Movie Paper

brendaxo

InMixedCompanyCommunicatinginSmallGroupsandTeams8thEd..pdf

Home >English homework help >Movie Paper

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. ii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 2 25/10/11 6:42 PM

Your First Study Breakwww.CengageBrain.com

Get the best grade in the shortest time possible!

Choice (pick your format) Value (get free stuff) Savings (publisher-direct prices)

Now that you’ve bought the textbook . . .

Get a break on the study materials designed for your course! Visit CengageBrain.com and search for your textbook to find discounted print, digital and audio study tools that allow you to:

• Study in less time to get the grade you want using online resources such as chapter quizzing, flashcards, and interactive study tools. • Prepare for tests anywhere, anytime • Practice, review, and master course concepts using printed guides and manuals that work hand-in-hand with each chapter of your textbook.

46850_ifc_ptg01_hr.indd 1 10/20/11 5:48 PM

Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. i Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

In MIxed CoMpany

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 1 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. ii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 2 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. iii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

In MIxed CoMpany

Communicating in Small Groups and Teams

Eighth Edition

J. Dan Rothwell

Cabrillo College

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 3 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. ii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 2 25/10/11 6:42 PM

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. iv Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.

Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email protected].

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 14 13 12 11

In Mixed Company: Communicating in Small Groups and Teams, Eighth Edition J. Dan Rothwell

Senior Publisher: Lyn Uhl

Publisher: Monica Eckman

Development Editor: Larry Goldberg

Senior Assistant Editor: Rebekah Matthews

Editorial Assistant: Colin Solan

Media Editor: Jessica Badiner

Marketing Manager: Gurpreet Saran

Content Project Manager: Dan Saabye

Art Director: Linda Helcher

Print Buyer: Doug Bertke

Rights Acquisition Specialist: Mandy Groszko

Production Service: S4 Carlisle Publishing Services

Text Designer: Rokusek Design

Cover Designer: Rokusek Design

Cover Image: Alaska Stock Images/National Geographic Stock

Compositor: S4 Carlisle Publishing Services

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011939328

ISBN-13: 978-1-111-34685-0 ISBN-10: 1-111-34685-2

Wadsworth 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and Japan. Locate your local office at international.cengage.com/region

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

For your course and learning solutions, visit www.cengage.com.

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com.

Instructors: Please visit login.cengage.com and log in to access instructor- specific resources.

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 4 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. v Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Brief Contents

Preface xix

Chapter One: Communication Competence in Groups 2

Chapter Two: Groups as Systems 42

Chapter Three: Group Development 76

Chapter Four: Developing the Group Climate 116

Chapter Five: Roles and Leadership in Groups 146

Chapter Six: Developing Effective Teams 190

Chapter Seven: Group Discussion: Defective Group Decision Making and Problem Solving 222

Chapter Eight: Group Discussion: Effective Decision Making and Problem Solving 258

Chapter Nine: Power in Groups: A Central Dynamic 300

Chapter Ten: Conflict Management in Groups 344

Chapter Eleven: Technology and Virtual Groups 382

Appendix A: Group Oral Presentations 408

Appendix B: Critical Thinking Revisited: Arguments and Fallacies 422

Glossary 427

References 439

Index 489

v u

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 5 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. vi Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 6 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. vii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Contents

Preface xix

Chapter One: COmmuniCatiOn COmpetenCe in GrOups 2

Myths about Communication 6

Myth 1: Communication Is a Cure-all 6 Myth 2: Communication Can Break Down 6 Myth 3: Effective Communication Is Merely Skill Building 7 Myth 4: Effective Communication Is Just Common Sense 7

Communication Defined 8

Communication as Transactional: The Four-Legged Perspective 10 Communication as a Process: The Continuous Flow 11 Communication as Sharing Meaning: Making Sense 12

Verbal Communication: Telling It Like It Isn’t 12 Nonverbal Communication: Wordless Meaning 14 Verbal and Nonverbal Interconnectedness: Joined at the Hip 17 Context: The Communication Environment 19

Communication Competence 20

Effectiveness: Achieving Goals 20 A Matter of Degree: From Deficiency to Proficiency 20 We (Not Me) Oriented: Primacy of Groups 21

Appropriateness: Following the Rules 21

Focus on culture: Individualism versus Collectivism: A Basic Cultural Difference 22

Achieving Communication Competence 26

Knowledge: Learning the Rules 26 Skills: Showing, Not Just Knowing 28

vii u

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 7 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. viii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ viii CONTENTS

Sensitivity: Receptive Accuracy 29 Commitment: A Passion for Excellence 29 Ethics: The Right and Wrong of Communication 30

Focus on Gender: Gender and Communication Competence 32

Definition of a Group 36

Groups: More than People Standing at a Bus Stop 36 Interpersonal Communication and Public Speaking: Ungroups 38

Chapter twO: GrOups as systems 42

Interconnectedness of Parts 45

Ripple Effect: A Chain Reaction 46 Synergy: One Plus One Equals a Ton 47 Negative Synergy: Results Beyond Bad 50

Adaptability to Change 53

Dynamic Equilibrium: Managing Stability and Change 54

closer look: Dealing with Difficult Group Members: A System Perspective on “Bad Apples” 55

Boundary Control: Regulating Input 60 Communication Methods of Boundary Control: Erecting Barriers 61

Physical Barriers: Protecting Group Space 61 Psychological Barriers: Member in Name Only 61 Linguistic Barriers: Having to Speak the Language 61 Rules: Permission Not Granted 63 Roles: Staying in Bounds 63 Networks: Controlling Information Flow 63

Boundary Control and Group Effectiveness: Open and Closed Systems 64

Influence of Size 66

Group Size and Complexity 66 Quantitative Complexity: Exponentially Complicated 66 Complexity and Group Transactions: Size Matters 67

An Organization: A Group of Groups 69

Chapter three: GrOup DevelOpment 76

Primary Dimensions of Groups 78

Task and Social Dimensions: Working and Socializing 79 Building Cohesiveness: Bringing Us Together 80

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 8 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. ix Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CONTENTS ix ▶

Periodic Phases of Group Development 80

Forming: Gathering Members 81 Reasons We Join Groups: Motivation 81 Member Diversity: The Benefits and Challenges of Difference 83

Storming: Feeling the Tension 86 Primary Tension: Initial Uneasiness 86 Secondary Tension: Later Stress and Strain 87

Norming: Regulating the Group 89 Types of Norms: Explicit and Implicit 89 Purpose and Sources of Norms: Achieving Group Goals 90 Degree of Conformity: Strength of Group Pressure 91 Why We Conform: Fitting In 94

closer look: High School Cliques: A Lesson in Conformity 94

Conditions for Conformity: When We Bow to Group Pressure 96

closer look: Hazing Rituals: From Water Torture to Liver Swallowing 96

Addressing Nonconformity: When Groups Get Tough 99

Performing: Group Output 101

Motivation to Perform: Social Loafing and Social Compensation 103

When Groups Outperform Individuals: Three Heads Are Better than One 106

When Individuals Outperform Groups: No Magic in Groups 108

Newcomers and Group Development 110

Nature of the Group: The Challenge of Acceptance 110 Newcomer Strategies: Gaining Acceptance 112 Group Socialization Strategies: Adjusting to Newcomers 112

Chapter FOur: DevelOpinG the GrOup Climate 116

Competition and Cooperation 118

Definitions: Conceptual Clarity 119 Competition: Winners Take All 119 Cooperation: Winners All 119 Individual Achievement: Going It Alone 120 Hypercompetitiveness: Winning Is Everything 121

Constructive Competition: Tempering the Need to Win 122 Necessary Conditions: A Trinity 123 Competition and Communication Competence: Can Me Be We? 125

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 9 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. x Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Intragroup Competition and Cooperation: Challenging Orthodoxy 126 Group Productivity: Achievement and Performance on Tasks 126 Group Cohesiveness: Social Relationships among Group Members 127

Intergroup Competition and Cooperation: Them versus Us 127

Focus on culture: Competition and Culture 129

Communication and Group Climate 131

Defensive and Supportive Communication: Shaping Group Climate 131 Evaluation versus Description 131 Control versus Problem Orientation 135 Manipulation versus Assertiveness 137 Indifference versus Empathy 138 Superiority versus Equality 138 Certainty versus Provisionalism 139 Reciprocal Patterns: Like Begets Like 140

Competitive and Noncompetitive Listening: Shifting and Supporting 141 Shift Response versus Support Response: Focusing

on Me or Thee 142 Competitive Interrupting: Seizing the Floor 143 Ambushing: Preparing Rebuttals 143

Chapter Five: rOles anD leaDership in GrOups 146

Group Roles 149

Influence of Roles: Not Just Playing Games 149 Role Reversal: When Students Become Teachers 149

closer look: The Stanford Prison Study 150

Role Conflict: Torn between Two Roles 153 Types of Roles: Formal and Informal 153 Role Emergence: Springing to Life 155

Group Endorsement: Accepting a Bid 155 Role Specialization: Settling into One’s Role 157

Role Fixation: Stuck Playing One Part 157

Leadership 158

Definition of Leadership: An Evolving Consensus 160 Leadership and Influence: A Two-Way Process 160 Leadership and Followership: It Takes Two to Tango 160 Leader versus Manager: Interpersonal versus Positional Influence 161 Leadership and Communication: Duct-Taped Together 163

◀ x CONTENTS

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 10 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xi Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Gaining and Retaining Leadership: Getting There Is Just the Start 164 How Not to Become a Leader: Thou Shalt Not 164 General Pattern of Leader Emergence: Process of Elimination 165 Retaining the Leader Role: Hanging onto Power 167

Focus on Gender/ethnicity: Gender and Ethnic Bias in Leader Emergence 168

Perspectives on Effective Leadership: An Evolving View 171 Traits Perspective: The Born Leader View 172 Styles Perspective: One Style Doesn’t Fit All 174 Situational (Contingency) Perspective: Matching Styles

with Circumstances 178 Functional Perspective: Leadership Responsibilities 181 Servant Leadership Perspective: Ethics in Leadership 183 Culture and Leadership: Are Leadership Theories Universal? 185

Chapter six: DevelOpinG eFFeCtive teams 190

How Teams Differ from Groups 193

Level of Cooperation: The Working Together Imperative 193 Diversity of Skills: Looking for Complementarity 194 Group Identity: Operating as a Unit 195 Time and Resources: Commitment to the Team 195

Team Members 196

Team Slayers: Members’ Bad Attitudes and Bad Behavior 197 Egocentrism: Me-Deep in Omnipotence 197 Cynicism: Communicating a Can’t-Do Attitude 198 Verbal/Nonverbal Abuse: Bad Behavior Kills Teams 198 Team Member Removal: Purging the Rotten Egg 198

Team Builders: Choosing and Developing Team Members 199 Experience and Problem-Solving Abilities: Core Competencies 199 Cultural Diversity: Members with Different Perspectives 200 Communication Training: Developing Members’ Competence 200

Building Teamwork 201

Developing Team Goals: The Four Cs 202 Clear Goals: Everyone on the Same Page 202 Cooperative Goals: Interdependent Challenges 203 Challenging Goals: Denting the Universe 204 Commitment to Goals: A Passion to Succeed 205

CONTENTS xi ▶

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 11 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Developing a Team Identity: Unifying Members 205 Symbolic Convergence: Communicating Fantasy Themes 205 Solidarity Symbols: Unifying Nonverbally 206 Team Talk: The Language of We 207

Designating Clear, Appropriate Roles: Room for One Quarterback 209 Structuring Team Empowerment: Enhancing Members’ Capabilities 211

Definition of Empowerment: Four Dimensions 211 Hierarchical Organizations: The Enemy of Empowerment 212 Quality Circles: Lame First Attempt 213 Self-Managing Work Teams: The IDEO Model 213 Impediments to Team Empowerment: No Buy-In 213

closer look: IDEO and Team Empowerment 214

Establishing Individual Accountability: Providing Feedback 217

Competent Team Leadership 217

Fostering Participative Leadership: Nurturing Empowerment 218 Insisting on a Cooperative Communication Climate: Jerks Need Not Apply 219 Decision Making and Problem Solving: Using a Plan 220

Chapter seven: GrOup DisCussiOn: DeFeCtive GrOup DeCisiOn makinG anD prOblem sOlvinG 222

Information Overload: Too Much Input 225

Scope of the Problem: The Information Avalanche 225 Consequences: The Downside of Information 226

Impairs Critical Thinking: Separating Wheat from Chaff 227 Indecisiveness: Conclusion Irresolution 227

closer look: Technology and the Bias of Speed 228

Information Bulimia: Binging and Purging 229 Group Attention Deficit Disorder: Difficulty Concentrating 229

Coping with Information Overload: Wrestling the Beast 230 Screening Information: Separating the Useful from the Useless 230 Shutting Off Technology: Hitting the Off Switch 230 Specializing: Knowing More and More about Less and Less 231 Becoming Selective: On a Need-to-Know Basis 231 Limiting the Search: When Enough Is Enough 231 Narrowing the Search: Databases and Patterns 231

Information Underload: Poor Sharing 233

◀ xii CONTENTS

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 12 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xiii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Mindsets: Critical Thinking Frozen Solid 234

Confirmation Bias: One-Sided Information Searches 234 The Problem: Poor Decisions and Solutions 235 Combating Confirmation Bias: A Plan 236

False Dichotomies: Either–Or Thinking 236

Collective Inferential Error: Uncritical Thinking 237

Prevalence of the Problem: It’s a Group Thing 238 Specific Sources of Inferential Errors 239

Unrepresentativeness: Distorting the Facts 239 Correlation Inferred as Causation: Covariation 241

Error Correction: Practicing Critical Thinking 243

Group Polarization: Extremely Uncritical Thinking 244

Polarization: From Gambling to Guarded 244 Why Groups Polarize: Social Comparison and Persuasive Arguments 246 Combating Group Polarization: Necessary Steps 247

Groupthink: Critical Thinking in Suspended Animation 247

General Conditions: Excessive Cohesiveness and Concurrence Seeking 248 Identification of Groupthink: Main Symptoms 249

Overestimation of the Group’s Power and Morality: Arrogance 249

Closed-Mindedness: Clinging to Assumptions 251 Pressures toward Uniformity: Presenting a United Front 251

Preventing Groupthink: Promoting Vigilance 253

Chapter eiGht: GrOup DisCussiOn: eFFeCtive DeCisiOn makinG anD prOblem sOlvinG 258

Discussion Procedures 261

Phases and Functions: General Considerations 261 Multiple Sequence Model: Phases of Decision Making 261 Functional Perspective: Being Systematic 262

The Standard Agenda: Structuring Group Discussion 263 Problem Identification: What’s the Question? 263 Problem Analysis: Causes and Effects 264 Solution Criteria: Setting Standards 264

closer look: Different Criteria Produce Different Outcomes 265

Solution Suggestions: Generating Alternatives 267

CONTENTS xiii ▶

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 13 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xiv Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Solution Evaluation and Selection: Deciding by Criteria 267 Solution Implementation: Follow-through 268

closer look: Murphy’s Law 270

Group Decision-Making Rules: Majority, Minority, Unanimity 272 Majority Rule: Tyrannical or Practical 272 Minority Rule: Several Types 272 Unanimity Rule: Consensus 273

Participation 276

Cultural Diversity and Participation: Is Silence Golden? 276 Increasing Constructive Participation: Jump-Starting Low-Participators 278

Conducting Effective Meetings 278

Group Meetings: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 279 Chair’s and Members’ Responsibilities: Controlling the Meeting Monster 279

Critical Thinking and Effective Decision Making 282

Gathering Information: Accumulating Input 282 Evaluating Information: Applying Criteria 284

Credibility: Is It Believable? 284

closer look: The Internet: Resource for Information and Misinformation 285

Currency: Is It Up to Date? 287 Relevance: Looking for Logical Connections 287 Representativeness: Reflecting the Facts 287 Sufficiency: When Enough Really Is Enough 288

Creative Problem Solving 289

General Overview 289 Specific Creative Techniques 291

Brainstorming and Nominal Group Techniques: Generating Lots of Ideas 291

Framing/Reframing: It’s All In the Wording 294 Integrative Problem Solving: Satisfying Everyone 295

Chapter nine: pOwer in GrOups: a Central DynamiC 300

Power Defined 303

The Nature of Power: No One Is Powerless 303 Forms of Power: Competition and Cooperation Revisited 303

◀ xiv CONTENTS

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 14 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xv Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Indicators of Power 305

General Indicators: Labeling, Following, and Opposing 306 Verbal Indicators: Relatively Powerless and Powerful Speech 306

Focus on Gender/culture: Powerful Language Differences 307

Nonverbal Indicators: Silent Power 308

Power Resources 311

Information: Restricted or Scarce 311 Expertise: Knowing and Showing 312 Rewards and Punishments: Carrots and Sticks 313 Personal Qualities: A Powerful Presence 315 Legitimate Authority: You Will Obey 316

closer look: The Milgram Studies 317

Effects of Power Imbalances 320

Physical Violence and Aggression: Waging Power Struggles 321 Verbal and Nonverbal Contempt: Insulting Others 321

Focus on culture: Power Distance and Cultural Differences 322

Addressing Power Imbalances 324

Compliance: Group Power 324 Alliance: Coalition Formation 325 Resistance: Dragging Your Feet 326

Strategic Stupidity: Smart Members Acting Dense 326 Loss of Motor Function: Attack of the Clumsies 328 The Misunderstanding Mirage: Feigning Confusion 328 Selective Amnesia: Forgetting the Distasteful 329 Tactical Tardiness: Not So Grand an Entrance 329 Purposeful Procrastination: Intentional Delaying Tactic 330

Defiance: Digging in Your Heels 332 Threat of Contagion: Spreading Dissension 332 Variable Group Reaction: Discriminative Defiance 332 Defiant Member’s Influence: Alone against the Group 333

Significance: Self-Empowerment 334 Assertiveness: Neither Doormat nor Foot Wiper 334 Increasing Personal Power Resources: Mentoring

and Networking 340

CONTENTS xv ▶

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 15 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xvi Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Chapter ten: COnFliCt manaGement in GrOups 344

Definition of Conflict 348

General Definition: Interconnectedness, Incompatibility, and Interference 348

Benefits of Conflict: Dissent Can Be Productive 349 Destructive and Constructive Conflict: It’s All in the Communication 350

Styles of Conflict Management 351

Collaborating: Problem Solving 352 Confrontation: Directly Addressing the Problem 352 Integration: Seeking Joint Gains 352 Smoothing: Calming Troubled Waters 353

Accommodating: Yielding 353 Compromising: Halving the Loaf 354 Avoiding: Withdrawing 354 Competing: Power-Forcing 356 Comparing Styles: Likelihood of Success 357

Situational Factors 358

Types of Conflict: Task, Relationship, and Value 359 Task Conflict: Routine or Nonroutine 359 Relationship Conflict: It’s Personal 359

closer look: KILL Radio Conflict Case Study 361

Values Conflict: Deeply Felt Struggles 364 Culture and Conflict: Communication Differences 364

Negotiating Strategies 367

Tit for Tat: Do unto Others 367 Reformed Sinner: Spreading Redemption 368 Positional Bargaining: Hard and Soft Negotiating 369 Principled Negotiation: Interest-Based Bargaining 371

The Four Principles: Appropriate Rules 371 Remaining Unconditionally Constructive: Sound Judgment 373 The BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement 374

Anger Management 374

Constructive and Destructive Anger: Intensity and Duration 375 Managing Your Own Anger: Taking Control 376 Managing the Anger of Others: Communication Jujitsu 377

◀ xvi CONTENTS

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 16 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xvii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Chapter eleven: teChnOlOGy anD virtual GrOups 382

Technological Group Options 386

Text-Messaging: Typing Gone High-Tech 387 Audioconferences: Voice-Only Technology 388 Videoconferences: Sight and Sound 388

Benefits and Challenges of Virtual Groups 390

Time and Space: The Death of Distance 390 Decision Making: Quality of the Output 391 Social Relationships: Developing Personal Connections 392 Power Distance: Prominence of Status Cues 393 Conflict: Constructive and Destructive 394 Member Participation: Motivation to Perform 396

Social Anxiety: Reticence to Participate 396 Social Loafing: Virtually Unproductive 396

Conversational Documentation: Transactional Transcripts 398

Virtual Group Effectiveness 399

General Factors: Getting Set for Success 400 Temporality: Long-Term versus Short-Term Virtual Groups 400 Media Richness: The Lean and Meaty Theory 400 Media Synchronicity: Extending MRT 401

Specific Suggestions: Tentative Advice 403 Choosing Media: Richness and Synchronicity 403 Conducting Virtual Meetings: Special Challenges 404

closer look: ComCorp Case Study 405

Appendix A: Group Oral Presentations 408

Appendix B: Critical Thinking Revisited: Arguments and Fallacies 422

Glossary 427

References 439

Index 489

CONTENTS xvii ▶

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 17 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xviii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 18 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xix Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xix

Title: In Mixed Company, Server: C/M/Y/K/

Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

n Mixed Company is the number one selling small group commu-

nication textbook. Almost 250,000 students at hundreds of col-

leges and universities have used it. I am profoundly grateful to all

who have helped make In Mixed Company such a great success. The nine most recent

professional reviews of In Mixed Company were exceedingly complimentary. Repeat-

edly, reviewers counseled me to not mess with success by making dramatic changes.

