Dealing With Annoying Co-Workers
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 1/37
Chapter 5
Group Processes in Organizational Life
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 2/37
You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can't get them across, your ideas won't get you anywhere.
—Lee Iacocca
Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating:
Recognize the importance of work groups in organizational life. Understand that there are different types of work groups. Identify the problems involved in working within groups. Understand the potential advantages and bene�its of groups. Understand that groups operate as systems and what a systems orientation involves, including synergy, hierarchy, and group networks. Appreciate the need for team building in groups. Identify the various task roles, maintenance roles, and blocking roles that group members can perform. Understand guidelines for managing group con�lict. Identify the common phases groups go through when making decisions.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 3/37
Many of the most complex and challenging tasks in organizational life are performed by work groups. In fact, groups have become an inescapable part of organizational life. Even though it may seem that each department in an organization operates independently, each with its own goals and activities, different departments share the performance of larger organizational activities and need to be carefully coordinated to achieve organizational goals.
Let's look at an example. A university is comprised of academic departments, each of which has domain over a particular subject, such as biology, philosophy, or computer science. However, these academic departments are linked to one another within a larger academic curriculum, providing students with the courses they need to take to graduate. The courses must in turn be designed to meet the educational needs of students pursuing different major �ields of study. The courses must also be scheduled at times when students can take them. And of course, enough courses must be offered to meet the needs of the broad student body. As you can see, the academic departments of a university must coordinate their activities to meet larger organizational needs. However, coordinating the efforts of different groups can be a major challenge in organizational life, one that demands effective leadership and intergroup coordination and communication.
This chapter will examine the intricate nature of group work in organization life. We will discuss the many challenges to working effectively in groups, as well as look at team building and teamwork, particularly within the context of group decision making. Along the way we will look at group processes and the roles needed for making good group decisions and reaching important organizational outcomes. We will also examine key factors that in�luence group outcomes and intergroup relations. The chapter ends with a case study that illustrates the effective use of communication processes and procedures in organizational groups. Let's get started by discussing the various types of groups operating in organizations.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 4/37
5.1 Types of Groups in Organizations
Many different types of groups operate in organizations, including
advisory and governance boards, task forces, departments or divisions, committees, and teams or work groups.
The organizational groups in the preceding list are task oriented, meaning they are formed to accomplish a certain task or tasks. Other organizational groups, such as lunch groups, clubs, and interest groups, are socially oriented groups, formed to address a social need. Some organizational groups are formally designated within organizational structures; these are formal groups, such as departments and advisory boards. Other organizational groups, such as lunch groups, are informal groups, meaning they are not designated within organizational structures.
Still other groups develop to meet speci�ic new goals; these are emergent groups, such as certain special-issue committees and task- oriented groups. No matter whether groups are task oriented or socially oriented, or whether they are formal, informal, or emergent groups, they all have the same basic communication demands. Group members need to share relevant information, coordinate their efforts, and work together to achieve group goals. As we'll see in the next section, this is not always an easy task.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 5/37
5.2 Challenges to Working in Groups
Organizations depend on groups because of the unique expertise and insights that group members can provide when they share information, coordinate efforts, and work together to solve problems. The ugly truth, however, is that people don't always play nicely in groups, and groups often fail to achieve their goals. Sometimes group members don't get along, fail to take group goals and processes seriously, and sometimes even sabotage group activities. Many organizational groups are less than effective, waste the time of organizational participants, and make the problems faced in organizations worse instead of better. As we will discuss in this chapter, strategic organizational communication is imperative to help overcome these problems, since effective communication plays a primary role in achieving group goals.
As noted, one challenge that limits the effectiveness of groups is that group members may not always take their group responsibilities seriously. Have you ever worked on a class project where a group of students were supposed to work together as a team? More often than not, one or more team members does not take the group task as seriously as the other members do. Those team members do not put in as much effort; they drag down the productivity of the group, frustrate the harder-working group members, and decrease the effectiveness of the team.
Group members not taking their responsibilities seriously enough is just one problem facing groups. Sometimes group members show up late for group meetings or fail to show up at all. They may also be unprepared to contribute meaningfully to group tasks. Even worse, they may fail to follow through with assigned responsibilities. And all too often, group members do not cooperate with one another. They don't share relevant information when their expertise and insights are needed and they don't pitch in willingly when their help is called upon. any of these recalcitrant organizational participants don't seem to recognize the importance of working effectively in groups to their own personal organizational success and to the greater success of the organization.
Another problem that regularly occurs in the context of group work is that organizational participants often do not enjoy working in groups. They don't like being in the group, and they don't seem to enjoy working with other group members. Have you ever heard someone complain about having to participate in "one more boring meeting"? (I may have uttered that complaint myself once or twice!) In fact, there is a stigma, or negative connotation, concerning group work in many organizations. Committees and group meetings are often thought of as a waste of time, as being boring, bureaucratic, time consuming, and even dehumanizing. Many people would prefer to just do the job themselves rather than have to coordinate efforts and work with others. However, much of the dissatisfaction and negative perceptions that organizational participants have with working in groups are related to communication problems within groups and to the rigid and unimaginative ways that many groups are operated as opposed to inherent problems with group work. Perhaps groups can
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 6/37
be designed and implemented differently to leverage the interactive, creative, and problem-solving advantages to working in groups. Perhaps organization members need to learn how to communicate effectively within groups. In this chapter we will examine some creative strategies for utilizing groups effectively in organizational life and outline some of the strategic group communication skills and competencies that organizational participants can use to promote group success.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 7/37
How do the groups you belong to add value to the organizations they are a part of?
5.3 The Value of Groups in Organizational Life
Let's look at some of the ways in which groups are used most effectively in organizations.
To Address Important, Complex, and Challenging Problems
As we noted, group work provides organizations with certain advantages and opportunities for utilizing the expertise of people who work together to handle organizational tasks and issues. Unfortunately, groups are not always used wisely to achieve important goals. Too often, work groups are provided with limited challenges and responsibility, which wastes the unique talents and intelligence of group members. For example, some work groups have unclear goals, poorly speci�ied procedures, and limited opportunities for collaboration between members. Groups are best suited for addressing important, complex, and challenging problems that would be dif�icult for any one person, no matter how talented the person is, to handle alone.
