpersonal communication will be neither effective nor complete.

• Information exchange does not necessarily equal communication. We often assume that by sharing information we are communicating the meaning or implications that

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 109 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

go along with it. When this happens we end up with comments like, “How do you not know this, I’ve said it three times already,” or “Didn’t you look at my data? The solution is obvious!” To be effective, messages must not only give information, they must also convey significance and meaning. For example, if information sent repeat- edly has seemingly been discounted or ignored, it may be that the message failed to communicate either (a) the significance of the data to the project or (b) the expecta- tions the sender held in terms of what the recipient would understand or do once the information was received.

• There is no delete button. Communications can be explained, expanded on, reinter- preted, or revised, but they can never be completely taken back. Once heard, read, seen, or experienced, the signals and messages we intentionally and unintentionally send will influence our interactions.

• Nobody is perfect. Even the most competent interpersonal communicators will flub the message or occasionally throw out an inappropriate or destructive comment.

• A little empathy goes a long way. Communicating with and influencing others often depends on understanding their perspective, motivations, and needs. Being able to empathize with someone else will increase the efficacy of both interpersonal com- munication and relations skills.

• Practice, practice, practice! The more we engage in social interactions and interper- sonal communications, the more competent we become, especially if we listen to feedback and evaluate our own interactions.

Interpersonal communication skills help us build and maintain member relations—a criti- cal element in effectively working together. Skillful interpersonal communication requires being aware of and understanding contextual differences and metacommunication. It also involves the ability to recognize constructive and destructive communication behaviors. We will briefly examine each of these and their impact on interpersonal communication. Let’s begin with contextual differences.

Contextual Differences Just as a group’s context influences how it develops, functions, and interrelates within an organization, the context within which we communicate affects our interaction. There are five distinct contexts that influence interpersonal communication:

1. Psychological context represents the unique blend of KSAs, personality traits, motiva- tions, interests, and needs that we each bring to an interaction; in effect, the “you- ness” that comes into play. We are each unique, yet we all have some similarities. To successfully interact in constructive and productive ways, we must learn to recog- nize our areas of similarity. We must also accept that our differences can be positive as well as negative, which largely depends on our attitudes and behavior regarding those differences.

2. Relational context reflects the status, roles, and interrelationships between mem- bers that generate specific attitudes, behaviors, and expectations for social interac- tion. Two friends, for example, will interact and communicate differently than an employee and a supervisor. Likewise, the interaction and communication behaviors between people who have been teammates for a long time will differ from those who have recently joined a team or between recent additions and existing members.

3. Cultural context includes the culturally accepted rules and norms governing our attitudes, perception, and behavior. As we grow and develop, we are shaped by the ongoing negotiation of learned and patterned values, behaviors, attitudes, and

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 110 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

beliefs, collectively referred to as culture. We all have a cultural identity based on the culture in which we were raised. This provides us with a primary cultural context that helps guide our social interactions. Cultural context dictates such things as how close we stand to one another, general rules of politeness, styles of entering into and leaving an interaction, and appropriate topics or timing for conversations. When we move outside of our own culture, we step into someone else’s, which provides us with a secondary cultural context. When these are not aligned, misunderstandings and conflict become all too common.

4. Social context deals with the rules and norms associated with the situational ele- ments of a social interaction. Just as cultural context gives us rules and norms for general interaction, social context guidstepur behavior in specific settings or circum- stances. We engage differently, for instance, in formal or informal settings. The inter- action that takes place outside of the office or while eating together in the company cafeteria will be significantly different from exchanges during formal work activities. Likewise, online and technology-aided communications assume a different social context than face-to-face exchanges.

5. Environmental context encompasses the physical aspects of the location in which interactions occur. These can include working conditions of the operational setting, including sensory factors (i.e., temperature, feel, and noise level), and psychosocial factors (i.e., time of day, surrounding activity types and levels, and the presence or absence of stressors). These can influence our mood, energy, and ability to concen- trate and act skillfully within interpersonal interactions.

Understanding and being able to strategically manage contextual differences can be exceed- ingly complex. Each context represents a complex system of attitudes, beliefs, and individual and shared scripts regarding social interaction. Furthermore, interactions are affected by not one, but all of these contexts together. Group members may share most (excluding the first), differ in one or two, or share none. The latter tends to happen predominantly in cross-cultural virtual teams, since face-to-face team members begin with a shared environmental context, if nothing else. So how do we deal with all of this contextual complexity?