They suggested important but small changes. I have accepted their advice and made

no massive changes, but hundreds of additions, deletions, and updates do make this

truly a very significant revision. I sincerely thank all reviewers for their helpful in-

sights and suggestions.

For this eighth edition, I have preserved the essence of previous versions. The central unifying theme, that cooperation in small groups is usually superior to com-

petition, has been maintained. The communication competence model continues to

guide discussions of key small group concepts and processes. The model is one of the

communication discipline’s unique contributions to understanding and improving

human behavior. It is thoroughly integrated throughout the text. Systems theory also

remains as a key theoretical component of the text, providing a conceptual frame-

work for analysis and insights. Finally, the unique focus on power in groups remains.

As Dacher Keltner (2007) notes, “To be human is to be immersed in power dynamics.”

Power is a central underlying element in small group conflict, teamwork, decision

making, problem solving, normative behavior, roles, and leadership. I strongly believe

that it deserves careful analysis, not simply obligatory mention or cursory coverage.

In addition, I continue to place great emphasis on readability. Textbooks are not meant to read like spy thrillers, but neither should they induce a coma by reading

like instructions for filling out your income tax forms. Unlike calculus, which I have

no idea how to make interesting, group communication, because of its relevance to

your lives, should stir your interest. I have made a concerted effort to stimulate, not

sedate you. The risk in telling you this, obviously, is that you may respond, “And

Preface

xix ▶

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 19 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xx Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

that’s the best you could do?” Alas, yes. Whatever the shortcomings of this work, I was

ever mindful of my audience. I have searched in obvious and not-so-obvious places

for the precise example, the poignant instance, and the dramatic case to enhance

your reading enjoyment. I have employed a more narrative or storytelling style than is

usual in textbook writing. I try to tell a story, not merely provide seemingly endless

laundry lists of do’s and don’ts. Chapter 5, for example, lists several perspectives on

effective leadership, but I try to connect these perspectives to the story of how each

evolved one from the other. This permits you to see the logical progression of theory

and research on leadership. When I do provide lists of do’s and don’ts, I try to make

at least some of them more interesting to read than a cookbook recipe (see, for exam-

ple, the “thou shalt nots” of leader emergence; steps for dealing with difficult group

members; six steps of the Standard Agenda; guidelines for brainstorming; guidelines

for effective meetings). The Closer Look boxes, vivid examples, and personal experi-

ences are also narrative in nature, included to illustrate ideas and concepts and trigger

reader interest. Research confirms that the narrative style not only adds interest but

also increases comprehension and recall of information (Fernald, 1987).

I also have attempted to enliven and personalize the writing style by incorporating

colorful language and lively metaphors that bring interesting images to mind, and to

depart from standard academic practice by employing the “perpendicular pronoun”

I. Occasional use of first-person singular speaks more directly and personably to readers than the more impersonal style of writing commonly used in textbooks (“in

this author’s view”). Although it has been suggested that I employ the “editorial we”

instead of the first-person singular, I tend to agree with Mark Twain, who said that

“people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we’” but others should

avoid it. I could use the passive voice and avoid the first-person singular, but that

makes copy editors twitch.

Finally, I am a great believer in the potential of humor to gain and maintain the

attention of my readers. I love to laugh and it gives me great satisfaction to see my

students laugh in class, even if it is at my expense because of some goofy mistake

I have made (not uncommon). Humor can often cross generational divides and spark

interest in scholarly subjects that can seem distant and abstract until a humorous

example, quip, or story enlivens the reading and ignites interest, even understanding.

There is humor to be found in every chapter. Some chapters have more humor than

others, but I have attempted to infuse some amusement for your entertainment and

interest whenever possible.

Significant Substantive Changes There is often the suspicion, not always without merit, that a new edition of a text-

book offers mostly cosmetic changes (a few new photos or an occasional new exam-

ple or reference). This is emphatically not the case for In Mixed Company. Numerous

t xx PREFACE

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 20 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxi Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

substantive changes have been made for this edition, some obvious and many not so obvious. They are: 1. Research and theory have been thoroughly updated in every chapter. More than

200 recent references have been added that incorporate the most current research

and theory on small group communication, and many older references have been

expunged. More than half of the nearly 1,100 references are twenty-first-century

citations (2000 –2011). In all subject areas I have searched energetically for the

very latest research and insights. In many cases, the newer research has strength-

ened support for claims made in previous editions. In other instances, recent

research has required important modifications.

2. New, sharper examples have replaced shopworn illustrations. New business- oriented and workplace examples and studies appear throughout the text as requested

by some reviewers. I have also included numerous recent events to illustrate key

points and to give the text a contemporary feel.

3. Several important topics have been added.

Added Topics a. Structuration theory

b. Developing codes of conduct to thwart disruptive group member behavior

c. The “rule of seven” and the influence of group size

d. The global language of business, the linguistic divide, and ostracism in the

multicultural workplace; global language and multicultural miscommunica-

tion in virtual groups

e. Nonverbal communication and jurors’ perceptions of judges during trials

f. Humor and secondary tension relief; humor and defensive versus supportive

communication

g. Praise-first-then-describe approach to supportive communication

h. Respectful leadership

i. Abusive communication between doctors and nurses; pilot projects on

developing teamwork among doctors and nurses

j. Angry leaders and motivation of followers

4. Numerous important topics have been given expanded coverage.

Expanded Topic Coverage a. Member diversity (culture/ethnicity) and deep diversity (nonoverlapping

knowledge and skills)

b. Expanded coverage of culture

c. Detailed discussion of “bad apple” research and additional advice on

addressing disruptive behavior in groups

d. Gender diversity and accuracy of group decision making; gender and

hypercompetitiveness

e. Extensive new study data on hazing

PREFACE xxi u

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 21 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

f. Defensive versus supportive communication major revisions

g. Management versus leadership; leader–follower interconnectedness

h. Team solidarity symbols

i. Information overload and extensive new research

j. Vastly expanded discussion of criteria development in group decision making

k. Murphy’s law

l. Expanded discussion of critical thinking, already covered extensively in

Chapters 7 and 8 and Appendix B.

m. Benefits of provoking conflict in small groups

n. Extensive new data on virtual group effectiveness

5. Discussion of technology and its influence on small group communication also has been expanded considerably. In addition to updated and increased coverage

in Chapter 11 on technology, I have included substantial new material in most

chapters. New and extended discussions of technology related to small groups

include:

a. Use of the Internet, Twitter, and texting and issues of boundary control while

serving on juries

b. Inappropriate use of technology, such as informal texting by students to their

instructors, and answering cell phones or texting during job interviews

c. Listening problems associated with texting and accessing Internet and social

networking sites

d. Gangs’ Twitter turf wars

e. Gender similarities and differences in technology use

f. Information overload and new technologies

g. Technology and the bias of speed

h. Wikipedia, its pros and cons

i. Leader emergence in virtual groups

j. Virtual groups and technological advances

Continued and Expanded Pedagogical Features Several acclaimed features of previous editions have been maintained and expanded.

1. Closer Look segments have been updated. A Closer Look, “Change the Criteria, Change the Outcome” has been added to Chapter 7.

2. Tables, each called a Second Look, act as succinct summaries of complicated or detailed material. These can be useful when studying for exams.

3. Self-Assessment Instruments in the seventh edition were so well received, that I have added: “Social Loafing: A Self-Assessment”; “What Is Your Leadership Style

Preference?”; and “Do You Use Resistance Strategies?”

t xx PREFACE

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 22 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxiii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

4. The very popular Video Case Studies segment appearing at the end of every chap- ter has been expanded and includes many recent examples. Some reviewers have

requested a DVD with all of the video case studies provided as a free ancillary.

As advantageous as this would obviously be to any instructor using the video

case studies suggested, the cost of gaining permission to use copyright protected

videos for such a DVD would be astronomical, inevitably sending the cost of pro-

ducing this new edition into the stratosphere. In this period of hypersensitivity to

textbook pricing, such an option is unfortunately not feasible.

5. A glossary of key terms for quick reference appears at the end of the text. Terms that are boldfaced in each chapter are included in the glossary. Many new terms have been added for this edition. A digital glossary is available. See the instruc-

tions below to access additional course materials online. 6. Practice quizzes for each chapter appear on the In Mixed Company website. These

quizzes help prepare students for graded exams. Students frequently mention to

me how helpful these practice quizzes have been to them. See the instructions

below to access additional course materials online.

7. An already substantial “visual package”—photos, cartoons, and graphics—has been improved. Considerable resources have been expended to make In Mixed

Company the most visually interesting small group communication textbook on

the market.

8. To engage readers, encourage active learning and the development of critical thinking skills, and help students prepare for exams, several photo and cartoon

interactive captions offer quizz questions. This interactive option was lauded by

reviewers, so I have expanded this feature.

9. PowerPoint slides have been prepared for classroom presentation of material. These slides can be found on the instructor’s PowerLecture CD-ROM, which

also includes an electronic version of the Instructor’s Resource Manual and an

electronic version of the test bank, ExamView® Computerized Testing. This

resource is available to qualified adopters. Please consult your local sales repre-

sentative for details.

10. The comprehensive Instructor’s Resource Manual has been revised. The test bank of exam questions for each chapter has been expanded with more than one version

of each question (single-answer or multiple answers) available. Both the extensive

activities and the test bank included in the manual have been extremely well received.

11. I have also produced a videotape entitled, “Working Together,” shot in docu- mentary style, which illustrates several key classroom activities (e.g., “Building

Blocks” and “Power Carnival”). This video can serve either as a substitute for

having students do the activities or as a visual guide showing how to conduct

these very successful innovative exercises in class. The videotape is available as an

ancillary to the text.

PREFACE xxiii u

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 23 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxiv Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

12. Tutorial on making study groups work is provided on the website. Research on common mistakes made by students when studying for exams is reviewed,

and advice is offered regarding how best to study effectively in groups. See the

instructions below to access additional course materials online.

To access additional course materials online, please visit www.cengagebrain.com. At

the CengageBrain.com home page, search for the ISBN of your title (from the back

cover of your book) using the search box at the top of the page. This will take you to

the product page where these resources can be found.

All In Mixed Company’s companion resources are available to qualified adopters,

and ordering options for student supplements are flexible. Instructors, please con-

sult your local Wadsworth Cengage Learning sales representative for more informa-

tion, to evaluate examination copies of any of the student or instructor resources, or

to request product demonstrations.

Text Organization Although there is no ideal organizational pattern, my schema for the sequence of

chapters is quite simple. A theoretical foundation is discussed first (Chapters 1 and 2),

followed by how groups are formed and developed (Chapter 3). Then a discus-

sion of how to establish the proper climate for the group to work effectively is pre-

sented (Chapter 4). This is followed by an explanation and analysis of what roles

group members are likely to play (Chapter 5). Then how to build teams and instill

effective teamwork in groups is addressed (Chapter 6). This is followed by a discussion

of decision making/problem solving—the primary work to be performed by most

groups, with special focus on critical thinking (Chapters 7 and 8). The close connec-

tion between power and conflict is then explored (Chapters 9 and 10). Finally, virtual

groups and technology are addressed (Chapter 11). I can see other ways of organiz-

ing this same material, but the order I have chosen works well for me, students seem

satisfied with the sequence of topics, and reviewers have praised the organization.

Acknowledgments My sincere thanks are extended to all those who reviewed this edition of In Mixed

Company. They are Michele Bresso, Bakersfield College; Daniel DuBray, Cosumnes River

College; Vicki Fabbri, Cabrillo College; Sandy Hanson, University of North Carolina at

Charlotte; Lawrence Hosman, University of Southern Mississippi; John Howard III, East

Carolina University; Vivi S. McEuen, California State University, Chico; Brian Richardson,

University of North Texas; and Charmaine Wilson, University of South Carolina Aiken.

I also wish to extend a sincere thanks to all those who reviewed previous editions of

In Mixed Company, now too numerous to include their names here.

t xx PREFACE

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 24 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxv Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A special thanks goes to Georg Romero, reference librarian at Cabrillo College,

who located references and material that would have remained forever hidden from

me if I hadn’t benefited from his Herculean efforts. I’m told that I still own the record

for the most interlibrary loan requests.

My considerable gratitude is also extended to my editor, Monica Eckman, whose

stewardship of this project was stellar from start to finish. To the entire Wadsworth

Cengage Learning team, I express my deep appreciation for a job well done. They

are Larry Goldberg, development editor; Rebekah Matthews, assistant editor; Colin

Solan, editorial assistant; Jessica Badiner, media editor; Dan Saabye, content project

manager; Deepti Narwat, project manager, ITC; Rachel Trousdale, photo researcher;

Deanna Ettinger, permissions account manager, images; Bob Kauser, senior permis-

sions account manager, text; Gurpreet Saran, marketing manager. It is a pleasure to

work with such capable and pleasant professionals.

I also express my heartfelt gratitude to my colleagues in the communication stud

ies department at Cabrillo College. You are a continuing source of inspiration for me,

and you demonstrate daily that cooperation and teamwork can be practical realities,

not merely wishful thinking.

Finally, to my amazing wife, Marcy, a special thanks for being so understanding

and loving when I spent hundreds of hours isolated in my home office working on

three textbooks. I remained sane in no small part because of you. The fact that you

are such an accomplished and respected professional in your own right is for me a

source of great pride and admiration. You have many extraordinary gifts and talents,

but I love you just for being the person that you are.

About the Author J. Dan Rothwell is chair of the Communication Studies Department at Cabrillo College.

He has a B.A. in American History from the University of Portland (Oregon), an M.A.

in Rhetoric and Public Address, and a Ph.D. in Communication Theory and Social

Influence. His M.A. and Ph.D. are both from the University of Oregon. He is the author

of three other books: In the Company of Others: An Introduction to Communication,

Telling It Like It Isn’t: Language Misuse and Malpractice, and (with James Costigan)

Interpersonal Communication: Influences and Alternatives, and he is currently finishing

a public speaking text entitled Practically Speaking, to be published by Oxford Uni-

versity Press. During his extensive teaching career, Dr. Rothwell has received almost

two dozen teaching awards, including the 2010 Ernest L. Boyer International Award for

Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Technology conferred by the Center for the Ad-

vancement of Teaching and Learning, Florida State College, and the National Council

of Instructional Administrators; and the 2010 Cabrillo College “Innovative Teacher of

the Year” award.

PREFACE xxv u

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 25 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxvi Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Professor Rothwell encourages feedback and correspondence from both stu-

dents and instructors regarding In Mixed Company. Anyone so inclined may com-

municate with him by e-mail at [email protected] or by snail mail care of

the Communication Studies Department, Cabrillo College, Aptos, CA 95003.

Dr. Rothwell may also be reached by phone at 1-831-479-6511.

t xx PREFACE

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 26 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxvii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

To my family: Marcy, Hilary, Geoff, Barrett, and Clare

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 27 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. xxviii Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 28 25/10/11 6:42 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. i Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

In MIxed CoMpany

46850_fm_ptg01_hr_i-xxviii.indd 1 25/10/11 6:42 PM

◀ 2

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 2 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

1 Communication Competence in Groups

▶ A. Myths About CoMMuniCAtion 1. Myth 1: Communication Is a

Cure-all 2. Myth 2: Communication Can

Break Down 3. Myth 3: Effective Communication

Is Merely Skill Building 4. Myth 4: Effective Communication

Is Just Common Sense

▶ b. CoMMuniCAtion DefineD 1. Communication as Transactional:

The Four-Legged Perspective 2. Communication as a Process: The

Continuous Flow 3. Communication as Sharing

Meaning: Making Sense a. Verbal Communication: Telling

It Like It Isn’t b. Nonverbal Communication:

Wordless Meaning c. Verbal and Nonverbal

Interconnectedness: Joined at the Hip

d. Context: The Communication Environment

▶ C. CoMMuniCAtion CoMpetenCe 1. Effectiveness: Achieving Goals a. A Matter of Degree: From

Deficiency to Proficiency b. We (Not Me) Oriented: Primacy

of Groups Focus on Culture: Individualism versus Collectivism: A Basic Cultural Difference

2. Appropriateness: Following the Rules

▶ D. AChieving CoMMuniCAtion CoMpetenCe 1. Knowledge: Learning the Rules 2. Skills: Showing, Not Just Knowing 3. Sensitivity: Receptive Accuracy 4. Commitment: A Passion for

Excellence 5. Ethics: The Right and Wrong of

Communication Focus on Gender: Gender and Communication Competence

▶ e. Definition of A group 1. Groups: More than People

Standing at a Bus Stop 2. Interpersonal Communication

and Public Speaking: Ungroups

◀ 2

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 2 25/10/11 9:01 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 3 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

I f you want to find out what people think about groups, ask them. I have. Periodically, I pass out a questionnaire in some of my small group

communication classes. The results are quite revealing. The majority of students

seem to view working in groups with the same fondness they have for wisdom tooth

removal. Comments include: “If God had ordered a committee to create the world,

it would still be discussing proposals.” “Working in groups is like eating tofu. I’m

told it’s good for me, but it makes me gag.” “I hate groups. I hate group assignments.

I hate teachers who require group assignments. Take the hint.” Similar negative views

on working in groups are revealed in additional surveys of students (Karau & Elsaid,

2009; Myers & Goodboy, 2005). As two communication experts note, “Students

arrive at college with an opinion of group decision making that is often negative and

distrustful” (McMillan & Harriger, 2002, p. 244). Sorensen (1981) coined the term

grouphate to describe how troublesome the group experience is for many people. There are several reasons for the prevalence of grouphate. First, individuals

often believe they have contributed far more to group endeavors than other group

members, even when this is objectively false. This belief, called egocentric bias,

contributes to a low opinion of groups (Caruso et al., 2006; Epley et al., 2006).

In my household, asking family members what percentage of the total dish washing

they perform on average always produces a sum well beyond 100% when my own

prodigious contribution (conservatively estimated at about 75%) is included. Those

who overestimate their actual contributions to group task accomplishment (as I

undoubtedly do) easily feel underappreciated or taken advantage of by the group

as a whole ( Gilovich et al., 1999). Second, there are those group members, called

M ar

k D

. M az

ia rz

/J up

ite r

Im ag

3 ▶

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 3 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 4 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 4 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

social loafers, who underperform (Hoigaard et al., 2006). Their lackluster effort can

become contagious because other group members want to avoid being taken advan-

tage of, so they reduce their own effort (Hoigaard & Ommundsen, 2007). Avoiding

this “sucker effect” produces collective listless effort and guarantees poor group per-

formance, further contributing to dislike of groups. Third, group work can be time

consuming and unproductive. Executives spend approximately a third of their time

trapped in group meetings, and they consider about half of these meetings to be a

brain deadening waste of time (Lippincott, 1999; Stone, 1997). Even more intrusive

is the number of separate meetings individuals must attend daily. Several daily group

meetings, even if they are short, are more interruptive than one long meeting. Em-

ployees feel fatigued and overworked when meetings are frequent, and this can put

everyone in a surly frame of mind (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005).