For example, groups are well suited for making dif�icult and far-ranging decisions that have signi�icant implications for organizations. That is why advisory boards and governance committees are often formed to conduct challenging long-range planning activities that chart the future goals and
activities of organizations within complex and competitive markets. Members of these groups share insights into the different constraints and opportunities that may be facing their organizations so responsive decisions can be made for meeting these constraints and opportunities. Active deliberations are needed between group members to foster creative decision making to chart new courses of action and policy for organizations.
To Promote Responsible and Ethical Decision Making
Groups are also particularly well suited for promoting responsible and ethical organizational decision making. Ideally, in such decision- making groups, the different members represent the unique perspectives of key constituents so that decisions can be made that are
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 8/37
responsive to the needs of these different stakeholders. For example, ethics committees comprised of health care providers, patients, advocates, and ethicists are used increasingly by health care systems to help make responsible decisions about the use of limited health resources, such as decisions made about which candidates should get priority for receiving organ donations. Similarly, government agencies often utilize community review boards comprised of residents, business leaders, clergy, and community leaders to help guide responsible decision making about the best use of public resources, such as decisions about construction sites and speci�ications, land use, delivery and distribution of social services, and environmental protection. Group members can help represent the needs of different community members in making these important public welfare decisions. However, these group members must be given the opportunity to voice their perspectives through active group communication to guide effective decision making.
To Brainstorm
Groups are also particularly well suited for brainstorming discussions, where members are encouraged to generate novel ideas and suggestions concerning complex issues. It is amazing how many creative ideas can be generated in a brainstorming session. There is something unique and valuable that occurs during group deliberations that can promote creative solutions. In group discussions, member comments often stimulate other members to conceptualize issues in new ways. Group interactions often facilitate contributions of new ideas and responses to addressing problems. However, for brainstorming groups to be effective, members need to be actively encouraged to share their ideas. Once the novel ideas are generated in brainstorming sessions, the ideas need to be summarized, and decisions need to be made about which are the best ideas and how they can be applied to address organizational issues.
Group communication theorist Ernest Bormann (1988) described the process of fantasy chaining that occurs within groups, and this process can be connected to brainstorming for ideas. Bormann was especially interested in the way human beings "dramatize" about the world, including our impulse, for example, to create "heroes" and "villains." For instance, a group might decide that their boss is like Benito Mussolini, and then embellish this idea with all kinds of "Mussolini-like" stories and jokes as they interact. Such "fantasy themes," he argued, help us understand how the group thinks, what it values, and how it sees the world; and the sharing of these fantasies among group members is what Bormann referred to as "fantasy chaining." Bormann believed that one way to know that a group fantasy is really "chaining" is to look for a heightened sense of energy and excitement in the group as each group member adds another layer or piece to the dramatization. His point was that fantasy themes are group constructions shared by group members. Even though fantasy theme analysis was not designed as a guide for how groups should brainstorm, to the extent that brainstorming involves this type of energy and creativity, Bormann's sense of group dynamics is relevant.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-… 9/37
What are some of the bene�its you have experienced that have been produced by group brainstorming sessions?
For example, in a small group discussion one person might start with a fantasy of "group meeting as TV game show" and as the self-proclaimed "host" of the show, playfully pit one member of the group against another in a "lighting round" to see who can come up with the most ideas in 60 seconds and "win the grand prize." Hearing that, other members might chime in as the super-nerdy contestant, or the super-energetic contestant, and in the process, ideas would be generated from these group fantasies. Still other members of the group might act as the game show "judges," perhaps pointing out (probably tongue-in-cheek) that in this game, "the decision of the judges is �inal." In other words, fantasy themes can be embellished in a way that promotes and re�lects creativity. Such a process can stimulate other group members to think of novel new ideas, which, in turn, often stimulate other new ideas in an emergent chain of innovative thinking. This is why it is a good idea to use work group discussions to address complex and challenging issues that demand creative solutions.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 10/37
5.4 Groups as Social Systems: Systems Theory
Systems theory is a powerful and useful descriptive framework for understanding the unique dynamics of group communication in organizational life. According to systems theory, groups can be seen as social systems that are comprised of interdependent, interactive components (i.e., group members) who work together to achieve important system goals. The overall process by which these goals are attained is known as system transformation. In system transformation processes, raw inputs into the systems, such as complex organization issues and challenges to which the work group is mandated to respond, are transformed, through careful examination and deliberation, into outputs such as new strategies, policies, and solutions to address the organizational problems that were assigned to the group to solve.
Inputs involve anything that group members "bring to the table." That would include the issues that they have to address, the information that they have access to, and the raw materials—including money, personnel, and technology—that they have available to them. The transformation process involves the various problem-solving activities of the group—that is, the way in which tasks are undertaken and communication occurs. In other words, how will they work with these issues, given the resources that they have? The outputs are the actual decisions made by the group. With suf�icient inputs and a smart approach to transformation, groups can arrive at good solutions. But much depends on the quality of the inputs and the ability to communicate effectively about them; good outputs are dependent on good inputs, if you will. Figure 5.1 presents an illustration of this process. Let's look more closely at some systems theory concepts.
Figure 5.1: The System Transformation Model
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 11/37
Synergy and Nonsummativity
According to systems theory, each component within a social system must work with other system components to achieve system goals. As such, each system component is interdependent with other components. In terms of work groups, this means that group members (who are key system components) must work together cooperatively to transform inputs into desired outputs. Good group communication enables the cooperation and coordination among group members needed to accomplish system transformation (handling complex organizational tasks). The more effectively group members are able to cooperate and coordinate with one another, the more effective and ef�icient they are, achieving extra energy and power, known as synergy. Synergy is one of the great advantages of social organization since it enables people who work together to achieve more than they could individually.
Synergistic activities in organizations result in better outcomes. The systems principle of nonsummativity is another way to express this idea; it suggests that in effective social systems, group output can often be more than just the combination of what could be accomplished by all the different group members independently. Added value is achieved through cooperation that makes the whole more than the sum of its parts. For example, let's say that �ive automotive workers can each build one component of an automobile in an hour alone. However, by working together, they can build far more than �ive components, and the quality of the components they build together will be better than the quality of the components built by each worker alone. Through cooperation they can help each other, provide feedback about the tasks they need to conduct, re�ine their activities, and accomplish much more together than they could accomplish individually.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 12/37
Hierarchy
Another systems theory concept that is relevant to understanding the work of groups in organizational life is the principle of hierarchy, which suggests that there are multiple levels to social organization. All systems are comprised of smaller subsystems and operate within larger suprasystems. The same system transformation process of using communication to transform raw inputs into valued outputs operates at all levels of the system hierarchy, within systems, subsystems, and suprasystems. In fact, all levels of the systems hierarchy work together. The smaller level of social systems (subsystems) provides important outputs for the larger system level, and the system level, in turn, provides needed outputs for the suprasystem.