There are a few key points to remember when dealing with contextual differences in inter- personal interactions:

• Groups and teams must accept and work within differences in psychological, cul- tural, and environmental contexts, because these cannot typically be altered within the time frame of a group’s existence. In dealing with these, our best strategy is to learn about each other’s differences and accept their presence in our interactions.

• Relational and social context can be assimilated or co-constructed through the devel- opment of shared scripts and norms. It is within these areas that we actively work to create a unified culture based on the group’s unique membership, the developmen- tal and operational setting in which it is embedded (group context), and the com- prehensive culture, systems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the organization (organizational context).

• Developing mutual understanding through knowledge sharing and interpersonal communication is key to dealing with any contextual differences.

• Simply recognizing that contextual differences exist and influence interactions invites cognitive flexibility and mindfulness into group interactions and marks the beginning of developing mutual understanding, sharing scripts and norms, and accepting “unchanging” differences.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 111 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

Another important aspect of interpersonal communication, metacommunication, can be a useful tool for dealing with contextual differences and building mutual understanding. How- ever, differences in cultural or environmental context can make metacommunication more difficult to achieve. Next, we briefly examine the concept of metacommunication, its influence on interpersonal interactions, and potential difficulties in using it to positively affect interper- sonal exchange.

Metacommunication Metacommunication is often playfully described as communication about communication. While it does encompass discussion of the meaning and interpretations applied to specific communications, it also includes subordinate verbal and nonverbal messages, the primary purpose of which is to explain or convey meaning about the sender’s principle messages (Sarangi, 1998; Lutterer, 2007). These secondary messages help us monitor and read reac- tions during ongoing communication interactions. They also allow us to preface or prep the field for a message we are about to send. Let’s take a look at how these feedback and feed- forward messages enrich our interpersonal interactions.

Feedback messages encompass the contextual responses both senders and receivers expe- rience during message transmission. Feedback comes from within, as we monitor what we do and say, and from others, as they respond to what they perceive in our communications. Internal feedback messages can contain emotional content—causing us to smile in humor or embarrassment in response to what we have just communicated—or processing content informing us of the success of our own communication—causing us to correct or rephrase our message. Feedback messages also come from others as they receive our communication attempts. Nodding, smiling, frowning, looking puzzled, or asking for clarification all represent feedback messages that message receivers can transmit to senders.

During face-to-face interactions, senders and receivers automatically monitor feedback mes- sages by reading facial expression and body language. However, many of today’s interper- sonal communications are transmitted via technology. Although the medium is different, feedback messages are still possible in tech-assisted communications. While we can commu- nicate our emotional response to a message or demand clarification in writing, technology has created new ways to provide feedback, in the form of likes, emoticons, +1s, comments, Pins, and retweets, for example. The primary difference between face-to-face and tech com- munications is in the immediacy and richness of feedback messages. Face-to-face interactions offer immediate and simultaneous feedback across all of our senses, while tech-assisted com- munications are limited in sensory information and are often asynchronous, occurring at dif- ferent times or with some degree of delay.

Feed-forward messages preface message content with secondary messages that generate expectations about the upcoming message and/or desired outcomes or responses. For exam- ple, a team member might preface a long discussion about a complex problem by saying, “Have you got some time to meet with me? We’ve got an issue to work out.” Or, he or she might preset expectations by announcing, “I’ve got some good (or bad) news.” Attaching an online communication to a “friend request” is another way to send a feed-forward message. E-mail subject headings, website slogans, social media taglines, and caller ID are all variants of for- ward-feeding messages that generate expectations about upcoming message content and/or desired outcomes or responses. In face-to-face interactions, both in person and via technol- ogy, feed-forward messages are often communicated via facial expression and body language.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 112 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

Smiling and standing or sitting calmly tend to signal a friendly or positive interaction. Fidget- ing, appearing worried, or avoiding eye contact may signal an unpleasant exchange or a mes- sage that the sender finds difficult to communicate.

Feedback and feed-forward messages can be extremely useful in co-constructing meaning during an exchange; however, their capacity to facilitate this process depends on the par- ticipants’ ability to accurately perceive and interpret their intended meaning. This can be difficult, particularly between individuals from cultures in which specific verbal expressions and nonverbal signals may have very different meanings or norms (Hurn, 2014). In North America and western Europe, for example, direct eye contact indicates attentiveness, inter- est, and trust; however, in Japan and Thailand, this custom appears aggressive and may cause discomfort. Likewise, something as basic as the customary head nod for “yes” and shake for “no” can lead to confusion when dealing with people from Bulgaria, Southern India, and parts of Greece, where these signals are reversed and nodding the head means “no.”