Despite these negative views of groups, almost everyone can point to positive

group experiences, including some that are profoundly rewarding (Rains & Young,

2009). The rewards include a feeling of belonging and affection gained from

primary groups (family and friends) and social networks (Facebook and Twitter); social support in difficult times acquired from self-help and support groups (Alcoholics Anonymous, cancer survivors groups); satisfaction from solving chal-

lenging problems by working in project groups (task forces, self-managing work teams); enhanced knowledge from participating in learning groups (class study groups, college seminar groups, Bible study groups, mock trial teams); thrills and

entertainment from participating in activities groups (chess club, sports teams); a sense of community from neighborhood groups (homeowners associations, PTA); an identity and pleasure from helping others through social and service groups (fraternities, sororities, Rotary, Lions, and Kiwanis clubs); and a creative outlet in

music and artistic groups (bands, choirs, quilting circles). Of course, a single group may provide many of these benefits.

The most successful groups are composed of members who love working in

groups and who experience the rewards. The least successful groups are com-

posed of members who dislike working in groups and who see primarily the dis-

advantages (Karau & Elsaid, 2009). Participating in successful groups—those

that achieve desirable goals and reap valued rewards—improves one’s attitude

about groups ( Isaksen, 1988). Because communication plays such a central role

in achieving this group success and producing rewarding experiences, competent communication is a principal means of counteracting grouphate (Sorensen, 1981). For example, negative attitudes about group meetings are neutralized

when meetings are conducted competently (Rogelberg et al., 2006). Those indi-

viduals with the most instruction in competent group communication have the

most positive attitude about working in groups. Unfortunately, most people do

not receive the requisite communication training to be effective in groups, so

grouphate flourishes.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 4 25/10/11 9:01 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 5 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Whatever the degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with groups, there is no

escaping them, unless you plan to live your life alone in a cave as an out-of-touch sur-

vivalist. Reliance on groups will increase, not diminish, in the future (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the

National Council of Teachers of English, the National Council of Teachers of Mathe-

matics, and the National Communication Association all recommend frequent group

activity in the college classroom. By the advent of the twenty-first century, four-

fifths of both Fortune 1000 companies and manufacturing organizations were using

self-managing work teams (Robbins, 2003; Thoms et al., 2002). This is a worldwide

phenomenon (Wright & Drewery, 2006). Advances in computers and electronic

technology have boosted the reliance on virtual teams—groups whose members are connected by electronic technology (Godar & Ferris, 2004; Kozlowski & Ilgen,

2006). A major study of multinational corporations concluded that “virtual teams

are an ever-growing component of global business” (Solomon, 2010). The “ virtual

classroom” is an increasingly popular distance learning option at colleges and uni-

versities around the world. In the United States in 2010, almost 5 million students

enrolled in online degree programs and courses (“More Than One in Four College

Students,” 2010). Most of these courses require online group discussions and activi-

ties, and team projects.

Maximizing the benefits of our unavoidable group experiences seems like a wor-

thy goal. The central purpose of this textbook, then, is to teach you how to be a competent communicator in small groups and teams. This purpose presupposes, of course, that there is much for you to learn. Because we all have participated in

many groups, it may be tempting to conclude that these experiences leave relatively

little for you to learn. Experience, however, isn’t always an effective teacher, as any

smoker can attest. Sometimes experience teaches us bad habits and misinformation

(note the myths discussed in the next section). I will not presume to tell you what you

know and don’t know about small group communication. That is for you to assess,

perhaps with the help of your instructor.

When making this initial self-assessment, however, please consider this: Most

Americans have a common tendency to overestimate their communication profi-

ciency in groups. A long-term study of 600 teams and 6,000 team members in a wide

variety of organizations found that assessments of leaders by team members were a

whopping 50% lower than the leaders’ self-assessments (LaFasto & Larson, 2001).

These same team members also noted the serious communication deficiencies of

teams as a whole. Ironically, it is the poorest communicators who inflate their self-

assessments the most (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

No one is a perfect communicator, so everyone has room to improve their own

communication skills in groups. The primary purpose of this chapter is to estab- lish the theoretical groundwork for a communication competence approach to small groups and teams. There are four chapter objectives:

CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups 5 ▶

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 5 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 6 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 6 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

1. To correct some common misconceptions regarding the human communication process

2. To explain what communication is and isn’t 3. To identify broadly what constitutes competent communication 4. To discuss general ways to achieve communication competence

Myths about Communication

Before tackling the question “What is communication?” and then, more specifically,

“What is competent communication?” let’s sweep out some of the musty misconcep-

tions many people have stored in their intellectual attics regarding the communica-

tion process. As American humorist Will Rogers once remarked, “It isn’t what we

don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so” (Fitzhenry, 1993,

p. 243). Foolishness springs from holding firmly to indefensible myths. Consider

four of them.

▶ Myth 1: Communication Is a Cure-all Communication is not the magical answer to all your woes. Sometimes more commu-

nication aggravates differences between people and exposes qualities in others you may

find unappealing. Active listening may reveal truths that make it impossible for you to

remain in a group. Sometimes groups dismantle, not because the communication is

poor, but because members have personalities or values that severely clash or because

they have contradictory visions for the group. Also, perhaps you’d rather be slow-

roasted over a bed of hot coals than address the tedious, trivial task your team must

tackle. Pitch-perfect communication won’t likely improve the task or your motivation.

Communication is a tool that, in the possession of someone knowledgeable and

skillful, can be used to help solve most problems that arise in groups. Communica- tion, however, is not an end in itself but merely a means to an end. You will not solve every conceivable problem in groups by learning to communicate more effec-

tively, because not all group problems are communication based.

▶ Myth 2: Communication Can Break Down Communication does not break down. Machines break down; they quit, and if they belong to me they do so with amazing regularity. Human beings continue to

communicate even when they may wish not to do so. Behaviors such as not showing

up for a group meeting, remaining silent during group discussions, or walking out in

the middle of a group discussion without saying a word doesn’t stop communication.

Group members infer messages from these nonverbal acts—perhaps incorrect

messages, but potentially important ones nonetheless.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 6 25/10/11 9:01 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 7 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

myths about CommuniCation 7 ▶

The view that communication can break down comes partly from the recognition

that we do not always achieve our goals through communication; the group may

disband in failure. But failure to achieve group goals may occur even when com-

munication between the parties in conflict is exemplary. So where’s the breakdown?

We sometimes draw the mistaken conclusion that disagreement constitutes a

communication breakdown because our ability to influence group members stops

working. Group members may understand our message(s) perfectly; they may

simply dislike what they’re hearing. In this case there is a difference of opinion, not a

communication breakdown.

▶ Myth 3: Effective Communication Is Merely Skill Building The skills orientation to communication assumes that if you learn a few magical

communication skills, you will become a much better communicator. Without un- derstanding the complexities of the communication process, no amount of skills training will be meaningful, and it may be harmful. Merely teaching the skill of assertiveness to a battered woman, for example, without addressing the volatile and

often unpredictable circumstances of abusive relationships in families, could prove

fatal for the abused woman and her children (O’Leary et al., 1985). Assertiveness

with your boss or team leader may get you fired or demoted to a position equivalent

to cleaning up after parading elephants. One skill doesn’t fit all circumstances.

Teaching communication skills without knowledge, without a well-researched

theoretical map guiding our behavior, is like constructing a house without a carefully

developed set of blueprints. All the skills necessary to build a house won’t be very use-

ful without a thoughtful plan to guide the construction and prevent collapse of the

structure. The blueprint offered later in this chapter to help you succeed in groups is

the communication competence model.

▶ Myth 4: Effective Communication Is Just Common Sense Consider hindsight bias—the “I-knew-it-already” tendency (Worthington et al., 2002). We tend to overestimate our prior knowledge once we have been told the cor-

rect answers. Anything can seem like mere common sense when you’ve been given

the correct answers, or as psychologist David Myers (2002) observes, “How easy

it is to seem wise when drawing the bull’s-eye after the arrow has struck” (p. 89).

Everybody knows that opposites attract, right? When told this by Myers, most stu-

dents find this conclusion unsurprising. But wait! When college students are told the

opposite (“Birds of a feather flock together”), most also find this result unsurprising

and merely common sense.

The hindsight bias may influence us to view competent communication as mere

common sense once we have received communication training. If, however, it is just

common sense, why does miscommunication occur so often? For example, there

is a “leadership failure rate in the range of 50% to 60%” in groups large and small

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 7 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 8 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 8 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

(Hogan et al., 1994, p. 497). Competent communication is the core of effective

leadership, so failure is directly linked to miscommunication (Hackman & Johnson,

2004; Northouse, 2007). Most teams in organizations fail to achieve their goals

( Ellis et al., 2005; Ju & Cushman, 1995), and between 80% and 90% of teams have

significant difficulty performing well (Buzaglo & Wheelan, 1999). A principal reason

why most teams struggle is lack of communication training in how to make teams

work effectively (Ellis et al., 2005).

The simple way to test whether competent communication in groups is merely

common sense and you knew it all along is to pose questions before training is

received. I often quiz my students at the beginning of a term on general knowl-

edge of group communication (see Box 1.1). I do not ask technical questions or

definitions of concepts (making this the least challenging test of the term). Typical

questions include: True or False? “Competition motivates higher achievement

and performance in groups for most people” and “There is a strong relationship

between intelligence and effective group leadership.” Consistently, students do

very poorly on this quiz (most flunk). Such results are not surprising or cause for

ridicule. I would be foolish to expect my students to do well on this exam before

they’ve taken the class.

Learning requires a degree of humility, a willingness to recognize and ad- dress our shortcomings. To paraphrase Alfred Korzybski, no one knows everything about anything. Everyone has more to learn. You are invited to approach this text

not with an attitude of contentment with your knowledge and skills (whatever their

level), but with a strong desire to learn more and to improve your communication

in groups. This improvement comes not just from knowing the right answers on

tests of your knowledge of group communication, but also from demonstrating an

ability to put this knowledge into skillful practice in a wide variety of challenging

group situations.

Communication Defined

Thus far, I have indicated what communication is not, but not what it is. What com-

munication is can be ascertained clearly by first considering several fundamental

principles.

Focus Questions

1. How are the content and the relationship dimensions of messages different from each other?

2. “Communication is a process.” What does this mean?

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 8 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation DefineD 9 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 9 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Box 1.1

Hindsight Test

Multiple ChoiCe (More than one answer could be correct.)

1. In general, competition a. Increases motivation to perform at

peak levels for most group members b. Is embraced by all cultures as a natural

aspect of our biological makeup as human beings

c. Encourages cheating and dishonesty d. Enhances social relationships with

group members 2. As the size of a group increases, this

a. Is almost always constructive because the group’s resources increase

b. Usually increases the pressure to con- form to group norms and opinions

c. Usually makes decision making more complex and difficult

d. Often produces an increasing number of nonparticipating group members

3. Leaders in groups must ___________ to be effective. a. Be highly intelligent b. Be highly competitive c. Use the democratic leadership style

(members participate in decision making)

d. Be flexible in their communication with group members

4. Intergroup (between two groups) compe- tition has which of the following effects on competing groups? a. It often produces hypercompetitive-

ness (extreme competitiveness). b. It increases friction and hostility. c. It often increases intragroup (within

each group) cohesiveness (bonding among members).

d. Intergroup interactions are far more competitive than interactions between individuals.

5. Which of the following are effective strategies for dealing with difficult group members (disruptive troublemakers)? a. Provide opportunities for the difficult

group member to air his or her dis- agreement, allowing whatever amount of time is necessary.

b. Permit the difficult member to inter- rupt the group proceedings so he or she can “blow off some steam.”

c. Encourage a competitive group climate where everyone is free to argue, disagree, and attempt to win points with the group.

d. Confront the difficult group member directly; if the entire group is affected, then the group as a whole should con- front the troublemaker.

true-False 1. Groups should never close off commu-

nication, because remaining open to others is a key principle of competent communication.

2. Compromising should be the ultimate and most desired goal when we try to resolve difficult conflicts in groups.

3. Venting your anger, not holding it in, is a constructive and productive way to man- age your anger because it allows you to “blow off steam” before it builds to an explosive point.

4. Reward systems that stress individual achievement, such as merit pay plans where the highest performing group mem- bers receive bonuses or pay increases, work well to boost motivation and performance of the vast majority of group members.

5. Competition builds character and teaches most group members how to accept defeat gracefully.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 9 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 10 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 10 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

6. If you are highly intelligent, have excellent speaking skills, and are physically attrac- tive, you are highly likely to be an effective group leader.

7. A group can never have too much informa- tion when trying to make high-quality deci- sions on complex problems.

8. The greater the harmony within a group, the better will be the decisions made by the group.

9. Achieving a consensus (unanimity) is always possible in groups if members try hard enough and are skillful in their communication.

10. Some group members can be completely powerless.

Answers are given at end of chapter

▶ Communication as Transactional: The Four-Legged Perspective

Wendall Johnson once defined human communication as a process with four legs.

Merely sending a message does not constitute communication; there also has to be

a receiver. But communication is more than a mere transmission of information

from sender to receiver and back again, like Ping-Pong balls batted to and fro. Com-

munication is a transaction. This means essentially two things. First, each person communicating is both a sender and a receiver simultaneously, not merely a sender or a receiver. As you speak, you receive feedback (responses), mostly non - v erbal, from listeners; this, in turn, influences the messages that you continue to

send. Skillful communicators read feedback accurately and adjust their ensuing mes-

sage appropriately.

Second, communication as a transaction also means that all parties influence each other. You don’t communicate in quite the same manner with your parents as you do with a group of close friends. Your team leader may have his Donald Trump

act in high gear, exhibiting an imperious, scowling demeanor that is intimidating. If

so, your communication is probably more measured and stiff than it would be with

a different leader who manifests a more relaxed, less fearsome style.

You can see this mutual-influence process clearly by examining the two

dimensions of a message— content and relationship (Watzlawick et al., 1967).

The content dimension refers to the information transmitted. The relationship dimension refers to how messages define or redefine the relationship between group members.

Consider the following transactional dialogue:

Anne: We should meet to prepare our group presentation. Benny: I can’t meet until Wednesday night after 6:30. I work. Charise: Wednesday, say about 7:00, works fine for me. How about the rest of you?

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 10 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation DefineD 11 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 11 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

David: No can do! I’m busy. Eduardo: Well, get unbusy because our project is due in a week and we’re way be-

hind schedule.

David: Hey, Satan’s spawn, come up with another time. Wednesday night doesn’t work for me.

Benny: Come on, everybody, let’s chill. No need to get ugly. Anne: Exactly how busy are you on Wednesday night, David? Can’t you change

your plans?

David: I’m busy! Let’s leave it at that. Eduardo: Well, because you’re causing the problem, why don’t you come up with a

time that works with your “busy” schedule?

Charise: How about next Monday evening? Anne: Now I’ve got a schedule conflict.

The content of this group transaction is the need to schedule a group meeting and

the schedule conflicts that exist. The relationship dimension, however, is far more

complex. Group members are not merely identifying scheduling difficulties; they’re

maneuvering for power positions in the group. Who gets to tell whom what to do

is a subtext (the meaning is derived not from a literal interpretation of the words,

but from how the words are used). How messages are spoken (sarcastically or as a

request) influences group members’ responses. Whether group members are being

cooperative or competitive with each other is a concern affecting the discussion.

When you are in a group, every utterance, choice, and action continually defines

and redefines who you are in relation to other group members and who they are in

relation to you. This is ongoing and unavoidable. Individuals affect the group and the

group influences the individual. Communication in groups is a continuous series of

transactions.

▶ Communication as a Process: The Continuous Flow Identifying communication as a process recognizes that nothing stands still, or as the

bumper sticker proclaims, “Change is inevitable—except from a vending machine.”

Communication reveals the dynamic nature of relationships and events.

Communication is a process because changes in events and relationships are part of a continuous flow. You can’t understand the ocean by freezing a single wave on film. The ocean is understood only in its dynamism—its tides, currents, waves in

motion, plant and animal life interacting symbiotically, and so forth. Similarly, com-

munication makes sense not by isolating a word, sentence, gesture, facial expression,

or exclamation, but by looking at currents of thought and feelings expressed verbally

and nonverbally as a whole.

As a student, for instance, you affect the quality of instruction by your attitude

and degree of interest in the subject matter. Great lectures may fall flat with students

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 11 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 12 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 12 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

who don’t care or have an antagonistic relationship with the instructor. Conversely,

mediocre presentations by instructors can be made more dynamic by the enthusiastic

participation of students. Students may be bored one minute and attentive the next.

Relationships between teachers and students may change in the short span of a single

class period or in the flash of an ill-chosen phrase, especially when controversial

material is presented.

We cannot freeze relationships in time. Every conversation is a point of departure

for an ensuing conversation. Every communication experience is the result of the

accumulation of experiences preceding the present one. Each new experience affects

future transactions. Human communication is a process.

▶ Communication as Sharing Meaning: Making Sense Our world becomes meaningful through communication with others. You do not

establish meaning in social isolation. Sharing ideas, feelings, ruminations, and ex-

periences with others is part of the process of constructing meaning, of determining

connections and patterns in our minds, of making sense of our world.

Verbal Communication: Telling It Like It Isn’t We share meaning verbally with language. Language is a structured system of symbols for sharing meaning. Symbols are representations of referents—whatever the symbol refers to. Because symbols represent referents but are not the objects, ideas, events, or relationships

represented, symbols have no meaning apart from us. The story of a psychiatrist

giving a Rorschach inkblot test to a client demonstrates this point. When asked to

identify the meaning of each inkblot, the client responds to the first, “a couple mak-

ing love,” to the second, “a nude woman silhouetted behind a shower curtain,” and

to the third, “a couple walking naked hand in hand.” The psychiatrist pauses, then

remarks, “Mr. Smith, you seem obsessed with sex.” Mr. Smith indignantly retorts,

“What do you mean? You’re the one showing me the dirty pictures.” Meaning is in

the mind of the beholder. There is no inherent meaning in any inkblot any more

than there is inherent meaning in any word. Words are symbols, so meaning is not

contained in words. We aren’t “telling it like it is” (identifying objective reality);

we’re telling others with words what our subjective view of the world is. Meaning is

derived from the associations or connections each of us makes when we interpret

these words.

Comedian Steven Wright asks, “Why is it that when you transport something by

car it’s called a shipment but when you transport something by ship it’s called cargo?”

and “Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?” Similarly,

linguist Richard Lederer (1990) asks why our feet can smell and our noses can run.

The simple answer is that the meaning and usage of words depend on common agreement. As a speech community, English speakers tacitly agree to certain mean- ings and appropriate usages for words.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 12 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation DefineD 13 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 13 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Because word meaning depends on common agreement, we can also invent

words, such as arachnidiot (a person who, having wandered into an “invisible” spider

web, begins flailing wildly), or baldage (the accumulation of hair in the drain after

showering), or downloafing (surfing the Internet when you should be working), or

carpal thumbal syndrome (a condition of the thumbs that is brought about by exces-

sive text messaging), all found on the Unwords.com website. Members of the speech

community must agree to use these invented words with their corresponding mean-

ings to make them functional. This common agreement, however, doesn’t always avoid misunderstandings because words can be ambiguous; they can have double or multiple common meanings. A booty call could be an invitation to a treasure hunt or a search for something quite different. Actual newspaper headlines reported

by the Columbia Journalism Review illustrate this ambiguity: “Prostitutes Appeal to

Pope,” “Schools Can Expect More Students Than Thought,” and “Kids Make Nutri-

tious Snacks.” A study of “problematic communication” among crew members and

in pilot–air traffic controller interactions concludes that “it is almost certain that

communication has played a central role in a significant proportion of aviation acci-

dents” (Howard, 2008, p. 371). “Multiple meanings of words and phrases” was listed

as one of the principal problems.

I’ve observed several group discussions at my own campus on the issue of diversity.

The term may seem straightforward, but it is far more ambiguous than one might

realize. At the 10 campuses that make up the University of California system for

example, white student enrollment dropped to a record-low 27% of the student body

in 2010 (Keller, 2010). Does diversity mean more white students should be recruited?

In 2010, 57% of college students were women and 43% were men (National Center

for Education Statistics, 2010), a “gender gap” that has developed over the last two

decades. Does diversity mean that more men should be recruited to close this gender

gap? Should there be programs aimed at retaining men in college? Does diversity

mean only including more students and faculty from historically underrepresented

groups in the national population, or also from underrepresented local populations?