For example, let's say a production department within a manufacturing company is designated as the system level for our analysis. This system depends on the coordination of group members (subsystems) to take raw materials (inputs) and turn them into �inished products (outputs) for the organization (system transformation). Each of the group members is a component of the system. However, they are each also subsystems that have speci�ic jobs they do for the organization. To accomplish their jobs, they must transform different inputs into outputs that are then used within the production department (system) to accomplish their production activities. The production department also resides within a larger organizational entity, such as the manufacturing division of the company. There are probably several departments within the manufacturing division in addition to the production department, such as the materials acquisition department, the warehousing department, and the quality control department. All of these departments must work together as a suprasystem to accomplish organizational goals.
This hierarchical analysis enables us to not only understand the intricate microscopic activities performed by the different components (subsystems) of workgroups (systems) but also enables us to see how everything �its together on a larger macroscopic level. The activities of the workgroup (the system) contribute to the activities of the larger organizational division (the suprasystem). By seeing both the small picture and the big picture of social organization, we can examine the effectiveness of organizing activities and identify areas where greater coordination may be needed to increase the quality of organizational outcomes.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 13/37
5.5 Group Networks
Communication networks are active patterns of communication within and between groups. These active patterns of interaction between group members and within organizations can be mapped using a research technique known as network analysis. With network analysis, we can easily see which group members are actively communicating with each other both within and between groups. Network analysis is the communication equivalent of a �inancial audit. In a �inancial audit, the organization tracks where all the money goes. With network analysis, the organization tracks all of its messages. In network analysis, employees will usually be asked how often they use the telephone, how many emails they send and receive each day, who they talk to face-to-face, what subjects they communicate about, and so on. When the responses from individual employees are tallied, it gives the organization an overall picture of communication patterns: who talks to whom, by what means, how often, and regarding what subjects. Network analysis data can reveal that patterns of interaction may be quite different from the planned patterns for communication that are dictated by the formal organizational hierarchy, usually illustrated by organizational charts.
Personal Networks
Each group member has his or her own personal network of individuals with whom he or she communicates regularly. Personal networks exert a great deal of in�luence over participants since they are a primary source of information for network members. Some personal networks are very exclusive and do not interact very often with other personal networks. These exclusive networks are often known as cliques. It is not uncommon for different cliques to compete for in�luence within groups and within the larger organization. By tracking the exchange of information across personal networks, we can see how information disseminates across and between groups in organizations. Think about your own personal networks within the organizations that you participate in. Who do you communicate with most often? What kinds of information do you share with these individuals? How valuable and trustworthy is the information that you get from these network partners? How do you use the information you get?
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 14/37
Who are the people who make up your personal network in the organizations you are a member of?
Leadership Roles
Network analysis also often helps us identify the different roles that group members perform by showing us who they communicate with and how this communication in�luences group process. Group roles are patterns of communication that group members develop over time with other members. These communication patterns serve different functions for groups and become expectations for group member behavior (Benne & Sheats, 1948).
For example, perhaps the most obvious group roles within groups are leadership roles. As we discussed in Chapter 1, there are both formal and informal leaders. Formally designated leaders often hold titles such as managers, group leaders, supervisors, division heads, or department chairs. These formal leaders are assigned responsibilities for running group meetings, assigning group tasks, and evaluating
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 15/37
Why is it important that a team such as the one pictured have a formal and informal leader?
group performance. However, unless these formally designated leaders establish strong and in�luential networks of communication with other group members, they will not be effective leaders. Being a true leader means that you are able to in�luence the activities of other group members, and that in�luence is achieved through communication.
As we discussed in Chapter 1, often, the most in�luential members of groups are informal leaders who develop active and in�luential networks of communication with other group members. These informal leaders typically emerge due to the strength of their personalities, communication skills, expertise, or other qualities that encourage other members to heed their advice and follow their lead. Formally designated leaders can also serve as informal leaders when they don't just hold the formal title of leader but actually demonstrate leadership behaviors. However, when the formally designated leader does not establish effective lines of communication within the group, informal leaders often emerge to �ill the leadership void.
Sometimes there is competition between formally designated leaders and emergent informal leaders for control of the group. Although formal leaders have legitimate power within the group, since they supervise group members and may be able to reward or penalize member behavior, informal leaders often have expert power and social power with other group members, who may respect the knowledge of informal leaders or admire them in some way. The best leaders try to nurture all three sources of power within the group (legitimate, expert, and social power).
Support Roles
In addition to leadership roles in work groups, a number of support roles exist:
Individuals who support the leader and enforce the leader's decisions are referred to as lieutenants to the leader. Often there are individuals who connect different group members or who connect one group to another through the network of personal relationships. These individuals perform liaison roles for their groups. In some groups there are individuals who perform gatekeeper roles by providing or limiting access to different members of the group, particularly to leaders.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 16/37
Some group members are loners and don't communicate well with other members. These individuals are known as isolates. Problems can arise if the formally designated leader is an isolate, because good leaders need to communicate actively with other group members.
Those group members who have active contact with other members establish strong network ties with these individuals. Individuals who do not have much contact with one another have weaker network ties. It is much easier to elicit cooperation between the individuals we have strong ties with because we are familiar with one another, have had opportunities to develop interpersonal relationships, and often have a good deal in common. It is more dif�icult to elicit cooperation with our weaker ties because these individuals have less experience and connection with us and often see things differently than we do.
Interestingly, well-known sociologist Mark Granovetter (1973) suggested in his theory of weak ties that group members are likely to gain more useful information from interacting with their weak ties than they will from interacting with their strong ties. Why? Because strong ties are very similar to one another and share many of the same experiences and ideas. Weak ties are typically quite different from one another and therefore often have unique perspectives on organizational life. Unfortunately, it takes more effort for organizational members to connect with and communicate with weak ties since these weak ties are often in different parts of the organization and may communicate quite differently than they do. However, it is worth the effort to nurture connections with weak ties to gather insightful information from different perspectives to guide far-reaching organizational decisions.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 17/37
Have you ever participated in a team- building activity such as this ropes course? Was it effective? Why or why not?