Next, we examine constructive and destructive communication and how their associated behaviors influence member relations.

Constructive and Destructive Communication Communication is a process by which we convey meaning and manage interrelations. It is a major factor in shaping, mitigating, and resolving conflict (Olekalns et al., 2008). However, its positive impact largely depends on our ability to recognize constructive and destructive com- munication behaviors. Constructive communication reflects a desire to maintain open knowl- edge sharing and positive relations while addressing problems and working toward produc- tive outcomes. This does not mean that we should confine our conversations to address only positive topics and emotions. Voicing concerns, working to resolve negative emotions and conflict, and engaging in constructive criticism and feedback are all constructive communica- tion behaviors.

Destructive communication reflects noncooperative and aggressive attitudes in which mem- bers engage in communications and behavior that are counterproductive to cooperation, teamwork, and conflict resolution. One-upping is a typical example of destructive communica- tion in interpersonal conflict situations. One-upping represents a negative emotional reaction to a communication that spurs an immediate negative comeback that escalates the conflict. Other destructive communication behaviors include:

• withdrawing, • bottling negative emotions and lashing out unexpectedly, • engaging in personal insult rather than addressing a problem, and • insisting on handling issues alone (Guerrero, Farinelli, & McEwan, 2009).

Although communication is a critical tool for managing and resolving conflict, destructive communication can rapidly escalate negative interactions. The manner in which we express anger is particularly revealing of the differences between constructive and destructive communication.

The expression of anger can take four distinct forms (Guerrero, 1994):

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 113 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness

Concepts in Action: Destructive Communication: One-Upping Our Teammates

Consider the following interaction between teammates Sharene and Dominick:

Sharene returns from lunch to find her teammate, Dominick, has once again eaten lunch at his desk. Annoyed, she tells him, “I wish you would stop leaving your food trash in here, it makes the whole room smell.” Feeling angry and hurt, Dominick engages in one-upping by replying, “Well I wish you spent as much time working as you do nagging.”

There are several interpersonal relations and communication factors that contributed to this conflict. First, let’s consider how Sharene could have communicated differently to help the interaction go more smoothly. She could have:

• worded her comment in a less aggressive way, or • acknowledged that Dominick worked through lunch again or asked how he was doing

before suggesting he throw his food trash away outside of their shared workspace.

Or she could have approached with a friendly smile and said something like:

“Whew—that smells good! What did you have for lunch? Mind if I throw this away outside? I won’t be able work if I’m thinking about food all afternoon.”

While this exchange does not overtly ask Dominick not to leave his food trash in their office space, it does calmly state her problem and desired resolution:

• Problem: The smell distracts Sharene from her work. • Solution: Dispose of food trash outside of the office space.

Sharene’s friendly delivery creates a memory point based on a positively toned interaction. By modeling behavior she’d like to see, Sharene may help encourage Dominick to throw his food trash away outside in the future. This would have been a constructive way to introduce the issue while maintaining positive relations. Of course, the actual communication style and tone were not the only problems in this example. The interaction between Sharene and Dominick provides clues that there could be some underlying issues. Consider the following:

• Assertion, wherein direct, nonthreatening statements are used to explain the situ- ation and its resultant negative feelings. Assertion invites collaborative problem solving and allows members to work through grievances and negative emotions without resorting to personal threats or insults. Expressing anger through assertion promotes attachment and trust and is the only format that supports constructive communication (Guerrero et al., 2009).

• Aggression, wherein statements are direct and threatening and used to make accusations.

• Passive aggression, in which attitudes and behaviors indirectly communicate nega- tive feelings in a destructive manner (e.g., ignoring someone, moping, blocking resources, withdrawing effort or participation).

• Avoidance, in which attitudes and behaviors focus on avoiding the issue or denying the existence of negative feelings and consequences (e.g., pretending the issue is inconsequential, that negative feelings do not exist, and that nothing remains to be resolved).