Verbal misunderstandings are further complicated by culture. Electrolux, a Scandinavian vacuum cleaner manufacturer, once used the sales slogan in the United

States, “Nothing sucks like an Electrolux.” The slogan was quickly pulled once the

misunderstanding was revealed. In preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics in

Beijing, China, a retired army colonel named David Tool, who resided in the capital city,

was hired to correct notoriously poor translations featured on English signs. “ Beijing

Anus Hospital” was changed to “Beijing Proctology Hospital,” and “Deformed Man

Toilet” thankfully was changed to “Disabled Person Toilet” (Boudreau, 2007).

The increasing globalization of business makes the choice of language to com-

municate within and among multicultural groups and organizations an impor-

tant consideration. “Those who share a mother-tongue have a linguistic bond that

differs from those who speak the same language as a second language” (Victor,

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 13 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 14 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 14 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

2007, p. 3). If English is chosen as the preferred language of business, this can

create an in-group/out-group dynamic between those who speak it easily and

those who do not. The choice of language to conduct business can directly affect

teamwork and long-term business relationships for good or ill (Chen et al., 2006;

Swift & Huang, 2004). When a group speaks a language not understood by all its

members, as can occur in our increasingly multicultural workplaces, those left out

of the conversation because of an inability to understand the language spoken may

feel socially ostracized and angry. This linguistic divide can reduce group produc-

tivity (Dotan-Eliaz et al., 2009).

The emergence of global virtual teams has also created an international lin-

guistic challenge. Increasingly, virtual teams (especially in the realm of interna-

tional business) are composed of members from various cultures, many of whom

speak English as a second language (Solomon, 2010). English is the dominant lan-

guage of the Internet, and it has been proposed as the global language of business

( Crystal, 1997). Inevitably, however, the nuances and complexities of mastering a

language such as English lead to problems of interpretation and even translation,

especially for virtual teams (Rad & Levin, 2003). A study of virtual teams showed

that 64% of respondents found language difficulties challenging (Solomon, 2010).

Consider, for example, whether the e-mail from your team leader saying that the

team project “is fine” should be interpreted as damning (with faint praise) or as

giving a genuine thumbs-up for a job well done. Simple word-for-word transla-

tion of this message won’t help those who speak English as a second language,

and even for those who speak English as their native language, the message is also

nebulous. In addition, “maybe” to an American means possibly yes, but to a Japa-

nese, “maybe” means a polite no. Also, when a Japanese businessperson remarks

in an e-mail or text message that some action is “very difficult,” it is a polite way

of saying that there is no chance the action will be taken, but an American busi-

nessperson likely interprets this as room for negotiation and hope for possible

agreement (Kameda, 2003).

When you assume that everyone in your group has the same meaning for

a word, it is called bypassing. You counteract bypassing by recognizing that meaning is not in a word, so the meaning you have in your head for key words

should be clearly speci fied at the outset of any group discussion to avoid confu-

sion and misunderstanding. Nevertheless, some misunderstandings will occur

because language can be complex and ambiguous even with the best effort to

avoid bypassing.

Nonverbal Communication: Wordless Meaning We share meaning nonver- bally as well as verbally. Nonverbal communication is sharing meaning with others without using words. Our facial expressions, eye contact, personal ap-

pearance, tone of voice, gestures, posture, touch, and use of space and time all

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 14 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation DefineD 15 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 15 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Jim H

en de

rs on

/F lic

kr /G

et ty

Im ag

es K

en ne

th S

po ns

le r/

Sh ut

te rs

to ck

Language can be ambiguous, creating confusion, even amusement.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 15 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 16 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 16 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

have the potential to communicate messages to group members (Manusov &

Patterson, 2006). When we compete with group members, for example, we tend

to sit across from each other or increase distance between each other, but when

we cooperate we tend to sit side by side or corner to corner at a table ( Forsyth,

1990). Cooperating group members tend to mirror (copy) posture, whereas

competing members tend to exhibit the opposite posture pattern (Ketrow, 1999).

Seating patterns and posture can signal whether group members are focused on

competing or cooperating. Business meetings in U.S. culture are expected to be-

gin on time. Even small delays of 5 to 10 minutes can be offensive and irritat-

ing, but most Latin American, southern European, African, and Middle Eastern

cultures are not nearly as time sensitive. Delays of 15 minutes or even as long

as a day are viewed as acceptable and inoffensive (Martin & Nakayama, 2008;

Trompenaars, 1994).

Nonverbal communication, like verbal communication, is often ambiguous. When group members look down for several minutes while you are speaking, does

it mean they are bored, uncomfortable with your message, not listening, carefully

considering your message, or devising a plan to exit the meeting early? When a group

member frowns, is he or she showing confusion, taking offense at something said,

or contemplating something unrelated to the discussion? Jury consultant Howard

Varinsky notes that attempting to decipher a jury’s verdict by observing whether

jurors look at or avoid eye contact with the defendant before the pronouncement of

guilt or innocence is silly. “Who they look at when they come into the courtroom—

you can interpret looks 50 different ways.” Rich Matthews, a jury consultant with

Decision Analysis in San Francisco, also states that it is “practically impossible and

it’s just dangerous to interpret facial expressions and gestures and reactions” during

a trial (quoted in Sulek, 2004a, p. 9A).

Even though nonverbal communication can be ambiguous and difficult to read accurately, it can nevertheless have a big impact on our impressions of others (Giles & LePoire, 2006). In 2004, Scott Peterson was found guilty of mur- dering his pregnant wife and unborn child. Jurors revealed after the trial that

they chose the death penalty as his punishment partly because, as juror Richelle

Nice put it, “For me, a big part of it was at the end — the verdict — no emotion.

No anything. That spoke a thousand words — loud and clear. Today — the giggle

at the table. Loud and clear.” Jury foreman Steve Cardosi echoed this reaction:

“He lost his wife and his child and it didn’t seem to faze him” (quoted in Sulek,

2004b, p. 16A). Similarly, one study of jurors’ reactions to nonverbal communi-

cation by judges during mock trials showed particular sensitivity and a negative

reaction to a judge’s perceived lack of involvement (e.g., pen tapping, paper shuf-

fling) and apparent bias (e.g., scornful facial expressions) (Burnett & Badzinski,

2005).

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 16 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation DefineD 17 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 17 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Unlike verbal communication, nonverbal communication is continuous, not discrete (Andersen, 1999). Verbal communication has identifiable, discrete beginnings and endings. We speak and verbal communication begins; we stop

speaking and verbal communication ends. Nonverbal communication, however,

continues to send messages to those who are aware of our behavior. We can’t stop

our facial expressions. Even a blank face communicates. Showing no eye contact

can signal respect, intimidation, boredom, or insult. You can’t stop the nonverbal

leakage.

In 2002, a jury convicted Robert Noel, the owner of a dog that viciously mauled

and killed Diane Whipple, of involuntary manslaughter. Noel apparently was

oblivious to the continuous nature of nonverbal communication. Staring stoically

into space for most of the trial, Noel responded after the verdict to jurors’ char-

acterization of him as unremorseful and unpleasant in his demeanor: “I made up

my mind not to react one way or another. I’m sitting there just watching what was

going on, making notes for the attorneys . . . And it’s just amazing that I could just

sit there doing nothing and that gets twisted into, ‘Oh, he’s a cold-hearted son of a

bitch’” (May, 2002, p. 18A). When others are observing us, we always communicate

something.

Verbal and Nonverbal Interconnectedness: Joined at the Hip Although we commonly discuss them as though they were completely separate, verbal and

This cartoon illustrates (more than one answer may be correct): 1. Nonverbal communication is less ambiguous than verbal communication. 2. Nonverbal communication can be highly ambiguous. 3. A single nonverbal expression, such as a wink, has only a single meaning. 4. A single nonverbal expression may have multiple meanings.

Answers are given at end of chapter.

D IL

B ER

T: ©

2 0

0 0

S co

tt A

da m

s. D

is t.

B y

U N

IV ER

SA L

U C

LI C

K .

R ep

ri nt

w ith

p er

m is

si on

. A ll

ri gh

ts r

es er

ve d.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 17 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 18 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 18 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

nonverbal communication are interconnected. Nonverbal cues that accompany

language can be as important as the words spoken, or more so. For example,

an interesting verbal message can be made boring by a glacially slow speaking

pattern, monotonous voice, poor eye contact, expressionless face, and frequent

hesitations.

Mixed messages also show the connection between verbal and nonverbal com-

munication. A mixed message occurs when there is positive verbal and negative nonverbal communication, or vice versa. A group member may verbally endorse the

group’s decision but nonverbally exhibit disagreement, even contempt. It is easier to

hide our real feelings verbally than it is nonverbally. Attempting to wipe an opinion

off your face is a real challenge.

One of the difficulties with communicating in virtual groups is the absence of nonverbal cues, in whole or in part, that accompany verbal, face-to-face messages (Wallace, 1999). The emotional tone of an online written message can easily be

misinterpreted as hostile, impersonal, or disagreeable because vocal tone, facial

expressions, posture, gestures, and the normal array of nonverbal cues are missing

unless video is available for virtual meetings (Johnson et al., 2009). One study of

virtual teams revealed that “inability to read nonverbal cues” was identified by 94%

of respondents as a significant problem (Solomon, 2010). Emoticons—typed icons or combinations of punctuation marks meant to indicate emotional tone—help but

are still limited, and using them often can interrupt the flow of messages. Individuals

Is Robert Noel, who was on trial for involuntary manslaughter in a famous dog maul- ing case, communicating “nothing” to you, or do you form an impression from his facial expression?

N IC

K U

T/ A

FP /G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 18 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation DefineD 19 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 19 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

may also be hesitant to use emoticons in business communication for fear of appear-

ing too informal and unprofessional.

Context: The Communication Environment Every communication transac- tion has a context, or an environment in which meaning emerges. Context consists of who (sender) communicates what (message) to whom (receiver), why (purpose)

the communicator does it, where (setting), when (time), and how (way) it is done.

Context is a central element of verbal communication. Little notice may be given to obscene words and phrases used unthinkingly when talking with a group of friends.

If used during a job interview, however, they would probably be highly objectionable

and cause for rejection of an applicant by an interview panel.

Context is also central to nonverbal communication. For instance, in 1997 a Newton, Massachusetts, jury found Louise Woodward, a British teenager em-

ployed as a nanny by an American couple, guilty of manslaughter for the death of

the couple’s infant. Why did the jury not believe Woodward’s testimony that the

infant’s death was an accident, and would a British jury have made the same verdict?

Jonathon Raban (1997), a British author living in the United States and present at

the trial, concluded, “My English eyes saw one thing; my American-resident eyes

saw something else altogether” (p. 53). Raban’s “English eyes” saw a Louise Wood-

ward with “shoulders hunched submissively forward, eyes lowered, voice a humble

whisper. Ms. Woodward made a good impression as an English church mouse. Her

posture announced that she knew her place; that she acknowledged the superior

authority of the court; that she was a nobody.” He concluded, “I thought she was

telling the truth.” Raban’s “American-resident eyes,” however, saw something quite

different. “My second pair of eyes saw Ms. Woodward as sullen, masked, affectless,

dissembling. Her evasive body language clearly bespoke the fact that she was keeping

something of major importance hidden from the court.” He concluded, “I thought

she was telling lies” (p. 55). Raban’s dual-culture perspective emphasizes the am-

biguity of nonverbal communication and the influence of context (e.g., American

or British culture) on interpreting nonverbal messages. This trial was watched with

great interest in Britain, where, according to CNN, most believed Woodward was

innocent.

Verbal and nonverbal communication is discussed in much greater detail later. Such subjects as gender styles of communicating, boundary control, defen- sive and supportive communication patterns, false dichotomies, collective inferential

error, verbal and nonverbal indicators of power, verbal and nonverbal abuse, low-

context and high-context communication, and assertiveness explore ways verbal and

nonverbal communication influence group transactions.

I have thus far discussed what communication is not and, conversely, what com-

munication is. To summarize by way of definition, communication is a transactional process of sharing meaning with others. The intricacies of sharing meaning with

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 19 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 20 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 20 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

others in group situations will become more apparent when I discuss what consti-

tutes competent communication, the next topic for consideration.

Communication Competence

Knowing what constitutes human communication does not tell you how to en-

gage in the process in a competent manner. To accomplish this goal, it helps to

understand what it means to communicate competently. Communication com- petence is engaging in communication with others that is both effective and ap- propriate within a given context (Spitzberg, 2000). This definition requires brief

elaboration.

Focus Questions

1. How do you determine communication competence?

2. Does appropriate communication require unswerving conformity to group rules and standards?

3. Does being a competent communicator mean never engaging in poor com- munication practices?

▶ Effectiveness: Achieving Goals Communication competence is predicated on results. Consequently, effectiveness is defined as how well we have progressed toward the achievement of goals. Someone

who knows the changes in communication behavior that need to be made, and who

wants to make these changes but never does, can hardly be deemed a competent

communicator.

A Matter of Degree: From Deficiency to Proficiency Communication effec- tiveness is a relative concept—a matter of degree (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989). We

speak of communicators along a continuum, from highly proficient in achieving

goals to woefully deficient, with designations in between such as ordinary and aver-

age. All of us have our communication strengths and weaknesses in certain situa-

tions and circumstances. Some individuals are at ease in social situations such as

parties or gatherings of strangers, but they would rather be dipped in molasses and

strapped to an anthill than confront conflict in their own group. We can be highly

proficient in one circumstance but minimally skillful or depressingly ineffective in

another situation. Therefore, the label “competent communicator” is a judgment of

an individual’s degree of proficiency in achieving goals in a particular context, not an

inherent characteristic of any individual.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 20 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation CompetenCe 21 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 21 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

We (Not Me) Oriented: Primacy of Groups In groups, our primary atten- tion is on the group (we), not the individual (me). Zander (1982) even goes so

far as to claim, “A body of people is not a group if the members are primarily

interested in individual accomplishment” (p. 2). This, however, is not the same

as saying that groups should always supersede individual interests. Nevertheless,

trying to achieve your individual goals at the expense of the group’s goals usually

produces unsatisfactory outcomes for both you and the group. As NBA coach Pat

Riley (1994) notes in his book The Winner Within, some group members develop

the “disease of me.” He describes it this way: “They develop an overpowering belief

in their own importance. Their actions virtually shout the claim, ‘I’m the one’”

(p. 41). Riley concludes that the “disease of me” inevitably produces “the defeat of

us” (p. 52).

There are potential dividends when group members assume a We-orientation.

Usually, helping others satisfy their goals creates an environment conducive to the

satisfaction of your own goals. For instance, one way for women and ethnic minorities

to overcome bias that prevents them from achieving high status in a group is to act in

a group-oriented, not a self-oriented, manner (Ridgeway, 1982). A We-orientation

requires concern for others, not merely concern for self. Consequently, communica-

tion competence in groups necessitates behavior that is both effective and appropriate.

▶ Appropriateness: Following the Rules The appropriateness of a person’s communication is determined by examining the

context. Thus, appropriateness means complying with rules and their accompany- ing expectations (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989). A rule is a prescription that indicates what you should or shouldn’t do in specific contexts (Shimanoff, 1980).

Consider two examples. First, a study of student-to-teacher e-mail and text messag-

ing showed that students often send overly casual messages to teachers. Messages such

as, “R U Able to Meat Me,” inclines an instructor “to like the student less, view them as

less credible, have a lesser opinion of the message quality, and make them less willing

to comply with students’ simple email requests” (Stephens et al., 2009, p. 318). Text

abbreviations (“R U” instead of “are you”) are particularly disliked by teachers, and

misspellings and apparent lack of proofreading (“meat” instead of “meet”) clearly di-

minish the sender’s credibility. Standard implicit rules for teacher–student communi-

cation dictate that students communicate thoughtfully and respectfully with teachers.

If your study group or project team needs to e-mail or text message your instructor,

show care and respect by avoiding overly casual, inappropriate messaging, especially

when your instructor is not very familiar with group members (early in the term).

Second, a survey of more than 2,400 “hiring managers” conducted by Harris

Interactive for Career Builder, a web-based employment organization, showed that

71% of employers listed “answering a cell phone or texting during the interview”

as the most common mistake made by job applicants. Close behind (69%) was

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 21 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 22 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 22 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Individualism versus Collectivism: A Basic Cultural Difference

A poll of 131 businesspeople, scholars,

government officials, and profession-

als in eight East Asian countries and

the United States showed glaring differences

in the value placed on order and personal

rights and freedoms (as cited in Simons &

Zielenziger, 1996). For the question, “Which

of the following are critically important to

your people?” the results were as follows:

Asians Americans An orderly society 70% 11% Personal freedom 32% 82% Individual rights 29% 73%

All cultures vary in the degree of empha-

sis they place on individuals exploring their

uniqueness and independence versus main-

taining their conformity and interdependence.

This individualism– collectivism dimension is thought by some scholars to be the most important, deep-seated value that distin- guishes one culture from another (Hui & Triandis, 1986). It has provoked voluminous

research. The individualism– collectivism

dimension is at the center of the communi-

cation competence model’s We-orientation

perspective.

The autonomy of the individual is of paramount importance in individual- ist cultures, hence the emphasis placed on self-actualization and personal growth. Words such as independence, self, privacy, and

rights imbue cultural conversations. Indivi-

dualist cultures have an “I” consciousness.

Competition, not cooperation, is e ncouraged.

Decision making is predicated on what

benefits the individual, even if this jeopardizes

the group welfare. Individual achievement

and initiative are stressed. Self-promotion

is expected, even encouraged (Hofstede &

Hofstede, 2005).

In collectivist cultures, by contrast, com- mitment to the group is paramount. Words such as loyalty, responsibility (to the group

welfare), and community imbue collectivist

cultural conversations. Collectivist cultures

have a “We” consciousness. Cooperation

within valued groups (family, friends, co-

workers) is strongly emphasized, although

transactions with groups perceived as out-

siders (foreigners, strangers) can become

competitive (a threat to a valued group) (Yu,

1998). Individuals often downplay personal

goals in favor of advancing the goals of a

valued group. Self-promotion is discouraged

(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

All cultures have both individualist and collectivist influences, but one tends to pre- dominate over the other. A worldwide study of 50 countries and three geographic areas

ranks the United States as the number-one

individualistic country (Hofstede & Hofstede,

2005). The United States is followed by other

Western countries such as Australia, Great

Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and New

Zealand, in that order. Latin American, Asian,

and West and East African countries rank

high on collectivism. Guatemala is the most

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 22 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation CompetenCe 23 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 23 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Figure 1.1 Map of individualist and collectivist cultures. From In the Company of Others, Third Edition, by J. Dan Rothwell. © 2010, Oxford University Press. Reprinted with permission of Geert Hofstede.

collectivist. Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, Co-

lombia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Singapore are

also among the most collectivist (see Figure

1.1). Most of the world’s population lives in col-

lectivist cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

Despite strong cultural pressure, no population uniformly accepts its culture’s values (see Box 1.2 to check your degree of individualism or collectivism). A review of 35

studies involving thousands of participants

showed that African Americans are signifi-

cantly more individualistic than European

Americans (white respondents), but both

are substantially more i ndividualistic than

are Asian Americans (Oyserman et al.,

2002). Even different regions of the United

States vary. Individualism is strongest in

the Mountain West and Great Plains states,

but collectivism is quite strong in the Deep

South (Vandello & Cohen, 1999).

In the United States, the preoccupation

with individualism has drawn fire. Psychol-

ogist Carol Tavris (1989) argues that indi-

vidualism in the United States has become

excessive, producing what she terms the “Im-

perial I.” The individual is king, regal in im-

portance. Groups often are thought to exist

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 23 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 24 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 24 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

to satisfy the needs of individual members,

not to advance the greater social welfare.

Sociologist Charles Derber (1996) claims,

“As individualism intensifies, the balance of

commitment can tilt so far toward the self

that the family and other building blocks of

society decompose” (p. 111).

Excessive individualism can be faulted, but excessive collectivism has its dangers too. The perils of group pressure and blind conformity to groups, issues that will be dis-

cussed at length later in this book, remind us

of the risks involved with excessive loyalty

to any group. Collectivist cultures require

a level of conformity and restrictive rules

that are unacceptable to most Americans.

Singapore, for example, levies heavy fines on

anyone littering, spitting, smoking in public

places, or failing to flush public toilets—

actions that are monitored by government

employees (Aglionby, 2002; En-Lai, 2003).