5.6 Building Effective Work Teams
As mentioned previously, work groups are typically composed of interdependent individuals who bring unique ideas and talents to the group process. The best work groups tap into these different talents by establishing a strong spirit of connection and cooperation among group members. This spirit of cooperation is known as teamwork. As we have discussed, working as a team enables group members to demonstrate synergy and achieve nonsummative outcomes. Yet just calling a group a team does not mean that group members actually work as a team. Teamwork depends on good communication among group members to allow information sharing, coordination, and problem solving.
Too often, organizational groups overlook the importance of teamwork. It is assumed that group members will be willing and able to coordinate their efforts within these groups. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. It is therefore a good idea to establish team- building activities in work groups. Team-building begins with encouraging group members to get to know one another. They should learn about the unique skills, experiences, and expertise each member brings to the group process, particularly with reference to the speci�ic tasks and issues the group is confronting. Ideally, there should be opportunities for group members to bond with one another, develop cooperative relationships, and learn how to work together effectively.
Another critical component to team-building is to help group members understand the goals of the work group and the nature of the speci�ic organizational challenges the group is charged with addressing. Too often in work groups, the goals of the group are poorly de�ined, and group members may not agree with, or even understand, what they are supposed to accomplish within the group. Group members need a clear understanding of
their group responsibilities and goals, as well as in-depth background information about the issues they are supposed to address. The better oriented the group members are to the tasks of the group, the more effectively they can focus together on these issues.
Group members also need to learn how to best work together as a team. There is no one best way for teams to achieve their goals; rather, there are many options
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 18/37
American managers have for some time followed their Japanese counterparts in emphasizing teamwork and worker participation in decision- making. Studies have shown that this has increased performance, innovation, and ef�iciency.
Increased Teamwork and Worker Par�cipa�on
for achieving group goals. Group members therefore need to develop their own best strategies for collaboration and problem solving. Developing a history of working together effectively can help groups develop a sense of teamwork, so it is a good idea to preserve as much consistency and continuity as possible among group members. It is also a good idea to preserve information about what has worked well in groups in the past so these effective processes can be used as a foundation to build on for the future.
Leadership plays a large role in building effective teams. Good leaders are instrumental in facilitating effective group interactions, encouraging active participation among group members, and promoting sharing of relevant information within the group. Effective group leaders also manage group con�lict to promote problem solving and to generate creative solutions. The best group leaders also help to establish a supportive group climate where group members feel comfortable sharing information and working together to address complex issues. Group climate develops over time as a general emotional tone for group communication. Supportive group climates encourage group participation and cooperation. The more supportive communication is within the group, the more likely the group is to develop a supportive communication climate.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 19/37
5.7 Task and Maintenance Functions
As was the case with interpersonal interaction, group communication has both task and relational dimensions. In the group communication literature, this is referred to as task and maintenance functions. Task communication functions are geared toward accomplishing the primary assigned activities of the group. On the other hand, maintenance communication functions are geared toward preserving emotional stability and personal satisfaction within the group. Task and maintenance functions are interrelated. For example, the effective performance of task activities typically in�luences the way group members feel about the group and group membership. Similarly, the way that group members feel about one another and about membership in the group will in�luence their commitment to work together on accomplishing group tasks. It is important to maintain commitment to both task and maintenance functions in organizational life.
Speci�ic group roles develop to foster both task accomplishment and the maintenance of interpersonal relationships within work groups. Typical task roles include the following:
Initiators: group members who bring new ideas to the group concerning the accomplishment of group tasks Information seekers: group members who gather relevant information to guide group task activities Opinion seekers: group members who encourage other group members to share their perspectives on group task activities Information givers: group members who provide facts and evidence to guide group task activities Opinion givers: group members who share their personal opinions about group task activities Elaborators: group members who explain and give examples to increase group understanding about task activities Coordinators: group members who summarize and clarify the relationships between different ideas and courses of action to accomplish task activities Energizers: group members who stimulate the group to action to accomplish task activities Procedural technicians: group members who handle basic tasks for the group, such as setting up meetings, passing out materials, or recording group votes Recorders: group members who maintain a record of group process by taking notes and preparing minutes for meetings
While these task roles help the group to accomplish its formal activities, there is also a need for group roles that maintain effective group member relations. Typical maintenance roles include:
Encouragers: group members who promote solidarity within the group by agreeing with, praising, and accepting the points of view of other members
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 20/37
What task and maintenance roles do you play in the groups you are a part of?
Harmonizers: group members who relieve group tension and attempt to reconcile disagreements between group members Compromisers: group members who try to resolve con�licts they participate in by �inding common ground with other con�licting parties Gatekeepers: group members who encourage interaction between other group members and who facilitate group participation Standard-setters: group members who establish and enforce rules for acceptable behavior within the group Observers: group members who record group process and provide feedback about group performance Summarizers: group members who preserve and describe group progress and direction Reality-testers: group members who compare group performance to external standards
Group members who play these task and maintenance roles perform important functions for the group, helping the group to accomplish its goals and to maintain harmonious relations among members. However, there are often a number of nonfunctional or blocking roles that group members exhibit in groups that detract from group performance. These dysfunctional blocking roles include the following:
Aggressors: group members who attack group members, denigrate group activities, and detract from the accomplishment of task activities Blockers: group members who obstruct the accomplishment of group tasks Recognition-seekers: group members who call attention to themselves rather than focusing on group activities Self-confessors: group members who bring up personal, and often irrelevant, information and disclosures to the group Playboys/playgirls: group members who show a lack of interest in group process and distract others from group activities Dominators: group members who try to assert authority and control over other group members Help-seekers: group members who seek sympathy and support from other group members by focusing on their own personal problems Special-interest pleaders: group members who cloak their own special interests by invoking the perspectives of other constituents
Group members can perform many different group roles, but often they develop their own unique role patterns. Consider the kinds of roles that you perform in the different groups that you participate in. Do you typically perform task roles, maintenance roles, or blocking
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 21/37
Why is team building so important to a company like Apple?
roles? How does your performance of these group roles in�luence group performance and group member satisfaction?