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 114 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

The success or failure of group and team work depends on our capacity to communicate and use interpersonal skills to facilitate effective performance. Of all of the concepts touched on in this chapter, perhaps the most important is this: Effective communication and other important interpersonal skills are learned and developed through practice. Understanding the mechanics and principles of effective communication is a first step toward becoming an effective communicator. Once we understand these principles, we may begin actively apply- ing them in real-world interactions. This practice enables us to deepen our understanding of others—a critical factor in successfully navigating social interactions in today’s diverse workplaces. Chapter 4 delves into the nature of workplace diversity, and strategies for man- aging its associated challenges.

Chapter Summary

• Effective teams apply interpersonal skills to facilitate: • sharing knowledge and viewpoints, • identifying problems (by voicing concerns), • solving problems and making decisions, and • resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative ways.

• Despite being on the same team, Dominick and Sharene do not eat lunch together. Per- haps there is some animosity between them that causes them to avoid each other. Or Dominick may simply feel he must work through lunch.

• If Dominick feels that he must work through lunch and Sharene does not, perhaps there is a difference in commitment or viewpoint or an unbalanced workload.

• Dominick implies that Sharene does not focus enough energy on work, while her com- ment about smell may stem from viewing Dominick as slovenly or unorganized. If this is the case, both need to share and address these concerns in a more constructive manner.

• If the workload is unbalanced or if Dominick needs assistance or support from other team members so as not to have to work through lunch, these issues also need to be dis- cussed and resolved collaboratively. If the team does not have a set leader or manager, then team members need to come together in support of the team and each other to rec- ognize such issues and find ways to resolve them.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Think about a time when you engaged in one-upping in the workplace or your personal

life. What underlying issues contributed to the conflict? Were they interpersonal or related to situational factors? How did you resolve them?

2. In the original interaction, Dominick’s response was to one-up Sharene’s comment. How could he have expressed his hurt or anger in a more assertive way? How does assertive anger expression contribute to constructive interactions?

Concepts in Action: Destructive Communication: One-Upping Our Teammates (continued)

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 115 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

• Interpersonal skills can be learned, practiced, and developed over time. This often occurs simply by living and interacting with others over the course of our lifetime. This also occurs in the workplace via formal and informal training strategies.

• Social skill allows us to translate goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially effective behavior.

• Expertise in using interpersonal skills calls for competence across both subtle and overt skill sets. Critical competencies in the subtle skill set are: • perceptiveness, • self-presentation, • mindfulness, • cognitive flexibility, and • intercultural sensitivity.

• Critical competencies in the overt skill set are: • verbal expression, • nonverbal expression, • listening, • persuasion, • cooperation, • coordination, and • conflict resolution.

• Communication is the process of sending and perceiving meaning via signals and messages. These activities can be both conscious and unconscious.

• Workplace communication is often categorized in terms of the direction messages take on their “journey” through organizational hierarchies. The separate categories (upward, downward, lateral, external, and grapevine communication) are typically associated with specific types of message content.

• Communication channels represent the medium through which messages are transmitted and received. Channels can be characterized by media type, degree of receiver participation, media richness, and organizational acceptance.

• The transmission model of communication views communication as a linear, one- directional process with an active sender and passive receiver.

• The interaction model of communication describes communications as a two- way, interactive exchange of messages and feedback between two or more active sender–receivers.

• The constructive model of communication acknowledges that sender–receivers interact not only to share information, but to negotiate and coconstruct meaning.

• Challenges to effective communication include the following: • Information distortion and loss • Intentional and unintentional filtering • Language and contextual barriers • Ineffective listening skills

• Skilled listening is one of our most valuable tools for interaction. It requires a mix of interpersonal skills, including perceptiveness, intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flex- ibility, and mindfulness.

• In the workplace, listening can be broken down into four practical dimensions: informational listening, critical listening, empathetic listening, active listening, and passive listening.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 116 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

• There are four different listening styles: people oriented, action oriented, content oriented, and time oriented. Identifying our default listening orientation and the ways in which it affects our interactions supports conscious development of listen- ing skills and strategies for increasing the flexibility and effectiveness of our default listening style.

• Different groups require different levels of the four basic components of positive interdependence: task and socioemotional interdependence, and task and interper- sonal cohesion. Regardless of these requirements, all groups maintain interrelations through a self-supporting cycle of trust, attachment, and knowledge sharing.

• In both work groups and teams, attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing form a system of mutual support, because knowledge sharing is the primary means of: • script sharing and assimilation, • group agenda setting and goal clarification, • group task and activity coordination, • giving and receiving feedback, and • demonstrating trust and inclusion.