Requiring students to take drug tests is a rou-

tine practice, and groups of five individuals

or more cannot meet on the street without

police permission. Video cameras are set up

at busy intersections to monitor compliance

with traffic laws; heavy censorship of printed

material, music, and motion pictures is

widespread; only the police can own guns;

and political opposition to the government

is a risky undertaking, often resulting in fines

and imprisonment for dissidents (Mydans,

2008).

Individualist and collectivist cultures

exhibit glaring differences in their percep-

tions of the world and how people should

behave. Individualist and collectivist values, however, do not always conflict (Schwartz, 1990). When an individual learns conflict

management skills or improves interpersonal

communication skills, the group benefits as

well as the group member. Nevertheless, if

groups are to succeed, individual goals and

agendas should be of secondary, not primary,

importance (LaFasto & Larson, 2001).

The United States does not have to be- come a collectivist culture where the group is supreme, but teamwork and putting the group ahead of individual needs and goals are often appropriate and important. As Larson and LaFasto (1989) pointedly state:

The potential for collective problem-

solving is so often unrealized and the

promise of collective achievement so

often unfulfilled, that we exhibit what

seems to be a developmental disability

in the area of social competence. . . .

Clearly, if we are to solve the enor-

mous problems facing our society, we

need to learn how to collaborate more

effectively. We need to set aside indi-

vidual agendas. (pp. 13 –14)

Emphasizing team building and collab-

orative effort can prove beneficial to both

individuals and society.

Questions for thought 1. Do you agree that the United States has become excessively Me-oriented? Explain. 2. Singapore has low crime, safe cities, low unemployment, and few homeless citizens. The United

States has the opposite. Should we strive to become collectivist and emulate the Singaporeans?

3. Could the United States ever become a collectivist nation, given our individualist history?

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 24 25/10/11 9:01 PM

CommuniCation CompetenCe 25 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 25 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

How closely do you personally reflect individualist or collectivist values of your culture or co-culture? Consider the following statements and, using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree), indicate your degree of agreement or dis- agreement with each statement.*

1. I prefer to be direct and forthright when I talk with people.

2. I would do what would please my family, even if I detested that activity.

3. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many ways.

4. I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

5. I like my privacy. 6. Children should be taught to place duty

before pleasure. 7. I like to demonstrate my abilities to others. 8. I hate to disagree with others in my group.

9. When I succeed, it is usually because of my abilities.

10. Before taking a major trip, I consult with most members of my family and many friends.

Total your score for all odd-numbered statements (1, 3, etc.), then total your score for even-numbered statements (2, 4, etc.). All odd-numbered state- ments reflect individualism and all even-numbered statements reflect collectivism. Which are you? Overall, do you agree more with individualist state- ments (higher score on odd-numbered statements) than with collectivist statements (lower score on even-numbered statements)? If so, you reflect the prevailing individualist values of American culture.

* For the entire 63-statement measuring instrument, see

Triandis (1995).

“dressing inappropriately” (Grasz, 2011). An interviewing panel expects appropri-

ate behavior from applicants. Interrupting an interview to answer a cell phone or

to send a text message communicates less interest in the job and more interest in

immediate communication with others. Dressing too casually for a formal interview

(one applicant noted in the survey wore a hat that said “take this job and shove it”)

insults the hiring panel. Know the rules and meet expectations accordingly or you’ll

flub the interview.

Some rules of appropriate communication are shared across cultures. One study

examined fundamental social interaction rules in four cultures (Great Britain, Hong

Kong, Italy, and Japan). All four cultures shared the same basic rules: An individual

should be polite, friendly, and pleasant, and no one should attempt to make another

person feel embarrassed or small (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). Sustaining strong

relationships in a group is partly dependent on following such basic rules (Kline &

Stafford, 2004).

Box 1.2

Be Ye Individualist or Collectivist?

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 25 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 26 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 26 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Despite some shared rules, appropriateness can be a challenge when communicat-

ing interculturally. The difficulty in determining appropriateness can be seen readily

from the following intercultural example:

An American college student, while having a dinner party with a group of

foreigners, learns that her favorite cousin has just died. She bites her lip,

pulls herself up, and politely excuses herself from the group. The interpre-

tation given to this behavior will vary with the culture of the observer. The

Italian student thinks, “How insincere; she doesn’t even cry.” The Russian

student thinks, “How unfriendly; she didn’t care enough to share her grief

with her friends.” The fellow American student thinks, “How brave; she

wanted to bear her burden by herself.” (DeVito, 1990, p. 218)

The appropriateness of your communication cannot be determined by merely ex-

amining a message that is isolated from the rich complexity of context. For instance,

you may self-disclose intimate information about yourself to members of some

groups but not others. If you attend a therapy group on marriage, self-disclosing

will be expected and encouraged because it is compatible with the group’s purpose.

If, however, you are talking to a meeting of the Student Senate or the Dormitory

Advisory Committee, intimate self-disclosure will likely make members squirm in

their chairs and wish for an earthquake. The purpose of these groups is not thera-

peutic, so the expectations regarding what constitutes appropriate communication

in these contexts are different from expectations found at meetings of Alcoholics

Anonymous or Marriage Encounter.

Communication becomes inappropriate if it violates rules of the group when such violations could have been avoided, without sacrificing a goal, by choosing different communication behaviors (Getter & Nowinski, 1981). In short, inappro- priateness is usually the result of being clueless or clumsy.

Achieving Communication Competence

Defining communication competence identifies what it is, but not how to achieve

it. There are five general ways to improve your effectiveness and appropriateness in groups: You can acquire knowledge, hone communication skills, improve your sensitivity, redouble your commitment, and apply ethical standards to your com-

munication choices (see Figure 1.2).

▶ Knowledge: Learning the Rules I have already noted the centrality of appropriateness and effectiveness to the defini-

tion of communication competence. Both require knowledge. Knowledge means

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 26 25/10/11 9:01 PM

aChievinG CommuniCation CompetenCe 27 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 27 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

learning the rules and understanding what is required to be appropriate and effective

in your communication.

Communication may be appropriate but not effective, and vice versa. Know- ledge of the context tells you which is most likely. Consider the following example:

Brian Holtz is a U.S. businessperson assigned by his company to manage its

office in Thailand. Mr. Thani, a valued assistant manager in the Bangkok of-

fice, has recently been arriving late for work. Holtz has to decide what to do

about this problem. After carefully thinking about his options, he decides

there are four possible strategies: (1) Go privately to Mr. Thani, ask him

why he has been arriving late, and tell him that he needs to come to work

on time. (2) Ignore the problem. (3) Publicly reprimand Mr. Thani the next

time he is late. (4) In a private discussion, suggest seeking Mr. Thani’s as-

sistance in dealing with employees in the company who regularly arrive late

for work, and solicit his suggestions about what should be done. (Lustig &

Koester, 2003, p. 65)

What choice would you make? The first option is often the way Americans would

handle this type of situation. It is direct, and it probably would be effective in get-

ting Mr. Thani to arrive at work on time. Nevertheless, considering the Thai culture

(context), where one person does not directly criticize another person (Knutson

et al., 2003), this choice would be very inappropriate, even disastrous (Knutson &

Posirisuk, 2006). Conversely, the second choice would be appropriate but hardly

Figure 1.2 Communication competence model.

SkillsKnowledge

Sensitivity Commitment

Ethics

E ffe

ct iv

en es

A pp

ro pr

ia te

ne ss

Communication competence model

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 27 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 28 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 28 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

effective, because Mr. Thani would likely persist in his tardiness. The third choice

would be neither appropriate nor effective. Public humiliation would likely induce

Mr. Thani, a valuable employee, to resign in shame. Thus, the fourth choice is best

because it is both appropriate and effective (Lustig & Koester, 2003). Mr. Thani would

receive the message indirectly that he must arrive at work on time, yet he could save

face. He can respond affirmatively to the indirect request that he change his behavior

from tardiness to punctuality, without suffering public humiliation.

Knowledge in any communication situation is critical, whether the context is ours

or another culture’s. We cannot determine what is appropriate and effective with- out knowing the rules operating in a given situation.

We don’t always make the wisest communication choices, but we are likely to

make a fair number of foolish ones if our limited knowledge shields us from ap-

propriate alternatives. In communicative matters, a little knowledge is like the dim

flicker of a candle flame in a dark mine shaft. There’s just enough illumination to see

choices, but not enough light to provide effective direction. If you are uncertain what

is expected or required in a given situation, you should seek knowledge from those

who are likely to know and who can enhance your understanding.

▶ Skills: Showing, Not Just Knowing Communication competence encompasses the ability to apply your knowledge in ac-

tual situations. To be effective, you have to combine knowledge with skill. Despite the increasing popularity of teams in organizations, researchers have discovered that

teams are often unsuccessful because members lack teamwork knowledge and skill

(Hollenbeck et al., 2004; Marks et al., 2002). They may know what to do but not how

to do it skillfully.

A communication skill is “the successful performance of a communication behavior . . . [and] the ability to repeat such a behavior” (Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984,

p. 577). Practice, of course, is essential to the mastery of any communication skill.

Group members who are trained and practice together acquire skills and improve

group performance (Ellis et al., 2005).

There is abundant evidence that links communication skills with success or fail-

ure in the workplace. For example, an annual survey of more than 400 employers

conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers ranked commu-

nication skills (for the thirteenth year in a row) as the most important qualification a

candidate for employment can possess, and it ranked teamwork skills as third most

desirable from a list of 20 skills (“Top Skills for Job Candidates,” 2011). A survey of

2,115 managers and executives by the American Management Association agreed

with these results, but added that communication and teamwork skills will become

even more important in the future (“AMA 2010 Critical Skills Survey,” 2010). This

study also noted that employees are generally deficient in such skills. “Successful

communication is critical in business” (Hansen & Hansen, 2005). Employers want

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 28 25/10/11 9:01 PM

aChievinG CommuniCation CompetenCe 29 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 29 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

to hire skillful communicators who can work in teams and make effective decisions

in groups.

Communication competence, of course, is not simply a matter of learning a single

skill or even a set of skills. As indicated earlier, skills without knowledge of when and

how to use them are mostly useless, even harmful. The key is learning many skills and using them flexibly, with the proper knowledge of what’s appropriate for a given context (Riggio, 2006).

▶ Sensitivity: Receptive Accuracy Having the knowledge to determine what constitutes appropriate communication

in a specific context and having the skills to be effective are great, but what if you

don’t have your antenna extended to pick up signals that indicate inappropriateness?

What if you aren’t attentive to signals from group members that indicate hostility,

tension, anger, irritation, disgust, or uneasiness? In addition to knowledge and skills,

the competent communicator needs sensitivity. Sensitivity is receptive accuracy whereby you can detect, decode, and comprehend signals and emotional cues sent

within groups (Bernieri, 2001). Failure to attend to and comprehend signals can severely affect your relationships with group members (Hall & Bernieri, 2001). According to recent research, the more group members exhibit the ability to identify

accurately the feelings of others, the greater the likelihood that groups will cooperate

and solve problems effectively. This ability is even more important than the general

intelligence of group members. Women exhibit a greater facility for such sensitivity,

so including women in task-oriented groups is highly advisable (Woolley et al., 2010).

Problems that lie just below the surface go unattended by groups and magnify dif-

ficulties unless members are sensitive to the nuances and subtleties of communica-

tion transactions between members. Fortunately, sensitivity can be learned (Hall &

Bernieri, 2001). One of the functions of this text is to assist you in developing greater

sensitivity by identifying patterns of communication that pose problems in group

transactions and by providing solutions for these dysfunctional patterns.

▶ Commitment: A Passion for Excellence Effectiveness requires commitment. Commitment is persistent effort to achieve goals and produce excellence. Little that is worthwhile comes without commitment.

Do you want a romantic relationship to last? Commitment is essential (Epstein,

2010). Do you want to be a great athlete? Then you must commit yourself to the hard

work necessary to achieve greatness. Do you want to receive an academic scholar-

ship, earn good grades, finish a degree, and get a great job? It won’t happen by listless

attention in class and lackluster attendance. You have to want it, work for it, have a

passion to achieve it—you must be committed.

The predominant motivation of the competent communicator is the desire to avoid previous mistakes and to find better ways of communicating with group

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 29 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 30 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 30 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

members. Someone who makes the same mistakes repeatedly and shows little inter- est in altering his or her behavior is a nuisance, or worse, a deadweight who can sink

a group. Such anemic commitment is a frequent source of frustration in groups, and

it can fester into grouphate. It is easily the most frequent complaint I hear from my

group communication students each term. Who wants to deal with a lethargic social

loafer who can’t be counted on to produce and doesn’t seem to care? In sports, they

are booted off the team; in business, they are fired; in politics, they are voted out of

office; in college, they are invited to leave.

Commitment to improving your communication effectiveness requires self-

monitoring. When you interact in groups you have to be a participant-observer. You assume a detached view of yourself. You analyze your communication behav-

ior, looking for areas to improve, while noting successes. Ultimately, the competent

communicator considers it a personal responsibility to make the necessary effort to

interact with group members as effectively and productively as possible.

▶ Ethics: The Right and Wrong of Communication A 1997 survey of 1,324 workers by the Ethics Officer Association revealed that 48%

of respondents admitted they had engaged in one or more unethical communication

behaviors in the past year. Workers covered up unethical or illegal incidents; lied to

or deceived customers, coworkers, or supervisors; or took credit for a coworker’s

idea. More recently, a survey of workers by the Ethics Resource Center showed that

36% of workers called in sick when they weren’t ill and 12% of executives inflated

their résumés with bogus information (MacIntyre, 2005).

Despite these ethical lapses, most companies in the United States have ethical

codes (Myers, 2003). Google, for example, has a code of ethics posted on its web-

site. The Google slogan, “Don’t Be Evil,” is a familiar reminder to Google employees

to conduct themselves ethically. As cofounders Sergey Brin and Larry Page explain,

“Being a Googler means holding yourself to the highest possible standard of ethical

business conduct. This is a matter as much practical as ethical . . . our most important

asset by far is our reputation as a company that warrants our users’ faith and trust”

(quoted in Shermer, 2008, p. 65).

Why should anyone care about ethics in communication? Because as humans

we contemplate the moral correctness of our behavior. It’s one of the character-

istics that distinguishes us from a banana slug. The very definition of communi-

cation competence requires it. Appropriateness and the We-orientation make ethics important. Competent communicators concern themselves with more than what works for them personally. A group member taking vastly greater credit

for the success of a group project than what he or she deserves is self-centered,

and it diminishes the important contributions of other group members. This is

unethical communication behavior. This is unethical because it violates standards

of ethics.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 30 25/10/11 9:01 PM

aChievinG CommuniCation CompetenCe 31 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 31 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Ethics is a system for judging the moral correctness of human behavior by weigh- ing that behavior against an agreed upon set of standards of what constitutes right

and wrong. Five essential values, based on the 1999 “Credo for Ethical Communica-

tion” adopted by the National Communication Association (www.natcom.org), con-

stitute the set of standards for judging the moral correctness of our communication

behavior. They are as follows:

1. Honesty. The American culture presumes that honesty is valued and dishonesty is wrong (Bok, 1978). Accuse a person of lying and immediately they become defen-

sive. All ethical systems condemn lying (Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994). Imagine trying

to keep a family together when everyone lies regularly and no one can be trusted.

2. Respect. Relationships in groups fall apart, and groups can’t function effectively when members show disrespect for each other (Gastil et al., 2008). From an ethi-

cal viewpoint, respect is right and disrespect is wrong even if showing respect

to others works against a group goal (such as defeating a team). Show respect to

others as you would want them to show respect to you (the golden rule). “Some

form of the golden rule is embraced by virtually all of the major religious and

moral systems” (Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994, p. 101).

3. Fairness. Prejudice treats people unfairly. Bigots want different rules for them- selves than those applied to a disfavored group. Bigotry should have no place in

the communication arena. Students recognize immediately how unfair it would be

if an instructor gave an advantage to some students in class and penalized others

based on their sex, ethnicity, age, or lifestyle. Cheating on an exam gives an unfair

advantage to the cheater. Although some students may cheat, few would be proud

to announce it to others. (See Callahan, 2004, for a detailed discussion of cheating.)

4. Choice. Freedom to choose for oneself without threat of force or intimidation is a basic ethical value (Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994). It is why most nations have outlawed

torture. Coercion prevents choice. There is no real option presented. Choice goes

hand in hand with honesty. If you fear reprisals for telling the truth, then your

freedom to choose truthfulness instead of deceit is compromised.

5. Responsibility. Ethical communication is We-oriented. Every group member and the group as a whole have a responsibility, a duty, to be concerned about more

than merely what works to achieve personal or even group goals. How goals are

achieved is also a vital consideration.

These general ethical values serve as guidelines for appropriate communication

behavior. For example, undermining other group members by spreading malicious

gossip about them to enhance one’s own status and position in the group is dishon-

est and disrespectful. Promising your group that you will conduct research and pro-

vide the group with important information when you have no intention of coming

through is irresponsible and dishonest. Resisting leadership from a group member

merely because she is a woman is unfair and disrespectful.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 31 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 32 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 32 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON GENDER

Gender and Communication Competence

W hy is it good that there are female

astronauts? When the crew gets lost

in space, at least the woman will ask

for directions.” “How do you impress a

woman? Compliment her, cuddle her, caress

her, love her, listen to her, support her, and

spend money on her. How do you impress

a man? Show up naked. Bring beer.” Take

a moment and consider these jokes found

on the Internet. Amusing? Offensive? These

attempts at humor reflect a belief that men

and women communicate differently.

John Gray has popularized and incorrectly

magnified these gender differences with his

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus

book and subsequent Mars/Venus materi-

als that morphed from this best seller (see

Cameron, 2007 and Wood, 2001, for a cri-

tique of Gray’s work). Are men and women

really so different that we appear to live in

two separate worlds? One communication

expert likens gender differences in commu-

nication to North and South Dakota—men

and women live in neighboring places with

much in common (Dindia, 2006). One re-

view of numerous studies found that, in ag-

gregate, men and women are 99% similar

and only 1% different in their communica-

tion (Canary & Hause, 1993). This supports

the gender similarities hypothesis, which claims that most gender differences in com-

munication are small (Hyde, 2005). For

example, consider the use of technology.

Although men are more likely than women to

check their e-mail over the weekend (69% to

62%) and to check their e-mail in the middle

of the night (44% to 36%), the gender differ-

ences are small, according to a national survey

(Conlon, 2007). Consider further some com-

mon communication activities while driving.

A national survey of 502 U.S. drivers (251

males, 251 females) revealed that 24% of both

males and females admitted to texting at least

once a week while driving. Additionally, 43%

of men and 41% of women used their car horn

to express displeasure to another driver, and

50% of men and 43% of women admitted to

using a rude gesture when expressing this dis-

pleasure (Burfeind & Witkemper, 2010). The

gender differences are small to nonexistent.

Small gender differences in communi-

cation, however, should not be discounted

as unimportant. Even small differences can

produce large effects (Eagly, 1995). A com-

puter simulation study of organizational hir-

ing practices, for instance, discovered that

when men were given a mere 1% advantage

over women in performance ratings, 65% of

the highest-level positions were given to men

(Martell et al., 1996). One review of research

found 16 language features (use of personal

pronouns, length of sentences, and the like) that

showed small gender differences. Nevertheless,

these “subtle language differences have sub-

stantial consequences in how communicators

are evaluated. The inescapable conclusion is

this: The language differences really do make a

difference” (Mulac, 2006, p. 238).

“

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 32 25/10/11 9:01 PM

aChievinG CommuniCation CompetenCe 33 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 33 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Although men and women communicate

in similar ways, research does show large and significant gender differences in some ar- eas, especially in mixed-sex group interac- tions (Anderson, 2006; Wood, 2007). Despite the stereotype that women are far more talk-

ative than men, a review of 63 studies revealed

that men speak far more than women in com-

mittee meetings, classroom discussions, prob-

lem-solving groups, and other public settings

(Crawford & Kaufman, 2006; Leaper & Ayres,

2007). Men interrupt far more to seize the

floor during group discussions, while women

interrupt group discussions typically to in-

dicate interest, ask for clarification of points

made, and to make supportive comments

(Anderson & Leaper, 1998; Wood, 2007).