Organizations in Action: Apple Takes a Bite Out of Team Building
Personal computing is a lot more user friendly than it was 30 years ago, and the folks at Apple Corporation have played a signi�icant role in making computers easier and more fun. Useful features of computers that we now take for granted—for example, the concept of using a "mouse" to select from drop-down menus rather than typing in a series of random keystrokes—were revolutionary at the time and were primarily due to the team that created the original Macintosh computer in the early 1980s. Did the way Apple approached this project provide lessons for organizations interested in innovation and team building? The answer is an emphatic "yes."
Andy Herzfeld, a member of the original Macintosh team, has written about the process Apple used to get the best out of its Macintosh work group. To begin with, the group had a clear and passionate vision. Herzfeld says that the original Mac was designed by a small team who worked long and hard hours with a "passionate, almost messianic fervor," shaped by their leader, Steve Jobs. Herzfeld adds that "the excitement that we felt during its creation shines through in the �inished product."
In addition, the Mac team was encouraged to work together without fear of criticism or excessive bureaucracy. Although Herzfeld believes that then-CEO Steve Jobs had some "autocratic tendencies," the Mac team, in Herzfeld's view, "was surprisingly egalitarian." Unlike other parts of Apple that were becoming more conservative and bureaucratic as the company grew, Herzfeld remembers that the early Mac team avoided "formal structure and hierarchy, in favor of a �lat meritocracy
with minimal managerial oversight, like the band of revolutionaries we aspired to be." And, Herzfeld notes, CEO Jobs actively encouraged the group's "rebel" spirit; in fact, in 1983, he �lew an actual skull-and-crossbones pirate �lag over the team's facilities as a visual symbol of their identity.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 22/37
Apple also realized that groups have both "task" and "social" needs. Herzfeld notes that the Mac team tried to address both. He states, "You might think that impossible schedules and uncompromising perfectionism would lead to an oppressive work environment, but most of the time, the ambiance of the Mac team was spontaneous, enthusiastic and irreverent. Jef Raskin [Herzfeld's direct supervisor] had a playful management style, encouraging a workplace teeming with toys and semi-organized games. . . . Most of the early team members were around the same age, in our mid-twenties, and we enjoyed each other's company. We increasingly hung out together as the project demanded ever greater chunks of our time, abandoning the distinction between work and play. Despite the incessant pressure, we loved what we were doing."
Finally, and certainly worth noting, although the synergy of the group was emphasized—for example, Jobs took the entire team to an art exhibition to encourage them to think of themselves as artists—inside the front casing of every Mac, unseen to the user, are the signatures of every member of the Mac team. Even though it was a group project, every individual was formally acknowledged for their contributions.
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. What type of "group fantasy" did the Mac team seem to embrace? 2. All the members of the Mac team were bright and gifted people who had state-of-the-art knowledge about computers. Could such an independent work team succeed if the group were comprised of less talented members?
3. In a successful group, how does an organization strike a balance between "task" needs and "social" needs? How was that balance dealt with by the Apple team?
Source:
Hertzfeld, A. (n.d.). The Macintosh spirit. Retrieved from http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py? project=Macintosh&story=The_Macintosh_Spirit.txt (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py? project=Macintosh&story=The_Macintosh_Spirit.txt)
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 23/37
5.8 Managing Group Con�lict
In Chapter 4 we discussed the importance of con�lict-management skills in the context of interpersonal relationships. In this chapter, we'll look at some guidelines for managing con�lict that apply more speci�ically to groups.
Con�lict is an inevitable part of group processes due to the inherent differences in opinion, experience, and orientation of group members, who must reconcile their differences to make group decisions. Poorly handled group con�licts can seriously impede group performance and polarize group members. However, well-handled group con�licts that focus on examining important issues and sharing information can provide many bene�its that help work groups achieve their goals. Con�licts that are managed well typically lead to informed group decisions. Arguing about the merits of different courses of action is a healthy process that enables group members to deliberate the merits of different options when making dif�icult and far-reaching decisions. Not only does well-managed con�lict generally enhance the decision-making performance of groups, it can also improve member satisfaction within groups. Developing effective strategies for working through con�licts, exploring different ideas, and making informed decisions can help build camaraderie and member pride in the effectiveness of group processes.
Guidelines for Managing Group Con�lict
The guidelines for managing group con�lict are much like those we established for managing interpersonal con�lict:
1. Encourage group members to maintain open minds toward other points of view. Too often in group con�lict, participants are concerned only with arguing their own perspectives and do not pay attention to the ideas presented by others. If con�licting group members do not hear and understand the perspectives of other group members, there is little chance for compromise and progress. Paying attention to the other person's position demonstrates respect and commitment to solving problems. And as we have already discussed, following the norm of reciprocity, others will be more interested in hearing your position if you pay attention to their point of view.
2. Promote fair �ighting in group con�licts. Fair �ighting involves arguing the issues at hand rather than degenerating into hostile personal attacks on con�licting parties. Arguing the issues at hand is known as ideational con�lict, which focuses on the major topics of concern. On the other hand, personal con�lict tends to focus on the personalities of the con�licting group members. Emphasizing ideational con�lict and minimizing personal con�lict is best for achieving group goals as it enables group members to examine the pertinent issues of concern to the group. It also minimizes hurt feelings and hostility within the group.
3. Encourage group members to look for productive areas of compromise between their own positions and the positions expressed by others.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 24/37
Metacommunication
Sometimes, despite our best efforts, con�licts become hostile and intractable. Group members will not agree to �ight fairly, and the con�licts escalate to increasingly higher levels of hostility. In these cases, it is often helpful to initiate metacommunication, which is the process of communicating about the manner in which group members communicate. (Basically, metacommunication refers to talking about our patterns of communication.) Metacommunication is often a good way to point out when communication may be getting too hostile as well as suggest the adoption of fair-�ighting group communication strategies. In particularly hostile con�lict situations, it is wise to step back from the con�lict temporarily to talk about the way group members are communicating. For example, a group leader might say, "We seem to be interrupting each other quite a bit—maybe we need to listen to each other a bit more before offering an opinion. Or, if there was open con�lict in the group, one con�licting partner might say something like, "I think our feelings may be getting in the way. Let's try to do more careful, objective analysis of the data." Such metacommunicative messages can help reframe the con�lict and encourage the adoption of ethical con�lict communication behaviors.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 25/37
5.9 Decision Making in Groups
One of the most important functions that groups perform in organizational life is to help make complex and challenging decisions. Some decisions are best suited to individuals, such as personal decisions, decisions that will affect very few people, and decisions about small, mundane issues. It is a waste of time to saddle work groups with these small-focus decision- making tasks. However, as we discussed earlier, work groups are particularly well suited for handling complicated and far-reaching decisions, such as decisions about issues that will affect many different stakeholders, issues that demand a great deal of knowledge and specialized expertise, issues that have long- term implications for the organization, and issues that demand complex solutions that will take many steps to accomplish.