• Knowledge sharing is also a prime factor in developing shared mental models, put- ting everyone on the same page regarding physical and human resources, tasks, goals, performance requirements, related issues, and group processes.

• Team members pool their KSAs by creating a system of transactive memory. • Group responsibility structure and communication networks are mutually support-

ing and mutually influencing because the patterns by which information is accessed and shared reflect—or are mirrored by—the internal hierarchy of a group or team.

• Interpersonal communication is viewed as the process by which people communi- cate to: • interactively construct, negotiate, and manage meaning; • influence each other; and • develop and maintain relationships.

• Skillful interpersonal communication requires an awareness and understanding of contextual differences, metacommunication, and the ability to recognize constructive and destructive communication behaviors.

• There are five distinct contexts that influence interpersonal communication: psycho- logical, relational, cultural, social, and environmental.

• Awareness and understanding of metacommunication, another important aspect of interpersonal communication, can be a useful tool in dealing with contextual dif- ferences and building mutual understanding. However, differences in cultural or environmental context can make metacommunication more difficult to achieve.

• Feedback and feed-forward messages can be extremely useful in coconstructing meaning during an exchange. However, the ability to facilitate this process depends on participants’ ability to accurately perceive and interpret the intended meaning.

• Constructive communication is a prime tool for effectively coordinating group work and managing interpersonal relations. However, destructive communication can be equally damaging to both of these elements.

• Interpersonal communication and other interpersonal skills work in tandem to facilitate effective process and performance.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 117 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

Posttest

1. When a coworker bursts out laughing and pulls another person in to exclaim, “Tell it again, you gotta hear this” after you recount what you did over the holiday weekend, his behavior represents __________. a. mentoring b. feedback c. mindfulness d. active listening

2. Active listening prioritizes __________. a. accurate information comprehension and retention b. attempts to understand what others are thinking or feeling c. pairing positive listening behaviors with positive listening practices d. critically evaluating or analyzing communications

3. When you relay a message to a member of your team, this represents __________ communication. a. upward b. lateral c. downward d. external

4. All of the following depend on knowledge sharing EXCEPT __________. a. group agenda and goal clarification b. engaging in self-evaluation c. giving and receiving feedback d. developing shared mental models

5. Each of the following represents a form of information filtering EXCEPT __________. a. selective perception b. emotional filtering c. mindfulness d. spin tactics

6. The constructionist model describes the communication process as __________. a. a two-way, interactive exchange of messages and feedback b. a linear, one-directional process with an active sender and passive receiver c. an interactive negotiation of meaning d. the exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task-related information

7. The degree of participation required by a media format can be described by the labels __________. a. rich and lean b. hot and cool

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 118 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

c. formal and informal d. upward and downward

8. If we have little interest or existing knowledge on a topic, we are more likely to use __________. a. spin tactics b. positive learning behaviors c. critical evaluation d. automatic processing

9. All of the following represent critical competencies that become active elements of an interpersonal exchange EXCEPT __________. a. listening b. effective nonverbal expression c. perceptiveness d. conflict resolution

10. All of the following are true about communication networks EXCEPT that they __________. a. reflect patterns of group communication b. can be centralized or decentralized c. cannot be influenced by group responsibility structure d. influence the group’s responsibility structure

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Outline the similarities and differences between coaching and mentoring, and describe a time in which you were either coached or mentored. Did it impact your behavior or performance? Was the experience positive or negative, and why?

2. Consider the example of Kylie and Ailene’s negotiation of meaning, given in Section 3.2 on the constructionist model of communication. Recall a communicative interaction in which you and someone else followed this process model. Where did your initial difference in meaning come from? Was it contextual or culturally based? Did you successfully resolve the issue? What did you learn from that experience?

3. Destructive communication takes many forms. Describe an interaction in which you witnessed or experienced one-upping, withdrawing, bottling negative emotions, lashing out unexpectedly, engaging in personal insult rather than addressing a prob- lem, or insistence on handling issues alone. What response did this behavior create in the interaction, and how did you or the other person react in turn? Given what you’ve learned in this chapter, what would you have done differently in that interac- tion, and what advice would you give others in a similar situation?

4. Effective listening is critical to generating consistently effective communication. What are some of the skills you currently use to facilitate your ability to listen? Looking over these skills, do you think you have a tendency to call on informational, critical, empathetic, or active listening skills? What could you do to be a more effec- tive listener in one of these areas?