These are just some of the large gender differ-

ences in group communication.

Why do these gender differences occur?

Some scholars argue that men and women ex-

hibit different communication styles that are a

product of gender role expectations (Bruess &

Pearson, 1996; Wood, 2007). Deborah Tannen

(1990) popularized this perspective. She ex-

plains that for most women, talk is primarily

a means to “establish connections and negoti-

ate relationships”; for most men, “talk is pri-

marily a means to preserve independence and

negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical

social order” (p. 77). Both men and women

are concerned about the dual dimensions of

status and connection during conversation,

but status is usually given far more relative weight by men and connection is usually given far more relative weight by women (Tannen, 2010; see also Coates, 1993). The

status dimension is very different from the

connection dimension, as indicated below.

Therefore, each produces very different com-

munication expectations and patterns.

Status Connection Independence Interdependence (separatenes) (intimacy) Competition Cooperation (contest) (consensus) Power Empowerment (control) (choices)

In mixed-sex groups, men’s speech con- sists mostly of task-oriented, instrumental communication that consists of giving in- formation, opinions, and suggestions (James

& Drakich, 1993). Men usually see talk as a

contest, an opportunity to establish or in-

crease status in the eyes of group members.

Thus, men report their knowledge to the

group. They talk more than women, tell more

jokes, impart more information and advice,

and offer more solutions to problems. Why?

Because this spotlights them as experts and

raises their status in a group (Tannen, 2010).

Conversely, women’s speech in mixed- sex groups consists more of supportive and facilitative communication such as agreeing, indicating interest in what oth-

ers are saying, and encouraging others to

par ticipate in group discussions (James

& Drakich, 1993). Women try to connect

with other speakers, share feelings, and lis-

ten intently to establish rapport. Displaying

interest in other group members and offer-

ing encouragement to them establishes a

connection.

Gender differences in uses of social net-

working technologies also illustrate these dif-

ferences in communication styles. Women are

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 33 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 34 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 34 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

the majority of users on Facebook, Twitter,

and Flickr. Women use social media primarily

to socialize. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg

notes that women engage in 62% of the shar-

ing, of connecting with friends and family,

on the Facebook networking site (Goudreau,

2010). Conversely, Villanova University com-

munication professor Sherry Perlmutter

Bowen concludes that men use social media

primarily to garner information and increase

their influence. “I see males espousing their

wisdom on social media sites and using social

media to sell, compete, to ‘climb the ladder’”

(quoted in Goudreau, 2010).

So are men jerks for seeing conversa-

tion as an opportunity to enhance status?

Are women meek and emotional for seeing

conversation as an opportunity to bond with

others? Such interpretations are extremely

limiting and simplistic. Consider the ten-

dency of women to encourage member par-

ticipation in group discussions, whereas men

rarely show such a tendency (Taylor, 2002).

How should this be interpreted? From the

connection perspective, women appear to

be highly sensitive, caring group members

and men seem to be insensitive clods. From

the status perspective, however, women may

appear to be the insensitive ones. Inviting a

man into a group discussion may diminish

his status. It calls attention to his nonpar-

ticipation, making him appear unassertive.

He may have little or no knowledge on the

subject of conversation. Spotlighting his lack

of knowledge in front of the group could be

embarrassing. When men and women ap-

proach simple conversation from conflicting

perspectives, it is not surprising that mis-

understanding and ridicule result.

Not all men and women will follow the male and female communication styles, bringing into question whether such gender

styles actually exist. The gender communi-

cation styles perspective has received two

main criticisms. First, it seriously underem-

phasizes the role of unequal power. That is,

women’s style of communication is typical

of relatively powerless people (Freed, 1992;

Tavris, 1992)—for example, higher status,

more powerful individuals typically inter-

rupt more than lower status, less powerful

individuals (Hall, 2006). This dominance

perspective is partly true, but not the entire

explanation for gender differences in com-

munication (Mulac & Bradac, 1995; Noller,

1993). As Tannen (1990) explains: “Male

dominance is not the whole story. It is not

sufficient to account for everything that hap-

pens to women and men in conversation,

especially in conversations in which both

are genuinely trying to relate to each other

with attention and respect” (p. 18). Research

on leadership in groups also weakens this

perspective. “Rather than being less power-

ful, women may in fact be equally or more

powerful than their male counterparts” be-

cause the typical leadership style of women

that is friendly and supportive (connecting)

is better suited to today’s business and insti-

tutional climate than the more competitive

male style (status enhancing) (Kalbfleisch

& Herold, 2006). This research suggests

that women may still focus on connection

when they attain leadership (and gain greater

power) because that is what works for them.

If true, then as equality between men and

women improves, the gender differences in

communication may still remain apparent.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 34 25/10/11 9:01 PM

aChievinG CommuniCation CompetenCe 35 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 35 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Second, some communication experts

argue that contrary to the different com-

munication styles perspective or the domi-

nance of men perspective, gender differences

in communication occur primarily because

of skills deficiencies. “Members of each sex

tend to specialize in some skills while having

comparative deficits in other skills” (Kunkel

& Burleson, 2006, p. 151). Men may exhibit

poor listening skills. Women may exhibit lack

of assertiveness skills. Again, this does not

explain all of the communication differences

between men and women. When a person

displays knowledge during a group discus-

sion (enhancing status) or listens intently

(inducing connection), these behaviors are

not usually perceived as skill deficiencies.

They may be effective and appropriate com-

munication depending on the context, but

men tend to do the former and women tend

to do the latter more often. Men and women

may have the skill to do either, but both may

merely choose what they are most accus-

tomed to doing (communication styles).

Given their differences, how do men and

women communicate competently with each

other? They have to allow for differences,

combat dominance, and correct deficien-

cies. This can be accomplished in a number

of ways. First, knowledge of the different conversational assumptions made by men and women has to be broadened. Applying

the standards of one group to the behavior

of the other can create misunderstanding

(Wood, 2007). Women will continue to mis-

judge men if they apply the single standard of

connection to all group discussions, and men

will continue to misjudge women if they con-

tinue to apply the single standard of status to

all group discussions. Both status and con-

nection are legitimate standards for assessing

conversations, but we all can look silly to the

other sex when only one standard is applied.

Second, adaptation to each other’s style of conversation would display skills pro- ficiency, and thus be beneficial. Men could make fewer interruptions that seize conver-

sational control, be more attentive listeners

during group discussions, ask more questions

to clarify points or seek information, and en-

courage women to join the group discussion

when appropriate. These adaptations show

flexibility and a concern for connection with-

out the appearance of subservience. Women

who learn assertiveness skills expand their

opportunities to be heard during group dis-

cussion and to be taken seriously (enhancing

status) without losing their sensitivity to the

importance of connection.

Third, equalizing power imbalances that often put women at a disadvantage will diminish some of the gender differ- ences in communication. How this can be done is discussed at length in Chapter 9.

Questions for thought 1. Can you think of additional ways men and women can adjust their conversational styles to reduce

misunderstandings and increase effectiveness in groups?

2. Do the typical male–female patterns of conversation identified by the different styles perspective correspond with your experience of communicating in mixed-sex groups?

3. Do you think the criticism of the different styles perspective is justified? Apply your own experiences.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 35 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 36 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 36 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Group communication is so complex, however, that any list of standards used to judge members’ communication ethics, applied absolutely, would immedi- ately create problems. Ethical communication is a matter of context. A lie that ac- cuses your roommate of stealing college property that a friend of yours actually stole

is different from a lie that covers up an embarrassing family secret. Exceptions also

will inevitably surface. Students don’t have complete freedom of choice to learn what

they want to learn, nor should they. Few would freely take a public speaking course

unless mandated by general education requirements, because most people fear giving

speeches. Honesty, respect, fairness, choice, and responsibility, however, are strong

values in most cultures, and they should act as basic standards for evaluating our

communication behavior.

Definition of a Group

Both communication and communication competence have been defined. In this

section, for clarification, the definition of a group is offered and distinguished from

interpersonal communication and public speaking.

▶ Groups: More than People Standing at a Bus Stop A group is a human communication system composed of three or more individu- als, interacting for the achievement of some common goal(s), who influence and are

influenced by each other. A group is different from a mere collection of individuals,

called an aggregation (Goldhaber, 1990). Twenty-five people standing in line to buy tickets for a movie are not a group, but simply an aggregation. Because they do not

interact with and influence each other to achieve a common goal (strangers standing

in line are not there expressly to help each other secure tickets), they do not qualify as

a group. The same holds for a crowd shopping in a mall or waiting for a plane depar-

ture delayed by fog, or people sitting on benches in a public park. In such cases, the

presence of other people is irrelevant to the achievement of the specific goal (buying

clothes, traveling from point A to point B, or enjoying the outdoors). To be called a

group, a collection of individuals must succeed or fail as a unit in a quest to achieve

a common goal(s). Crowds, of course, can become groups if they satisfy the defini-

tion provided.

The transactional view of communication posits that each participant influences

the other, so it should not be surprising that this definition of a group includes the

influence group members have on each other. This aspect of the definition of a group

is explored extensively in later chapters when norms, roles, leadership, and power

are discussed. Explaining how a group is a human communication system, another

aspect of the definition of groups, is the subject of Chapter 2.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 36 25/10/11 9:01 PM

Definition of a Group 37 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 37 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

This text will focus on small groups, with special emphasis in Chapters 7 and 8

given to decision-making and problem-solving groups. Trying to draw a clear line between small and large groups, however, can prove to be fruitless. When does the addition of one more member transform a small group into a large one? Over the

years, some communication theorists have set the upper limit of small groups at be-

tween 12 and 15 members. Other theorists identify a small group as comprising few

enough members to enable treatment of each other in a personal manner and to allow

specific impressions of each other to be formed (Pavitt & Curtis, 1994). When you

attend a group meeting and you can’t remember afterwards whether some members

were even present, you’ve probably reached large-group status. When groups grow

to the point where problems of coordination emerge and formal rules for discussion

This photo illustrates which elements of how a group is defined? 1. Three or more individuals 2. Interacting for the achievement of some common goal 3. The bartender is influenced by the two women 4. The two women are influenced by the bartender

Answers are given at end of chapter.

A nd

er se

n R

os s/

Ic on

ic a/

G et

ty Im

ag es

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 37 25/10/11 9:01 PM

◀ 38 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 38 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

and debate (parliamentary procedure) during meetings become necessary, the group

can reasonably be designated as large. To borrow the words of Sir Francis Bacon,

when members’ “faces are but a gallery of pictures, and talk but a tinkling cymbal,”

small doesn’t seem like an appropriate designation for a group.

▶ Interpersonal Communication and Public Speaking: Ungroups

You may have noticed that the definition of a group sets the minimum number

of participants at three. That is because communication between only two indi-

viduals is usually referred to as interpersonal communication (Adler & Proctor, 2007). Conventional academic terminology also refers to a two-person transaction

as dyadic. Distinguishing interpersonal communication and group communica- tion, however, is more than quantitative (two individuals versus three or more).

There is an important qualitative dimension as well (Moreland, 2010). As most couples experience, interpersonal communication between spouses is massively

changed with the addition of a child. In such cases, three individuals seem like

many more than two. Communication between two individuals is far less complex

than the complicated network of transactions found in groups of three or more. As

the old saying goes, “Two’s company, three’s a crowd.” Thus, the unit of analysis

is structurally different when focusing on three or more individuals, not just two

(see Chapter 2 for more detailed discussion). Coalition formation and majority–

minority influence occur in groups, not dyads. A group dynamic seems to begin

with no fewer than three individuals. For example, one study showed that two indi-

viduals working together to solve a complex problem performed no better than two

individuals working apart. Three individuals working together, however, proved

to be the point at which superior problem solving begins (Laughlin et al., 2006).

I doubt that you would deem it unusual to refer to a family as a group, but you

SECOND LOOK

Groups versus aggregations Groups Aggregations

Crowd doing “the wave” Crowd in a shopping mall

Cheerleading squad Individuals waiting for cheerleading tryouts

Crossing guard leading children Children waiting at stop signal to cross street

Jury Individuals waiting for jury duty assignment

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 38 25/10/11 9:01 PM

Definition of a Group 39 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 39 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

might think it odd to label a married or dating couple as a group. We typically say,

“Aren’t they a cute couple” but not “Aren’t they a cute group.” The dynamics be-

tween two people are qualitatively different from the dynamics experienced among

three or more people.

Group communication is also distinct from public speaking. With public speak- ing, the speaker and the audience are clearly indicated, and the speaking situation

is far more formal than what is usually found in group discussions. Verbal feedback

is often delayed in public speaking events, but during group discussions verbal

feedback often is almost immediate. Public speakers usually prepare remarks in

advance and speak from notes or even a manuscript. Group members usually don’t

make formal preparations to speak during group discussions, but may do so when

participating on group panels, symposiums, or public forums (see Appendix A for

details).

In summary, human communication is a transactional process of sharing mean-

ing with others. Communication competence, a recurring theme throughout

this book, is communicating effectively and appropriately in a given context. It is

achieved generally through knowledge, skills, sensitivity, commitment, and ethics.

Learning to communicate competently in groups is of vital importance to all of us.

With this as a backdrop, let’s explore in the next chapter how groups function as

systems.

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 1, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. Are there any circumstances in which a Me-orientation becomes necessary when participating in a small group?

2. Does competent communication ever necessitate dishonesty? Explain. 3. When you are a member of a group, should you always exhibit commitment to the group or are

there exceptions? Explain.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 39 25/10/11 9:02 PM

◀ 40 Chapter 1: CommuniCation CompetenCe in Groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 40 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

This activity presents video case studies from a variety of films for you to analyze. A movie rating (PG-13, R, etc.) and category (drama, romantic comedy, etc.) are included to help you decide which movies are suitable for your viewing. You are asked to analyze each video case study, applying key material presented in each chapter.

Definitely Maybe (2008). Romantic Comedy; PG-13 Sweet story of a divorcing father whose little girl wants him to tell the story of his romantic life before meeting her mother, and how he met and married her mother. Analyze the ap- propriateness of the father’s story as he tells it to his daughter. What rules are operating here? Does he violate any rules of appropriateness?

Home for the Holidays (1995). Comedy/Drama; PG-13 Uneven, but ultimately entertaining movie about a family that experiences a stressful Thanksgiving weekend. Analyze family members’ communication competence, especially during the disastrous dinner segment. What rules operate during the dinner? Which ones are violated? Does any family member exhibit effective and appropriate communication? Explain.

I Love You, Man (2009). Comedy/Romance; R Hilarious, but sometimes crude, tale of a guy (Paul Rudd) who gets engaged to his dream woman but doesn’t have a male friend to serve as his Best Man. His quest to rectify this situation leads to the development of an odd friendship with a character played by Jason Segal. Apply the gender similarities, gender differences, and the different gender communi- cation styles perspectives.

The Insider (1999). Drama; R Russell Crowe plays a tobacco-industry scientist (based on a real character) who has se- crets to tell. Analyze the issue of communication ethics by applying the five ethical stan- dards (honesty, respect, fairness, choice, and responsibility).

Return to Paradise (1998). Drama; R Underrated film about a harrowing ethical dilemma involving three friends who vacationed in Malaysia. You’ll be contemplating what action you would take in the same circum- stances. Analyze this film from a communication ethics perspective. Is Anne Heche’s char- acter justified in lying to the Vince Vaughn character? Does Vince Vaughn’s character have a choice, or is he being coerced unethically? Does he have a responsibility to return to save his friend?

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 40 25/10/11 9:02 PM

Definition of a Group 41 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 41 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Hindsight Bias Test Answers

Multiple Choice 1, c; 2, c, d; 3, d; 4, a, b, c, d; 5, d.

true-False All false.

Each multiple-choice question is worth 4 points; each true-false 2 points. Deduct 1 point for each incorrect multiple-choice answer; deduct 2 points for each incorrect true-false answer. Total possible points = 40. Determine your percent correct by divid- ing your total score by 40.

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Cartoon (p. 17): 2, 4; Photo (p. 37): 1, 3, 4.

46850_ch01_ptg01_hr_002-041.indd 41 25/10/11 9:02 PM

◀ 42

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 42 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. Interconnectedness of PArts 1. Ripple Effect: A Chain Reaction

2. Synergy: One Plus One Equals a Ton

3. Negative Synergy: Results Beyond Bad

▶ B. AdAPtABIlIty to chAnge 1. Dynamic Equilibrium: Managing

Stability and Change

Closer Look: Dealing with Difficult Group Members: A System Perspective on “Bad Apples”

2. Boundary Control: Regulating Input

3. Communication Methods of Boundary Control: Erecting Barriers

a. Physical Barriers: Protecting Group Space

b. Psychological Barriers: Member in Name Only

c. Linguistic Barriers: Having to Speak the Language

d. Rules: Permission Not Granted

e. Roles: Staying in Bounds

f. Networks: Controlling Information Flow

4. Boundary Control and Group Effectiveness: Open and Closed Systems

▶ c. Influence of sIze 1. Group Size and Complexity

a. Quantitative Complexity: Exponentially Complicated

b. Complexity and Group Transactions: Size Matters

2. An Organization: A Group of Groups

Groups as Systems

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 42 25/10/11 5:25 PM

43 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 43 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

n one of my small

group communication

courses, six women

formed a project group. During their first meeting in class, com-

munication was warm, friendly, and task oriented. They accomplished a great deal in

a short period of time: deciding which of the five project options they would pursue,

dividing labor to develop the project, and setting deadlines for accomplishment of

specified tasks. They told me that they all were very pleased with their new group.

During the next week, the six women met one more time for a lengthy session, and

again they were pleased by their progress on the project and increasingly comfortable

with their harmonious interactions. Then a male student who had missed a week of

class and had no project group approached me and asked which of the four class groups

he should join. I told him to join the all-women group for two reasons: I typically en-

courage mixed-sex, not same-sex, groups (there were far more women than men in the

class), and the other groups had seven members already. From the moment he joined

the six women he transformed this harmonious, task-effective group into a frustrating

experience for every group member. His opening introductory remark upon joining the

group of women was, “I hope PMS won’t be a problem for us.” He guffawed loudly at

his supposed humor, but all six women seemed stunned. During the group meeting he

made sexist remarks, offered derogatory comments about the choice of project already

decided by the women, and made a complete nuisance of himself. As he left class, he

loudly proclaimed to everyone that he was “leader of a chicks group.”

All six women bolted to the front of the class and begged me to assign this disrup-

tive individual to another group. I gently but firmly explained that moving him to

another group would make the other groups too large and would merely pass the

problem to another group, not solve it.

Pu re

st oc

k/ G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 43 25/10/11 5:25 PM

◀ 44 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 44 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The problem became more complex because at midterm I have students form new

project groups. Nobody wanted this disruptive individual as a group member. When

he joined a new group, a woman in that group immediately shot out of her chair and

confronted me with the ultimatum: “Either you move that guy to another group or

I’m dropping this class.” With no small effort I managed to convince her to remain

in the class.

This example illustrates that every group is a system. A system is a set of interconnected parts working together to form a whole in the context of a changing

environment (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). A group is composed of individual members

interrelating with each other as a whole entity, not as individual parts operating in iso-

lation from each other. The behavior of one member affects the entire group because

of the interconnectedness of system parts (all group members), especially if the be-

havior is disruptive. In this opening case, the six women could not ignore their obnox-

ious individual. They had to adapt to the jarring change that occurred once he joined

their group. Their disruptive member changed the group environment, and the com-

munication dynamics also changed from warm and friendly to defensive and strained.

In general, a system is composed of input, throughput, and output (Katz & Kahn,

1978). Input consists of resources that come from outside the system, such as energy (sunlight, electricity), information (Internet, books), and people (a new group mem-

ber). If input ceases, a system deceases. A system inevitably wears down without continuous input. This wearing-down process is called entropy—a measure of a system’s movement toward disorganization and eventual termination. All living

systems combat entropy with input. No group, for example, can survive without

new members. The group will dismantle because current members will lose inter-

est and leave, join different groups, or the members themselves will eventually die.