Effective group decision making depends on strong leadership and effective group communication. For well over a century, group theorists have identi�ied several key communication phases to effective decision making. Invariably, these group decision-making models start with identifying the task, gathering information, weighing alternative solutions, and then selecting the best plan of action as well as �iguring out how to implement it. For example, communication scholar B. Aubrey Fisher (1970) describes four primary communication phases that lead to effective decision making in groups (see Figure 5.2):
Orientation: In this phase, group members learn about the key issues they need to make decisions about. This includes gathering background information about the issues, seeking input from those who may be affected by the decision, seeking expert input about the issues, and clarifying the scope of the decisions the group is charged to make. Con�lict: In this phase, group members actively deliberate about the best solutions to the problems under examination, argue about the merits of different plans of action, and critically evaluate the strength of different decisions that group members suggest. Emergence: In this phase, the best solutions to the issues under consideration rise to the top, are agreed on by the preponderance of group members, and are clearly stated and recorded for implementation. Reinforcement: In this phase, the speci�ic activities needed to implement the decisions the group has made are clari�ied, responsibilities for implementing these decisions are assigned to speci�ic individuals or groups, and strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of the implemented decisions are developed.
Figure 5.2: The Four Phases of Effective Decision Making
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 26/37
Organiza�onal Culture: Rules and Conformity
For example, a group might be asked to formulate new plans for lowering energy costs at corporate headquarters. In the orientation phase, the group would need to gather all kinds of data about the �irm's energy consumption, different available technologies, and so on. Then, in the con�lict phase, they would need to take a hard look at the various options—in this case, for instance, whether solar energy is feasible, the pros and cons of geothermal heating, what architectural changes would be most effective, and the like. In the emergence phase, the group would agree on the speci�ics of the plan, and in the reinforcement phase, they'd �igure out a way to make it actually happen, including how any new energy plan would be implemented and its results evaluated.
Strong group leaders help to move the decision-making group through these different phases of effective decision making. Good leaders make sure that group members clearly understand the issues they are charged with making decisions about and have all the relevant information about the issues of concern so that they can make informed decisions (the orientation phase). If group members don't have enough background knowledge among themselves to make informed decisions, the leader solicits information from other expert sources, including input from community representatives who may be affected by the decisions.
Once suf�icient background information is collected, good leaders encourage active deliberation about the issues to elicit the opinions and suggestions of different members (the con�lict phase). Sometimes this may involve brainstorming about different courses of action. Other times this may involve active con�lict and argumentation about the merits of different decisions.
Leaders must be careful to avoid hasty decisions or groupthink (Janis, 1982). In groupthink, members fail to critically evaluate the best options for solving a problem. Instead, they go along with decisions they assume (often incorrectly) the leader and other members favor because they don't want to rock the boat and challenge these other members.
Sometimes leaders may need to play the devil's advocate role, in which they champion positions they may not even agree with just to make sure that group members examine important alternative approaches to important decisions. Decision-making groups need to fully explore key perspectives about the issues under consideration.
After careful deliberation about the issues and potential solutions to problems, good leaders will help the group clearly identify the best solutions (the emergence phase). Sometimes this may involve seeking consensus. If consensus can't be easily reached, often group decisions are made based on majority rule, where most members agree on a course of action. Leaders make sure that the
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 27/37
Many organizations are intolerant of ideas and viewpoints that don't �it into their culture. The result in some cases is a kind of "group-think" or conformity that can severely undermine an organization's effectiveness. Watch this video and then read "Group Decision Making art NASA" before answering the critical thinking questions in that box.
decisions reached are recorded clearly and fully so they can be effectively implemented.
Good leaders then assign speci�ic responsibility to different individuals and groups for implementing the best decisions made by the group (the reinforcement phase). They identify exactly what has to be done to put the best decisions into action, who needs to do what, and when and how the decisions will be put into effect. This may involve developing new policies, practices, or regulations. Good leaders also establish criteria and strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of implemented decisions to determine whether the decisions made are effective or if they need to be re�ined.
Organizations in Action: Group Decision Making at NASA
One of the most widely discussed and most tragic situations connected to group decision making involved the ill-fated �light of the space shuttle Challenger. On January 28, 1986, Challenger was launched amid internal controversy about whether the launch should take place. Some engineers from Morton-Thiokol, the company that designed and built the O-rings on the Challenger's engines, believed that the weather on the date of the launch was too cold for the O-rings to function properly. But under pressure from NASA, and pressure from within Thiokol, the launch went ahead. Challenger exploded shortly after launch, with all seven astronauts perishing— and the failure of the O-rings to seal properly seems to have been the main cause of the disaster.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 28/37
What team failures led to the Challenger disaster?
As indicated in this chapter, group members can face strong pressure to conform. Irving Janis, who coined the term groupthink, believes that groupthink has several symptoms, many of which were relevant to the Challenger situation. One of them, the illusion of invulnerability, creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. In the case of the Challenger, NASA had completed 19 successive launches without a failure, and there was a sense of denial that anything bad could happen.
Additionally, there was direct pressure on dissenters—another groupthink symptom. The head of Thiokol was told to "take off his engineer's hat and put on his management hat," suggesting that he was too timid to make a decisive call and should have the guts to approve the launch despite the company's technical reservations.
There was also some degree of self-censorship. Those at Thiokol who believed they were in the minority started to clam up because they felt they weren't being good "team players."
Finally, there were stereotyped views of out-groups. The news media had played up the fact that this Challenger launch had faced several delays already. NASA of�icials tended to view this news coverage as overly critical and tended to see reporters as part of the problem. At one point, NASA itself seemed to view its Thiokol partners as a kind of out-group. Thiokol representatives recommended not launching until the outside air temperature reached 53° F, but the forecast for Florida did not show temperatures reaching that baseline for several days. NASA responded with pressure on Thiokol to change their decision. One of NASA's managers, Lawrence Mulloy, reacted to Thiokol's initial negative recommendation by asking, "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?"