Answers: b, c, b, b, c, c, b, d, c, c.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 119 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

Additional Resources Links

• Why the “Personal” Is So Important in Interpersonal Communications: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2014/12/10/why-the-per- sonal-is-important-in-interpersonal-communications/#2715e4857a0b74 7ce2635934

• Quantifying the Value of Soft Skills: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dinamedland/2015/03/30/ quantifying-the-value-of-soft-skills/#2715e4857a0b4a0dd2591bae

• Intercultural Sensitivity: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/jobs/looking-another-culture-in-the-eye. html?_r=0

Videos

• Talks to Help You Be a Better Listener: https://www.ted.com/playlists/92/listen_up

• The Listening Bias: https://www.ted.com/watch/ted-institute/ted-intel/ tony-salvador-the-listening-bias

• Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are: http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are

• Walk The Earth . . . My 17-Year Vow Of Silence: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_francis_walks_the_earth.html

• Margaret Heffernan: Why It’s Time to Forget the Pecking Order at Work: https://youtu.be/Vyn_xLrtZaY

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. Working together in any setting requires cooperation, coordination, and social interaction. The absence of traditional face-to-face interpersonal behaviors and social cues in a virtual setting make developing and applying interpersonal skills more—rather than less—important for effective group work or teamwork.

2. True. Most people forget about 50% of what they hear immediately after hearing it, accurately recall about 35% after 8 hours have passed, and recall roughly 20% the next day.

3. False. Unlike individual personality traits, which are considered relatively fixed and enduring, social skills are relatively trainable.

4. True. Senders and receivers both filter message content when they encode and decode messages. The fact that individuals can filter information very dif- ferently accounts for a great deal of information loss and distortion in the communication process.

5. False. Team members pool their KSAs, but not by mass exchange or information capture. Instead, they create a kind of information network known as trans- active memory, based on a general awareness of everyone’s task-relevant KSAs.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 120 8/19/16 9:37 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2014/12/10/why-the-personal-is-important-in-interpersonal-communications/#2715e4857a0b747ce2635934

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dinamedland/2015/03/30/quantifying-the-value-of-soft-skills/#2715e4857a0b4a0dd2591bae

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/jobs/looking-another-culture-in-the-eye.html?_r=0

https://www.ted.com/watch/ted-institute/ted-intel/tony-salvador-the-listening-bias

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_francis_walks_the_earth.html

https://youtu.be/Vyn_xLrtZaY

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Feedback represents any form of communication that gives us information about ourselves, our attitudes, our behavior, our performance, and how these affect the people with whom we interact.

2. Active listeners prioritize the pairing of externally perceivable positive listening behaviors (such as making eye contact, adopting an encouraging posture, and refer- encing statements made by the speaker) with positive cognitive listening practices (such as paraphrasing, summarizing, and asking clarifying questions).

3. Lateral communication refers to messages that travel between employees of equal or equivalent hierarchical rank (between team members, between same-level man- agers, or between union leaders and corporate managers).

4. All of these require interaction and knowledge sharing except engaging in self- evaluation, which may benefit from knowledge sharing before and after but primar- ily requires mindfulness and accurate perception.

5. Selective perception, emotional filtering, and spin tactics all result in some degree of information filtering. Mindfulness is a useful tool for mitigating our tendency toward nonproductive filtering.

6. The constructionist model describes communication as an interactive negotiation of meaning.

7. The terms hot and cool are used to differentiate between the receiver participation levels associated with each media format.

8. Certain elements increase our tendency to engage in either automatic or controlled processing. When we are interested in message contents or outcome, we tend to process the information more carefully using controlled processing. We are also more likely to engage in controlled processing when we are well informed of a com- munication’s context or subject matter.

9. Listening, nonverbal expression, and conflict resolution are critical competencies of the overt skill set. Perceptiveness is in the subtle skill set.

10. Communication networks reflect the pattern of group communication. The decen- tralized or centralized network structure follows the group’s leadership and respon- sibility structure, but these elements can be mutually influencing.