Consider the religious sect called the Shakers (members shook to rid themselves of

evil). This group splintered from a Quaker community in Manchester, England, in

1747 and came to New York in 1774. Now near extinction, their inevitable demise is

foreordained by three Shaker decisions: a belief in celibacy, a complete withdrawal

from mainstream society, and a group decision in 1965 to admit no new members

(Melton, 1992). From a peak membership of 6,000 in the 1830s, there were only

four women remaining at the Sabbath Day Lake, New Gloucester, Maine, commu-

nity at the end of 2010 (“The Shakers,” 2010). Contrary to the Shakers’ difficult-to-

understand aversion to new members, interjecting “new blood” into a group can

bring new information, new ideas, new experiences, new energy, and even different

values and perspectives. New members can thwart entropy.

Throughput is the process of transforming input into output to keep the system functioning. Input is transformed in a group by its members engaging in com-

munication activities such as presenting information during group discussion and

then taking that information and engaging in creative problem solving. According

to structuration theory, a system, such as a small group, establishes structures for

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 44 25/10/11 5:25 PM

InTERCOnnECTEdnESS Of PARTS 45 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 45 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

such discussion and problem solving in the form of rules, roles, norms, and power

distribution (all subjects for later development) (Poole et al., 1996). These struc-

tures are used to permit the system (the small group) to function effectively and to

sustain itself. These structures, however, both permit throughput to occur in small

groups while also constraining the process (West & Turner, 2010). For example, es-

tablishing rules for group discussion (e. g., “meetings will follow a prepared agenda”;

“the chairperson will lead the group discussion”; “interruptions will be kept to a

minimum”) permits an orderly dialogue to occur among group members—it gives

it a clear form. At the same time, however, it constrains unfettered discussion from

occurring. Rules permit certain communication behaviors (polite discussion) while

restricting others (raucous debate). Through the discussion process, the rules, roles,

norms, and distribution of power may be reinforced even institutionalized within an

organization, or they may change over time. This means that a group is in a perpetual

state of becoming (change is inevitable).

Output comprises the continual results of the group’s throughput (transforma- tion of input). Group outputs include decisions made, solutions to problems created

and implemented, projects completed, group procedures modified, team member

cohesiveness enhanced, member relationships improved, and so forth. Again, these

outputs are discussed in detail in later chapters.

As my colleague Mark Murphy has noted, if groups mess up their input, through-

put, and output, they’re going to be kaput. My principal purpose in this chapter is to avoid such an outcome by explaining and discussing systems theory and how it can be applied to groups. This is not merely an abstract exercise for the intellectually curious. Understanding at least the basics of systems theory provides useful insights

into why some small groups succeed and others fail.

There are three chapter objectives:

1. To explain interconnectedness of parts in a system 2. To discuss how groups must adapt to a changing environment 3. To explore the influence of size on a group’s ability to function effectively

Interconnectedness of Parts

Focus Questions

1. What is the ripple effect and how does it affect groups?

2. What is synergy? What is negative synergy? How are each produced?

Interconnectedness of parts is a major element of systems theory. The effects of inter-

connectedness can be seen in two ways: the ripple effect and synergy.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 45 25/10/11 5:25 PM

◀ 46 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 46 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Ripple Effect: A Chain Reaction In a system, one part can have a significant impact on the whole. This ripple effect or chain reaction spreads across the entire system, much like a pebble tossed into a pond

disturbs the water and forces adjustments. This ripple effect can be plainly seen from a

historical example. The influenza pandemic of 1918 –19 began in Europe but quickly

rippled throughout the world. It sickened over one billion people, half the world’s total

population at the time, and left 40 million people dead worldwide (half a million in

the United States) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). This was more

than the total deaths from both world wars of the twentieth century. So virulent was

the virus that there was an instance reported of women boarding a New York sub-

way in Coney Island feeling mild fatigue and being found dead when the subway train

pulled into Columbus Circle some 45 minutes later. Nearly 20% of the Western Samoa

population died from the disease, and entire Inuit villages in isolated parts of Alaska

were decimated (Garrett, 1994). This flu pandemic rippled through every part of so-

ciety. Enormous stress was placed on healthcare systems that nursed the sick and on

economic systems that struggled with a major portion of the incapacitated workforce.

Even social relations were affected. People avoided contact with each other or, when

forced to interact, commonly wore cloth masks across their faces, which they hoped

would protect them from the virus (Kolata, 1999). This ripple effect is precisely why the

World Health Organization in February 2005 warned that an outbreak in several Asian

countries of avian flu among some individuals who had close contact with infected

birds posed the “gravest possible danger of a pandemic” and was “an imminent threat”

worldwide (Miller, 2005). In 2009, the world did experience yet another pandemic,

the H1N1 flu virus or so-called “swine flu,” an emergency that did not expire until

June 2010 (“The 2009 H1N1 Flu,” 2010). An aggressive response from the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization prevented the

pandemic from approaching the severity that was anticipated.

A small part of a huge system can generate an enormous ripple effect. The Writ- ers Guild of America went on strike in late 2007, and didn’t settle its strike until mid-

February 2008. If you look at the screen credits for movies and television programs,

screenwriters are but a blip among the vast network of individuals and groups that

compose the system required to complete a single film or an episode of a TV series.

Yet this strike shut down film and television production, cost an estimated $3.5 billion

in lost revenue, forced a starkly abbreviated Golden Globes award ceremony, threat-

ened the cancellation of the Academy Awards ceremony, and required viewers to watch

endless reruns and banal “reality shows.” Entire production crews, caterers, gardeners,

agents, and actors were out of work during the strike (“Striking Numbers,” 2008).

The ripple effect, of course, does not have to be a negative experience. When a parent gets a job promotion or a significant raise in pay, all members of the family

stand to gain from the good fortune. If a child wins a scholarship to a major uni-

versity, the entire family potentially benefits from the news. Accomplishments of

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 46 25/10/11 5:25 PM

InTERCOnnECTEdnESS Of PARTS 47 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 47 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

individual family members may motivate others in the group to seek similar goals.

When a group leader who provokes dislike comparable to a skunk in your clothes

closet is replaced with a competent, well-liked leader, optimism and enthusiasm can

spread throughout a group.

Recognizing the significance of the ripple effect means paying close attention to

your own impact on groups (see Box 2.1). Your level of communication proficiency

or deficiency can mean success or failure of the entire group. “The power of one”

should not be underestimated.

▶ Synergy: One Plus One Equals a Ton James Surowiecki (2005), author of The Wisdom of Crowds, asserts that groups can

often perform better than individuals working alone (see also Laughlin et al., 2006). He

offers the television game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? as an example, among

others, of the superiority of groups. When contestants are unable to answer a question,

they may contact a trusted friend or family member (allies) or the studio audience. The

trusted allies are correct 65% of the time, but the studio audience is correct 91% of the

time. Psychologist Keith Sawyer (2007) calls this collective wisdom “group genius.”

Groups often outperform individuals working alone, and sometimes they pro-

duce spectacularly superior results. This group genius is called synergy. Synergy (syn 5 together 1 ergon 5 work) occurs when group performance from joint action

The H1N1 epidemic prompted people in Mexico to wear gauze masks to prevent the ripple effect.

D av

id d

e la

p az

/X in

H ua

/X in

hu a

Pr es

s/ C

or bi

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 47 25/10/11 5:25 PM

◀ 48 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 48 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Box 2.1

Are You a Difficult Group Member?

Instructions: Rate honestly your likely behavior in each of the scenarios below. This should re- veal whether you are a difficult group member. Optional Alternative: After answering this ques- tionnaire, ask fellow class or team members to complete this same assessment about you, but only if you feel comfortable making such a re- quest. If team members are hesitant, encourage them to complete the assessment without iden- tifying themselves in the questionnaire (ideally, all team members should complete the assess- ment to preserve anonymity). Compare the re- sults by following the scoring system at the end of this assessment.

1. When a topic of great interest to me is dis- cussed in my group, I tend to talk much longer and more forcefully than I know I should.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

2. During group discussions, I typically re- main silent, exhibiting lack of interest in the proceedings.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

3. When my group attempts to work on a task, especially one in which I have lit- tle interest, I prefer to joke around and be comical instead of focusing on the task.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

4. When I oppose what my group decides, I am inclined to reintroduce the issue al- ready decided even though I know there

is little chance the group will change its decision.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

5. I often quarrel openly with group mem- bers by raising my voice, interrupting other members to forcefully interject my own opinion, and criticizing those who disagree with me.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

6. I have strong opinions that often color my participation during group discussions, and I attempt to convert group members to my way of thinking even if they are unresponsive.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

7. I’m inclined to predict failure of the group, especially if a risk is involved, and I tend to focus on what will go wrong, not on what will go right with my group’s decisions.

FREQUENTLY RARELY 5 4 3 2 1

Total your responses for all seven of your answers (maximum score 5 35; minimum score 5 7). Deter mine your average score (total score divided by 7). If your average score is 3.0 or higher, you tend toward being a difficult group member. Any single answer that is 3, 4, or 5 indicates trouble for your group on that particular behavior. These seven scenarios correspond to the seven disruptive infor- mal roles discussed in Chapter 5.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 48 25/10/11 5:25 PM

InTERCOnnECTEdnESS Of PARTS 49 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 49 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

of members exceeds expectations based on perceived abilities and skills of individual

members (Salazar, 1995). Thus, the whole is not necessarily equal to the sum of its

parts. It may be greater than the sum of its individual parts.

The synergistic quality of group decision making is analogous to mixing drugs

or chemicals. Some combinations of drugs, such as those used in chemotherapy,

can produce more effective results than two or more drugs taken separately. Com-

bining some pesticides can dramatically increase potency. One study at Tulane

University found that mixing two common pesticide chemicals, endosulfan and

dieldrin, didn’t just double the potency of each—it increased their potency by as

much as 1,600 times. As endocrinologist John A. McLachlan, who led the Tulane

University team that did the study, explains, “Instead of one plus one equaling

two, we found that one plus one equals a thousandfold” (cited in “Playing Havoc,”

1996, p. 14A).

Habitat for Humanity is a case study in synergy (McGinn, 2006). Habitat was begun in 1976. It has constructed more than 350,000 modest homes for almost

2 million poor people in nearly 90 countries around the world, and it has become

one of the largest homebuilders in the United States (“Habitat for Humanity Fact

Sheet,” 2011). Habitat work crews composed of volunteers divide the labor, with

each small subgroup erecting portions of the total structure a section at a time. Most

volunteers who build Habitat homes have no expertise in such tasks. The aggregate

of individual skill levels of typical Habitat team members doesn’t exactly suggest

success. In fact, one Habitat construction team in Bend, Oregon, called itself Chris’s

Bad Girls and advertised on the Internet, encouraging women from ages 16 to 100,

“experienced or inexperienced, walking or in a wheelchair, sighted or unsighted,” to

volunteer their labor to build Habitat homes. On its first project, women from ages

16 to 84 volunteered to build a Habitat home constructed entirely by women (at the

time, only the third such all-female construction project of its kind in the United

States). With the exception of Chris, who was the leader of the group and a general

contractor, none of the women were builders. The second-in-command was picked

because she had once built a doghouse. Nevertheless, they successfully constructed a

Habitat home by working together.

How does synergy occur in groups? Synergy is produced in primarily two ways. First, group members typically work together cooperatively to achieve a common

goal. Habitat achieves admirable results from cooperative effort on a common goal.

Conversely, if group members work independently by completing individual assign-

ments on their own, and the group merely compiles the results without the benefit of

group discussion and cooperative interaction, no synergy will occur (Fandt, 1991).

For instance, if your group took an essay test and each member was assigned one

question to answer, no synergistic benefit would occur if group members did not

discuss rough draft answers with the whole group and make improvements prior to

a final draft.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 49 25/10/11 5:25 PM

◀ 50 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 50 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Second, groups whose members have deep diversity have greater potential to

produce synergy than groups with little such diversity. Deep diversity is substan- tial variation among members in task-relevant skills, knowledge, abilities, beliefs,

values, perspectives, and problem-solving strategies (Harrison et al., 2002). For

synergy to occur, you are looking for a wide variety of skills and abilities among

your group membership. In a simulation study comparing groups with deep di-

versity and those without, the groups with deep diversity were synergistic and

outperformed even their best individual member. Cooperative interaction among

members benefited problem solving. Groups without deep diversity performed

much more poorly ( Larson, 2007). If Habitat crews were composed entirely of

skilled construction workers instead of mostly eager but unskilled volunteers, the

synergistic effect would likely mushroom beyond the already impressive results

garnered from cooperative effort. The voluntary nature of Habitat’s undertaking,

however, makes widespread deep diversity generally impractical even for rela-

tively small work crews.

▶ Negative Synergy: Results Beyond Bad Systems don’t always produce synergy. If you’re sharing ignorance (misinforma-

tion based on lack of knowledge), no group genius is likely to emerge. The Na-

tional Geographic-Roper Public Affairs Geographic Literacy Study (2006) reveals

some major gaps in geographic knowledge of young Americans ages 18 to 24.

The 510 randomly selected respondents answered only slightly more than half of

the geography questions correctly. Almost two-thirds (63%) could not locate Iraq

on a map, three-quarters could not locate Iran or Israel, and 88% could not find

An all-women construction team works cooperatively to build a Habitat home.

K im

M ac

do na

ld /H

ab ita

t f or

H um

an ity

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 50 25/10/11 5:25 PM

InTERCOnnECTEdnESS Of PARTS 51 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 51 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Afghanistan despite heavy media coverage of significant United States involvement

in these countries in recent years. In addition, half the respondents could not

find Japan on a map, and 65% did not know where our “Mother Country” Great

Britain is located. More locally, half did not know where New York is and 6% were

unable to locate the United States. (When asked the trivia question on a roll sheet

I circulate in each of my classes, “What is the tallest mountain in the world?” one

student wrote Mountain Dew. I laughed, then remembered the results of this ge-

ography study. I wasn’t completely sure this answer was meant as a joke.) Authors

of this report note: “Americans are far from alone in the world, but from the per-

spective of many young Americans, we might as well be” (p. 6). Fortunately, those

with at least some college education performed better on the test. Nevertheless,

groups with limited knowledge on a subject of interest aren’t likely to perform

magic. That is why it would be folly to have a group of geography challenged in-

dividuals making decisions about U.S.–Middle Eastern policy when these group

members cannot even locate on a map important countries in the Middle East.

Ignorance of basic geography shows a lack of essential knowledge about the very

countries the U.S. policies affect directly. If you can’t locate a country on a map,

you probably know next to nothing about that country’s culture, government,

values, and the like. No good would likely come from shared ignorance.

Shared ignorance among group members can produce negative synergy.

Negative synergy occurs when group members working together produce a worse result than expected based on perceived individual skills and abilities of members

(Salazar, 1995). The whole is worse than the sum of its parts. Negative synergy is

like mixing alcohol and tranquilizers, causing suicidal effects. When group mem-

bers know little about a subject, compete against each other (Me-orientation),

resist change, or share a collective bias or mindset, the result of mixing their indi-

vidual contributions can produce decisions beyond bad. As David Lykken (1997)

observes, “A gang is more dangerous than the sum of its individual parts.”

One of the most memorable such instances of negative synergy in U.S. his-

tory occurred in the early 1980s. The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), the same agency that badly handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster

on the Gulf Coast of the United States in 2005, published a booklet that stated,

“With reasonable protective measures, the United States could survive nuclear

attack and go on to recovery within a relatively few years” (cited in Scheer, 1983,

p. 111). FEMA compounded this widely recognized absurdity with plans to evac-

uate whole cities (as if an aggressor would provide a week’s warning in advance

of an attack). Incredibly, FEMA also instructed survivors to fill out change-of-

address cards with their post offices following the nuclear attack (apparently so

the IRS could still collect taxes from traumatized survivors). FEMA presumed that

life would return to something approaching normality soon after nuclear bombs

had decimated a substantial portion of the human species (not to mention most

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 51 25/10/11 5:25 PM

◀ 52 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 52 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

post offices). FEMA’s Alice-in-Wonderland civil defense plan based on shared

ignorance of the true consequences of a nuclear attack on the United States makes

as much sense as satirical advice given in the “Meet Mr. Bomb” spoof of the plan,

edited by Tony Hendra (1982). It advises citizens to prepare for the 4,000-degree

centigrade temperature at ground zero by spending 10 to 15 minutes a day in a

clothes dryer.

In February 2003, the Department of Homeland Security encouraged Americans

to choose a “safe room” (an inner closet or the like) in their homes to seek pro-

tective shelter in case of a bioterrorist attack. The safe room was to be sealed with

plastic sheeting and duct tape. This protection against a bioterrorist attack seemed

to ignore the obvious downside of this recommendation: oxygen deprivation lead-

ing to death.

On a less global scale, negative synergy can be seen in a recorded dialogue of a

group deliberating a winter survival task in which items must be ranked according to

their utility in improving the group’s survival in a wilderness area. Here, the actual

process of negative synergy becomes apparent.

B: This may sound crazy, but I say we go for the radio. A: Why the radio? It’s broken. B: I know, I know . . . but that doesn’t mean we can’t use it. C: I don’t understand. A: I think I do . . . but go ahead. B: OK, like here’s what I’m thinking . . . we could use the parts to build our own

transmitter.

A: Right . . . like we could take the antenna and place it on a high tree . . . run wires down, and start building a transmitter, maybe then send Morse codes. We

wouldn’t have to talk.

B: What about power, though? A: We could use the battery from the plane. B: But that’s not on the list here and we were told not to assume other things aside

from the list.

C: We could use solar power. B: Yeah, the sun . . . or electrical power . . . build our own generator . . . A: Do we know codes? C: I know SOS . . . three dots, three dashes, three dots . . . B: Anyway, no matter. Just keep sending signals—any signals. . . . C: So we go with the radio? B: Yeah, I bet no one else thought of it. (Hirokawa, 1987, p. 22)

In this illustration, there is no indication that any of the group members knows

anything about building a transmitter or generator. Bad ideas in this group are

simply compounded one upon the other—negative synergy at work.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 52 25/10/11 5:25 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 53 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 53 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

This cartoon illustrates 1. Synergy 2. The ripple effect 3. Negative synergy 4. Entropy

Answers are given at end of chapter

D IL

B ER

T: ©

2 0

0 0

S co

tt A

da m

s. D

is t.

B y

U N

IV ER

SA L

U C

LI C

K .

R ep

ri nt

ed w

ith p

er m

is si

on .

A ll

ri gh

ts r

es er

ve d.

Adaptability to Change

Systems are never in a static state. They are in a constant state of becoming until they terminate. You do not have a choice between change and no change. The rel-

evant choice is, can a system (group) adapt to the inevitable changes that are certain

to occur? Every system reacts to change in its own way. For instance, two groups that

begin at the same point and experience similar environmental conditions may turn

out very differently. Conversely, two groups that begin at very different points and

experience dissimilar environmental conditions may turn out very similarly. In other

words, groups with a similar or identical final goal (e.g., financial security) may reach

that end in highly diverse ways (one family may invest in the stock market; another

family may rely on retirement plans or real estate investments). This process is called

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 53 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 54 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 54 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

equifinality, in the somewhat ponderous systems lingo. In this section, the process of adapting to change in a system is discussed.

Focus Questions

1. What relationship do stability and change have in groups?

2. Why do groups establish boundaries? How do they control boundaries?

3. In what circumstances can groups become too open? Too closed?

4. Is it better for a group to be more open than closed? Explain.

▶ Dynamic Equilibrium: Managing Stability and Change There is always a dynamic tension between stability and change in any system

( Dovidio et al., 2009). All systems attempt to maintain stability and to achieve a

state of equilibrium (homeostasis) by resisting change, but no system can avoid in-

evitable change (Wood, 2004). Too much stability can produce stagnation and te-

dium. Too much change can produce chaos and group disintegration. There is no perfect balance point between stability and change in any system, but there is a range in which systems can manage change effectively to promote growth and suc- cess without destroying the system with too much instability. This range is called dynamic equilibrium. A system sustains dynamic equilibrium when it regulates the degree, rate, and desirability of change, allowing stability and change to coexist (see

Closer Look: “Dealing with Difficult Group Members”).

Consider what happens when the three variables of change are not sufficiently

regulated. As the owner of a small business, a friend of mine decided to go high tech

and computerize his office with the very latest, most sophisticated equipment. At the

same time, he embarked on an office renovation project. To add to the disruption,

he moved in a new partner. His office staff went berserk. Staff members hadn’t been

trained to run the sophisticated computer programs and equipment. They resented

the renovation, which displaced them from their normal work areas and created a

huge mess that interfered with their efficiency. The new partner turned out to be a

very demanding individual who expected instant results from the beleaguered staff.