For the astronauts aboard the Challenger that day, the consequences of groupthink were tragic.
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. Why might groups be sometimes more tempted to make more "risky" decisions than individuals in an organization? 2. As discussed in this chapter, what is the role of a "devil's advocate"? Why do you think many organizations do not assign someone to this role?
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 29/37
3. Are there other real-world situations where groupthink has come into play? Did our decision to invade Iraq, for example, re�lect any of the symptoms of groupthink?
Sources:
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. New York: Houghton Mif�lin.
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and �iascoes (2nd ed.). New York: Houghton Mif�lin.
Forrest, J. (2005, October 7). The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: A failure in decision support system and human factors management. Originally prepared November 26, 1996. Retrieved from http://dssresources.com/cases/spaceshuttlechallenger/index.html (http://dssresources.com/cases/spaceshuttlechallenger/index.html)
Case Study: Team Spirit?
Susie was elected as the incoming president of her college sorority chapter of Lambda Alpha Phi (LAP). Part of her new responsibilities as incoming president was to plan the major service activities for the sorority for the coming year. All the sororities on campus competed to develop the best annual service activity, with the top-rated activity awarded the coveted Sprit Award by the College Pan Hellenic Council. LAP had never won the award, and it was important to Susie to change that losing trend this year. Susie strongly believed in service activities as a way for the sorority to give back to the community, build good relations, and enhance the sorority's public image. Over the last few years, LAP had conducted a "Toys for Tots" drive as its service activity, where they collected donated toys for local charities. However, the Toys for Tots drives had not been received very enthusiastically by LAP members in the past and had resulted in minimal donations being collected.
Susie knew things had to change to make this year's service activity a success. To help her determine the best course of action for this year's annual service activity, Susie appointed a Service-activity Planning Committee (SPC) that she chaired. The SPC was composed of �ive sorority members who represented different major areas of study and cultural backgrounds within the organization. However, many of the sorority members appointed to the SPC were reluctant to participate. Anne told Susie she was too busy to put much time into the committee. Brenda said she wasn't particularly interested in service activities. Marsha complained that she did not like working on committees. Tricia said she didn't know much about service activities. Vicky said she thought participating was a waste of time. She
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 30/37
added that she joined the sorority to have fun and not to do charity work. Susie had her work cut out for her to get this committee motivated to help plan a great service activity for the coming year.
At the �irst meeting of the SPC, Susie explained that the service activity was a good way to funnel team spirit at LAP into actions that could help members of the community. She stressed that she wanted to do something important as a service activity this year but something that would also be fun for sorority members to participate in. She told the committee members that she wanted to have LAP win the Spirit Award this year and asked them to suggest ideas for new service activities they could engage in for the coming year.
The reaction to Susie's request was underwhelming. Anne suggested they do something easy that wouldn't take up much time or energy. Brenda reacted angrily to Anne's suggestion, calling it stupid and saying it would not help LAP win the Sprit Award. However, Brenda didn't have any speci�ic suggestions of her own about alternative service activities. Marsha complained that the meeting wasn't very much fun, saying it was exactly why she didn't like to work on committees. Tricia asked what a service activity was, still confused about the role of the group. Vicky didn't say anything but spent the meeting texting her friends. Susie was getting very frustrated.
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. How does this case illustrate the importance of group communication in organizational life? How effective is the Service-activity Planning Committee (SPC) in this case?
2. Is the SPC a decision-making group, and if so, what kinds of decisions is it charged with making? Is this an appropriate group for making these kinds of decisions?
3. What are some major challenges to the effectiveness of the SPC? How might these challenges be addressed? Who should address these challenges?
4. From a systems theory perspective, in what ways is the SPC a social system? What is the suprasystem for the SPC? What are the subsystems? How effectively is the SPC in accomplishing system transformation? What are the inputs into this system? What are the system transformation processes in this system? What are the desired outputs from this system?
5. Does this system illustrate synergy? Is it accomplishing nonsummativity? Where might the system transformation process be breaking down?
6. What team-building strategies could be used with this group to improve its performance? 7. How effective is the leadership communication in this group? How could the leadership communication be improved? 8. Can you identify any task roles being performed in the SPC? Are any maintenance roles being performed? Are any blocking roles being performed? Which roles should be strengthened and which roles should be minimized? How can this be accomplished?
9. Is there any evidence of con�lict communication within this group? How can this con�lict be managed effectively?
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 31/37
10. What do you suggest for improving decision making in this group? What could be done to improve all four phases of decision making: orientation, con�lict, emergence, and reinforcement?
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 32/37
Summary
There are many types of groups in organizations, including advisory and governance boards, task forces, departments or divisions, committees, and teams or work groups. Some of these groups are more task oriented; others are more socially oriented. Some groups are more formal, whereas others are more informal. Despite the potential promise that groups hold as a way to accomplish complex or dif�icult tasks, the reality is that many people do not look forward to group tasks and have negative experiences in groups.
However, the rationale for group decision-making is built around the idea that when all relevant stakeholders are part of the process, better outcomes will result. And through brainstorming, groups also possess the potential to generate new and interesting ideas in ways that individuals can't.
Systems theory proposes that groups need to develop synergy and to understand the communication networks that are connected to groups. Group dynamics also are re�lected by the roles that people play in groups, including leadership roles, support and maintenance roles, and dysfunctional roles. Groups also go through rather predictable stages and also experience con�lict, but fortunately, there are strategies that groups can use to manage their con�licts as well.
Discussion Questions
1. How many organizational groups do you belong to? Which ones are more task oriented, and which are more social in nature? Which are more formal, and which are more informal or even "emerging"?
2. Do you agree that many people have a negative attitude toward working in groups? Why or why not? Do you share this negative attitude? 3. As noted in this chapter, groups are best suited for important, complex, and challenging problems under the premise that no one individual would be capable of handling them alone. In your experience, have groups been able to make better decisions than a talented individual could?
4. "Fantasy themes" involve ways that groups dramatize about the world—in particular, stories that create a somewhat �ictional world of "good guys" and "bad guys." Have you ever been in a group with such dramatizations? What kinds of stories were told, shared, and embellished by the group?