Key Terms automatic processing A relatively super- ficial consideration of information and evidence involving generalizations based on our past experiences and what we do or do not like, value, or believe.

behavior modeling A role-playing tactic that consists of a multistep process in which employees (a) observe real-time or filmed interactions in which participants demon- strate both positive and negative behaviors, (b) practice recognizing negative behaviors and engaging in positive behaviors by par- ticipating in role-playing exercises, and (c) experiment with using these new behav- ioral skills in real-world settings.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 121 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

centralized network A communication network in which the group leader controls communications and distributes informa- tion to other members, who have little or no exchange between them.

coaching A process that involves analyz- ing the performance of a team and each of its members, offering insight into problem areas, providing encouragement, and mak- ing suggestions for improvement at both the individual and team level.

communication channels The media through which messages travel.

communication noise Various distortional elements that affect communication clar- ity, such as information overload—includ- ing superfluous or misleading details—and communication difficulties stemming from functional, cultural, or viewpoint diversity.

communicative competence The ability to accurately understand and interpret verbal and nonverbal messages from others and to strategically control the messages we send in return.

constructionist model of communica- tion A communication model that describes communication as an interactive negotiation of meaning.

controlled processing A detailed consider- ation of information and evidence that relies on logic, critical evaluation, and the gather- ing of significant facts and data points.

cool media A form of media (web, social media, and face-to-face interactions) that requires significantly more active involve- ment and participation to communicate informative and expressive details.

decentralized network A communication network in which team members actively communicate with one another on all aspects of team performance and equally share all information.

decode The subjective process of interpret- ing and extrapolating the meaning of mes- sage content, associated expectations, and desired outcomes.

effective communication The clear and accurate exchange of information, concepts, and contextual meaning.

emotional filtering Unintentional filter- ing that occurs in response to our emotional outlook.

emotional intelligence (EI) The ability to identify and express emotions, under- stand emotions and their underlying causes, integrate emotions to facilitate thought, and regulate positive and negative emotions in others and ourselves.

encode The translation of our information- encompassing mental models into informa- tive and expressive language in the way we think most likely to effect our expectations and desired outcomes.

feedback Any form of communication that gives us information about ourselves, our attitudes, our behavior, our performance, and the effects these have on the people with whom we interact.

feedback messages The contextual responses both senders and receivers expe- rience during message transmission.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 122 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

feed-forward messages Signals that set the scene for upcoming message content before it is communicated.

hot media A form of media (lecture, film, radio/podcasts, and print) that provides a wealth of information stimulus that requires little participation and engages us via pas- sive involvement.

impression management The process by which we attempt to influence others’ per- ception of and reaction to our image.

interaction model of communication A communication model that describes com- munication as a cyclical, two-way process in which the sender and receiver alternate roles and interactively generate meaning via messages and contextual feedback.

interpersonal communication The pro- cess by which people communicate to inter- actively construct, negotiate, and manage meaning, influence each other, and develop and maintain relationships.

interpersonal skills A complex skill set encompassing KSAs and behaviors that enhance our ability to optimize the quality of interpersonal interactions. Also referred to as people skills.

language barriers Communication difficul- ties that arise from the inability to speak, interpret, or comprehend a shared language at a level sufficient for developing common understanding.

language codes Culturally agreed-upon dynamic systems of symbols that help us organize, understand, and generate meaning.

lean media Media with the lowest capabil- ity to convey multidimensional informa- tion, effect communication, and change understanding.

media richness The degree to which a channel can convey message complexity.

mentors Individuals committed to develop- ing a long-term personal relationship with individual team members whom they feel can especially benefit from their knowledge and experience.

message A symbolic representation of information in a condensed form.

practical filtering Intentional filtering of information toward a particular purpose or goal.

rich media Media with the highest capa- bility to convey multidimensional informa- tion, effect communication, and change understanding.

selective perception A process in which we selectively see, hear, or pay attention to (or alternatively do not see, hear, or pay attention to) specific aspects or character- istics of a communication exchange, based on our personal experience, background, expectations, motivations, or interests.

social insight The ability to meaningfully connect emotional and behavioral cues within a given context and understand why we or others feel or behave in a particular way.

social intelligence The ability to under- stand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during interpersonal situations and to act appropriately on that understanding.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 123 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 3 Summary and Resources

social sensitivity The ability to perceive the emotional and behavioral cues enacted by ourselves and others; this represents our awareness of what is going on during a social interaction.

social skill The ability to effectively read, comprehend, and manage social interactions.

transactive memory A collective system for encoding, storing, and retrieving distrib- uted information.

transmission model of communication A communication model that describes com- munication as a linear, one-directional pro- cess in which messages move from an active sender to a passive receiver.

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 124 8/19/16 9:37 AM