5. Consider the groups to which you belong. Do the leaders in these groups possess more legitimate power, more expert power, or more social power?
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 33/37
6. Keeping in mind the various task and maintenance roles in groups described in this chapter, which of these roles are most characteristic of how you behave in groups? Which are least characteristic?
7. Dysfunctional "blocking" group roles are also identi�ied in this chapter. Have you personally observed any of these dysfunctional roles in group interaction? How were they manifested?
8. What would be speci�ic examples of "metacommunication" that could improve the performance of groups?
Key Terms
Aggressors Group members who attack other group members, denigrate group activities, and detract from the accomplishment of task activities.
Blockers Group members who obstruct the accomplishment of group tasks.
Clique Groups whose members have a personal network with an element of exclusivity.
Communication networks Active patterns of communication within and between groups.
Compromisers Group members who try to resolve con�licts by �inding common ground with other con�licting parties.
Coordinators Group members who summarize and clarify the relationships between different ideas and courses of action to accomplish task activities.
Devil's advocate role A role leaders may play in which they champion positions they may not even agree with just to make sure that group members examine important alternative approaches to important decisions.
Dominators Group members who try to assert authority and control over other group members.
Elaborators Group members who explain and give examples to increase group understanding about task activities.
Emergent groups Groups that develop to meet speci�ic new goals, such as certain special-issue committees and task-oriented groups.
Encouragers Group members who promote solidarity within the group by agreeing with, praising, and accepting the points of view of other members.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 34/37
Energizers Group members who stimulate the group to action to accomplish task activities.
Expert power Power possessed by leaders because members admire them or their knowledge. Also called social power.
Fantasy chaining Ernest Bormann's theory that describes the process of brainstorming.
Formal groups Organizational groups are formally designated within organizational structures, such as departments and advisory boards.
Gatekeeper roles Those who provide or limit access to different members of the group, particularly to leaders.
Gatekeepers Group members who encourage interaction between other group members and who facilitate group participation.
Group roles Patterns of communication that group members develop over time with other members. These communication patterns serve different functions for groups and become expectations for group member behavior.
Groupthink Situations where members fail to critically evaluate the best options for solving a problem. Instead, they go along with decisions they assume (often incorrectly) the leader and other members favor because they don't want to rock the boat and challenge these other members.
Harmonizers Group members who relieve group tension and attempt to reconcile disagreements between group members.
Help-seekers Group members who seek sympathy and support from other group members by focusing on their own personal problems.
Hierarchy An organizational life principle that suggests that there are multiple levels of social organization.
Ideational con�lict Arguing the issues at hand, which focuses on the major topics of concern.
Illusion of invulnerability A symptom of groupthink that creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.
Input In transformational processes inputs such as work challenges are transformed through examination and deliberation.
Informal groups Organizational groups, such as lunch groups, that are not designated within organizational structures.
Information givers Group members who provide facts and evidence to guide group task activities.
Information seekers Group members who gather relevant information to guide group task activities.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 35/37
Initiators Group members who bring new ideas to the group concerning the accomplishment of group tasks.
Isolates Group members who are loners and don't communicate well with other members.
Leadership roles A group role. It can be informal or formal.
Legitimate power Power possessed by leaders to supervise group members and reward or penalize behavior.
Liaison roles Roles performed by individuals who connect different group members or who connect one group to another through the network of personal relationships.
Lieutenants Individuals who support the leader and enforce the leader's decisions.
Maintenance communication functions Functions geared toward preserving emotional stability and personal satisfaction within the group.
Metacommunication The process of communicating about the manner in which group members communicate.
Network analysis Research technique used to understand active patterns of interaction.
Nonsummativity A systems principle that expresses this idea; it suggests that in effective social systems, group output can often be more than just the combination of what could be accomplished by all the different group members independently.
Observers Group members who record group process and provide feedback about group performance.
Opinion givers Group members who share their personal opinions about group task activities.
Opinion seekers Group members who encourage other group members to share their perspectives on group task activities.
Outputs Outputs are results of transformational processes such as new strategies, policies, and solutions to address organizational problems.
Personal con�lict Con�lict that tends to focus on the personalities of the con�licting group members.
Personal network Group members' network of individuals with whom they communicate regularly.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 36/37
Playboys/playgirls Group members who show a lack of interest in group process and distract others from group activities.
Procedural technicians Group members who handle basic tasks for the group, such as setting up meetings, passing out materials, or recording group votes.
Reality-testers Group members who compare group performance to external standards.
Recognition-seekers Group members who call attention to themselves rather than focusing on group activities.
Recorders Group members who maintain a record of group process by taking notes and preparing minutes for meetings.
Self-confessors Group members who bring up personal, and often irrelevant, information and disclosures to the group.
Social-oriented groups Organizational groups, such as lunch groups, clubs, and interest groups, formed to address a social need.
Social Systems Systems comprised of interdependent, interactive components working together to achieve system goals according to systems theory.
Special-interest pleaders Group members who cloak their own special interests by invoking the perspectives of other constituents.
Standard-setters Group members who establish and enforce rules for acceptable behavior within the group.
Subsystems A smaller component of a system.
Summarizers Group members who preserve and describe group progress and direction.
Suprasystems A hierarchical level in systems theory made up of smaller subsystems.
Synergy Process that allows for high levels of coordination that leads to enhanced outcomes.
System transformation The overall process by which goals are attained.
Systems theory Theory for understanding the unique dynamics of group communication in organizational life. According to systems theory, groups can be seen as social systems that are comprised of interdependent, interactive components (i.e., group members) who work together to achieve important system goals.
11/25/2017 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch05,sec5.1,sec5.2,sec5.3,sec5.4,sec5.5,sec5.6,sec5.7,sec5.8,sec5.9,ch05summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d… 37/37
Task communication functions Functions geared toward accomplishing the primary assigned activities of the group.
Task-oriented groups Groups formed to accomplish a certain task or tasks.
Team-building A process that begins with encouraging group members to get to know one another including the unique skills, experiences, and expertise each member brings to the group process, particularly with reference to the speci�ic tasks and issues the group is confronting.
Teamwork Spirit of cooperation.
Theory of weak ties Theory of Mark Granovetter. Purports that group members are likely to gain more useful information from interacting with their weak ties than they will from interacting with their strong ties.