His favorite saying, posted on the wall of his office, was “Impossible is a word found

only in a fool’s dictionary.” The final change, however, that toppled this house of

horrors was my friend’s insistence that his staff work half-days on weekends until the

office was returned to a more normal state. Three of the four members of his staff

quit, and they were spitting fire as they stomped out of the office, never to return.

They left a gift for my friend’s partner—a thesaurus renamed with black marker

pen Fool’s Dictionary with words such as idiot, pompous, twit, jerk, and moron high-

lighted. The business had to be shut down for two weeks, resulting in a substantial

loss of revenue.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 54 25/10/11 5:26 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 55 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 55 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Too much change (degree) was required in too concentrated a period of time

(rate) without a concerted effort to persuade the staff of the value (desirability) of

the changes demanded. Groups can often adapt even to large changes if given suf-

ficient time to absorb them and if members are convinced the changes have merit. In some instances, of course, the dismantling of an ineffective system may be neces- sary to replace it with a better system—one that institutes wholesale change and radical departure from the way things were. The San Francisco 49ers, following a dismal 2004 football season of 2 wins and 14 losses, “cleaned house” by replacing

their coach, their general manager, and most of the assistant coaches. Sometimes,

to rebuild a dysfunctional team you have to tear it apart and resurrect it from the

ground up. This may need to occur more than once, as the dismal record of the 49ers

continued much beyond 2004 and provoked several house cleanings, more recently

at the end of the 2010 season, to find a winning team.

CLOSER LOOK

Dealing with Difficult Group Members: A System Perspective on “Bad Apples”

This chapter opened with a narrative about a difficult group member. One troublesome member’s inappropriate behavior can ripple throughout the group, causing disharmony and dissension, disrupting the equilibrium of the group, and preventing a group from operating as a cohesive, fully functioning team. Research by Will Felps and his colleagues (2006) on “bad apples”—disruptive members who poison the group (“One bad apple spoils the barrel”)— demonstrates just how disturbing such a group member can be. Their study was featured on the public radio show “This American Life” (“Ruining It for the Rest of Us,” 2008) where Felps provided additional details about the study. A skilled student actor portrayed three versions of disruptive, or “bad apple” behavior in several groups. He played a jerk who made insulting remarks to other group members,

such as “Do you know anything?” and “That’s a stupid idea.” He played a slacker who wouldn’t contribute during a 45-minute challenging group task, text messaged a friend, and responded with “whatever” or “I really don’t care” to other group member’s ideas. Finally, he played a de- pressive pessimist who put his head on the table, complained about the task being boring, and predicted group failure. (For additional versions of bad apple behavior see “disruptive roles” dis- cussed in Chapter 5.)

The results were startling. No matter how tal- ented team members were, those groups that had to deal with the one bad apple scored 30% to 40% lower on a challenging task than teams with no bad apple. Disruptive behavior was also contagious. When playing the jerk, group

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 55 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 56 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 56 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

members would respond to insults from the bad apple with insults of their own; when play- ing the slacker, group members would assume slacker behavior and say, “Let’s just get this over with. Put down anything”; and when playing the depressive pessimist, other group members became cynical and disengaged. One group began its task alert and enthusiastic with mem- bers leaning forward in their chairs, completely engaged on the task. When confronted with the depressive pessimist, however, within 45 min- utes all group members were sprawled out on the table looking depressed and disengaged.

Another study showed that one disruptive team worker who exhibited incivility, or rude behavior, toward fellow team members had prompted half of those who were interviewed to contemplate leaving their jobs and 12% actually had quit (Pearson et al., 2000). To work with a jerk can drive you berserk. Who needs that? Since the best employees are likely to have greater job opportunities because they are desirable appli- cants, they are frequently the most likely to leave to escape the disrupter’s cancerous effect on the team (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). This leads to a fur- ther deterioration in group performance (Felps et al., 2006).

Jerry Talley of Edgewise Consulting in Moun- tain View, California, estimates that dealing with bad apples consumes a minimum of 10% of a company’s time, and can easily grow to 30% to 40% if the company is truly dysfunctional (Townsend, 1999a). Most group members in de- cision-making and problem-solving groups feel ill equipped to handle disruptive behavior (Felps et al., 2006). When the entire group is affected, it becomes a systemic problem.

Dynamic equilibrium in a group is sustained by regulating the degree, rate, and desirabil- ity of change within the system. In the chap- ter-opening bad apple case study, the degree of disruption was significant, even tumultu- ous for the six women faced with their male

who behaved like a jerk; thus, the change it produced in the group’s dynamic was substan- tial. The rate of change brought about by the disruptive new member was abrupt and wholly unanticipated. The disruption shattered the group equilibrium, forcing a response to this sudden change. The change produced by the disruption was also extremely undesirable. To restore the dynamic equilibrium in the group, the six women working together needed to re- duce the degree of disruption and encourage more desirable behavior.

There are several fundamental steps that should be taken by a group when dealing with a difficult member who threatens the group’s dynamic equilibrium, even its ability to function.

First, make certain the group climate is co- operative. Chapter 4 discusses group climate in depth. Most difficult people are created by a competitive system (Aguayo, 1990). If your group creates a ruthlessly competitive, politi- cized climate where decision making is influ- enced by rumor mongering, backstabbing, deal making, and sabotaging the efforts of other members, then difficult group members will appear like flies at a summer picnic (Lafasto & Larson, 2001). The group of six women had established a very cooperative group climate, so this was not what precipitated their trouble- maker’s offensive behavior. Nevertheless, they did make some mistakes, as we’ll see—some that they corrected, and others that they did not.

Second, the group should establish a clear code of conduct for all group members. This code should spell out specific unacceptable behaviors (insults, rudeness, threats, bigoted statements, and any other disrespectful com- munication). The Joint Commission on Accredi- tation of Healthcare Organizations required just such a code of conduct for its 15,000 healthcare organizations because of disruptive behavior

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 56 25/10/11 5:26 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 57 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 57 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

between doctors and nurses. The code is viewed as “an essential element” in addressing such disruptive behavior (Grenny, 2009). A code of conduct takes a systems approach to the prob- lem by viewing disruption as every member’s concern.

Third, change your communication in relation to a difficult person’s behavior, such as:

a. Don’t placate the troublemaker. Laughing nervously when the disrupter cracks sexist or racist jokes or makes offensive remarks about group members merely encourages further moronic behavior. Permitting fre- quent interruptions from the offending party—enduring this ploy for conversational control—is a strategy of appeasement with little potential for success. Allowing the dis- rupter to manipulate the group so an illu- sion of harmony can be maintained rewards the troublemaker for objectionable behavior. Initially, all six women were stunned by their disruptive new member, then they laughed nervously at their troublemaker’s sexist “jokes” and comments, and they let him dominate conversations. Soon, they stopped laughing and collectively they wouldn’t let him interrupt, as he was prone to do. They began saying to him, “Please wait; I’m not finished speaking.”

b. Refuse to be goaded into a reciprocal pattern. Bad apple behavior is easily contagious. Don’t counter abusive remarks with abusive remarks of your own. Be unconditionally constructive (Ury, 1993). Disrupters thrive on provoking retaliation. Becoming aggres- sive with aggressors escalates into intrac- table power struggles. So don’t take the bait. Keep telling yourself that if you do, you’re engaging them on their terms and on their familiar ground, to your disadvantage. As Nancy Heischman, director of the Con- flict Resolution Center in Aptos, California, notes, “You’re not going to win if you enter

into a competition with these people” (Townsend, 1999a, p. C2). Fighting fire with fire produces a firestorm. Resist the tempta- tion. This requires self-control (and in some cases deserves a medal of commendation). In some extreme cases it won’t be possible. To their great credit, none of the six women reciprocated the inappropriate behavior of their tormenter. It required a group effort (a systems approach) because had even one member taken the bait and reciprocated the inappropriate behavior, the disrupter would have been encouraged, not discour- aged, to continue exhibiting his sophomoric behavior.

c. Have an out-of-body experience (Lulofs, 1994). Remove yourself mentally from the conflict. Listen to the disrupter as if you were an uninvolved third party with no energy in the outcome. Picture yourself as a mediator whose job it is to resolve the problem. Only one group in Felp’s “bad apple” study was able to resist the disrupter’s negative influ- ence. This group had a strong member who didn’t return insults with insults, didn’t get angry, but instead listened carefully to ev- eryone and asked lots of probing questions. He was the antidote to the contagious “dis- ease of me” of the poisonous apple. He set a constructive tone and would not be side- tracked. His father was a diplomat, so per- haps he learned from him how to handle a bad apple.

d. Don’t provide a soapbox for the troublemaker. On two occasions in my teaching career, I have had a disruptive student interrupt me in the middle of a lecture/discussion to com- plain about the class. On the first occasion, I handled the situation poorly. My difficult student blurted out in a loud voice, “Can we do something relevant for a change? I’m

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 57 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 58 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 58 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

tired of discussing other people’s problems.” I mistakenly took the bait and tried justifying what I had been doing in the class. Not sur- prisingly, he was unmoved by my response and undeterred in his obnoxious behavior. He was more than happy to mount the soapbox and focus attention on his personal agenda. The rest of the class became restless and an- noyed with this interruption. I felt angry and ineffectual.

On the second occasion, my disrupter de- manded to know why I was “wasting so much time on the relationship between gender and communication patterns.” In this instance, I immediately deferred to the entire class, “Do the rest of you agree that this is a waste of time?” When they indicated that they did not, I then asked the class, “Do you want to take class time to discuss his complaint?” They again indicated that they did not. With the sup- port of the group (a system approach), I then deferred a confrontation with this student until the class was over. He was ill prepared to chal- lenge the entire group. Notice, however, that I said I deferred the confrontation. You can’t ignore disruptive behavior, especially when it becomes chronic.

Fourth, attempt to convert disruption into a constructive contribution (Gouran, 1988). Suppose in the middle of a group discussion your disrupter blurts out, “That’s a completely stupid suggestion.” You could reply in kind, thereby setting in motion a reciprocal pattern of derision. Instead, you could attempt to di- vert the disrupter away from abusive remarks and toward constructive contributions to the group by responding, “Perhaps you could pro- vide a better suggestion.” This response does not invite your obnoxious member to mount a soapbox and launch into an irrelevant mono- logue. You are requesting a pertinent contri- bution. Research indicates that substantive comments in a group discussion encourage a

focus on content, not on relationship conflicts (Bell, 1974). Disrupters are less likely to con- tinue their abuse when they are focused on the substance of the discussion. If the disrupter does not respond appropriately to your invita- tion to be constructive, then you can proceed to the next step.

Fifth, confront the difficult person directly. If the entire group is upset by the behavior of the difficult person (the system is disrupted, not just an individual), then the group should confront the disrupter. The group’s code of con- duct should be enforced systemwide. Even truly abrasive individuals whose behavior seems to indicate a complete lack of regard for the group will find it tough to ignore pressure from group members. Be descriptive. State what behavior is offensive and encourage more construc- tive behavior. For example: “Your comments about women offend me. Please stop.” Do not get abusive or nasty with the troublemaker. I strongly encouraged the six women to confront their troublemaker as a group. I presented this as an opportunity to experiment with com- munication strategies for dealing with difficult members. Unfortunately, they never directly confronted him.

Sixth, separate yourself from the difficult person if all else fails. Communication is not a panacea for every problem that comes up in groups. Some individuals leave no other op- tion except removal from the group. This was the initial choice favored by the six women who were offended by their sexist troublemaker. A system can adapt to only a certain amount of disruption without being torn apart. Inter- esting, albeit difficult, lessons were learned, however, by not permitting this choice. Group members learned that they should have im- mediately confronted their difficult individual about his objectionable behavior. Their difficult member also learned a lesson. At the end of the first class project, I passed out a questionnaire

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 58 25/10/11 5:26 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 59 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 59 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

asking members to indicate how much each individual in his or her group displayed spe- cific group roles. There was one section listing disruptive roles (see Chapter 5, Box 5.1). All six women indicated that their difficult member had played every disruptive role, often.

When these feedback forms were distrib- uted, their troublemaker was stunned. He had no antenna extended, no sensitivity, to pick up the obvious signals from his group members in- dicating that his behavior was not appreciated. When he changed to a new group, he was imme- diately confronted about his boorish behavior and notified that such behavior would not be tol- erated (this group used boundary control—see the next section). A transformation occurred. He settled down and became not an exemplary group member, but one that no longer caused trouble. As a result of this experience, I now give groups the option to expel a troublemaker from their group as a last resort, provided they have made a serious attempt without success to use other strategies outlined here. Expulsion is one method in extreme cases of restoring dynamic equilibrium to a group.

If the difficult person is powerful, expulsion may not be an option. In this case, try putting physical distance between you and the problem person. Stay out of each other’s way whenever possible. Keep interactions to a minimum. In a few instances, you may have to leave the group to restore your sanity. Some jobs, for instance,

are just not worth keeping when abuse is heaped on you daily by an individual with more power than you have.

So how did the six women do on their project with the added challenge of dealing with a dif- ficult member? They all performed wonderfully, giving an excellent presentation to the class. Their troublemaker, however, missed several group meetings outside of class and his enthu- siasm for the project was underwhelming. It showed. He embarrassed himself by performing poorly during his presentation. His presenta- tion on a second project with a different group and clear boundaries set, however, was much improved.

I have presented you with a rational model for handling troublemakers. Try these meth- ods. They will work well for you in most situa- tions. Nevertheless, we are not strictly rational beings. Difficult people can provoke intense anger and deep frustration from group mem- bers. In my own experience, I have found that even if I lost my temper and let my emotions get the better of me, this response is not as problematic as simply ignoring or enduring the disruptive behavior. Even if your anger trans- lates into personal attacks (not a good choice), at the very least you have served notice on the troublesome group member that his or her pattern of behavior is unacceptable and will not be suffered in silence.

Questions for Thought 1. What are some possible disadvantages of expelling a difficult group member? Why should this be a last

resort, not a first choice?

2. Have you ever had to deal with a difficult group member? What seemed to work best to manage this challenge?

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 59 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 60 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 60 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Boundary Control: Regulating Input Openness and change go hand in hand in a system. Openness refers to the degree of continuous interchange with the outside environment. As systems

open to the outside, new input enters the system, inevitably disturbing it. Admit

women into a previously all-male club, boardroom, or law firm and change is

inevitable. A group must adapt to change or suffer strife, even possible demise.

Adaptability to change is the adjustment of group boundaries in response to changing conditions.

Boundaries regulate input and consequent exposure to change in a system. When groups establish boundaries, they regulate the degree, rate, even the desirabil-

ity of change. This boundary control determines the amount of access a group has to input, and thus influence, from outsiders.

Every group maintains boundary control to some extent. It is a critical group function. The cast of the television sitcom Friends showed keen awareness of the ne- cessity of maintaining boundaries (Chin, 2000). Matthew Perry, the self- deprecating

Chandler Bing character in the series, became addicted to painkillers following a

Jet Ski accident, and he subsequently lost a shocking amount of weight. Fellow cast

members became intensely protective and supportive of Perry during his recovery.

They erected strict boundary control to maintain group solidarity and personal

friendships among cast members by communicating little information to the press

and public about his ordeal.

Boundaries, however, are permeable. They leak. No group can close off so com- pletely to its environment that no change is possible. There is always some inter-

change with the environment that leaks through the boundaries.

Sometimes this is cause for real concern. Twitter tweets, Internet searches, and

text messaging all have become sources of concern in court cases. In Great Britain,

a 19-year-old named Danielle Robinson, while serving on one jury, tweeted another

juror she had just met who was serving on a different jury. She “informed” this juror

that the defendant in her case had already served a jail sentence and was a pedophile.

The allegations were utterly false, based only on gossip heard outside the courtroom.

Robinson was charged with contempt of court and sentenced to an eight-month sus-

pended sentence (Smith, 2010). In another case in England, a juror in a child abduc-

tion and sexual assault case accessed Facebook to poll her friends on their view of the

guilt or innocence of the defendant in the case she was hearing in court (“Concerns

Raised,” 2010).

Breakdowns in jury boundary control have occurred repeatedly in the United

States as well. In Florida, nine jurors in a big federal drug trial admitted that they

had conducted “research” on the case by searching the Internet for information,

directly violating the judge’s instructions not to do so. A mistrial had to be declared.

Two appeals courts in Maryland and New Jersey reversed criminal convictions

because jurors accessed information by using technology (Elias, 2010). As Douglas

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 60 25/10/11 5:26 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 61 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 61 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants, notes, “It’s impor-

tant that they (the jurors) don’t know what’s excluded, and it’s important that they

don’t know why it’s excluded” (quoted in Schwartz, 2009). A fair, unbiased trial is

at stake.

▶ Communication Methods of Boundary Control: Erecting Barriers

Groups establish boundaries by using a variety of communication methods. They

can erect physical, psychological, and linguistic barriers, and they can establish rules,

roles, and information networks.

Physical Barriers: Protecting Group Space There are many possible physical barriers that can communicate “stay out” to those outside a group. These physical

barriers include locking group meeting rooms or choosing an inconvenient location

in a building to discourage people from just dropping by and disturbing a group

meeting. A board of supervisors’ public meeting might place the board on a raised

stage or rope off audience members from direct access to board members. Physical

boundaries are not always quite so obvious. Gangs may designate a few city blocks

as their turf (Conquergood, 1994). Graffiti painted on signs or buildings serves to

mark the gang’s turf. Removing or painting over a rival gang’s graffiti scrawlings

can get a gang member killed (Terry, 2000). Cyberbanging, the high-tech tagging

on thousands of gang-related websites, creates virtual turf warfare (Carreon, 2005).

Rival gang members exchange threats and “throw up” gang numbers and names on

sites operated by the Crips, Bloods, Norteños, Sureños, and various Asian and lesser

known gangs. Street gangs are even “taking it to the tweets” by issuing threatening

tweets in Twitter turf wars between gangs (Herrera, 2010). In May 2004, cyberbang-

ing produced a street brawl in a suburb of Dallas. Similar violence has occurred re-

peatedly in Los Angeles, resulting in several deaths (Watkins, 2008). Maintaining a

group’s physical boundaries, even boundaries that only appear on a computer screen,

can be serious business.

Psychological Barriers: Member in Name Only Groups can communicate to an individual that they do not belong in the group. When this occurs, the group is

erecting a psychological barrier. Such barriers occur when a member’s contribution

during group discussion is ignored or the member is treated as an outcast. The group

may even tell the member directly to leave the group. Women and ethnic minori-

ties historically have been made to feel like outsiders and tokens when first joining

mostly white, male groups.

Linguistic Barriers: Having to Speak the Language Groups erect linguistic bar- riers when members use a private vocabulary, or argot, peculiar to a specific group.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 61 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 62 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 62 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Those who understand the argot are presumed to be group members. Those who

don’t are clearly outsiders. Imagine if you heard this statement in an elevator from

one business executive to another: “You could bring in a good athlete, but there’s

always the chance he or she could hit the windshield. Because you’re worried that

your VC partners have short arms, you’re wondering whether to wake the giant.

In any case, you’re out of bandwidth: You’re thinking about putting a ribbon on

it and moving into sell mode. It’s the living dead and about to become plankton.”

Translation? “You could bring in a talented executive from another field, but there’s

always a chance that he or she could fail. Because you’re worried that your Venture

Capitalist partners won’t participate in a second round of funding, you’re wonder-

ing whether to talk to Microsoft. In any case, you’re out of time and exhausted.

You’re thinking about firing the engineers and selling the company. It’s stagnant and

about to be a small company swallowed by a larger one” (Herbold, 1998, p. 26A).

This is an example of the argot of venture capitalists, the high-risk deal makers in

the business world.

This photo of a barrier between the United States and Mexico illustrates 1. Permeable boundaries 2. Attempted regulation of change in a system 3. Boundary control 4. Equifinality

Answers are given at end of chapter

Sa nd

y H

uf fa

ke r/

G et

ty Im

ag es

N ew

s/ G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 62 25/10/11 5:26 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 63 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 63 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Rules: Permission Not Granted Membership rules establish who can join a group and who is barred. They also define appropriate behaviors in specified

social situations. Rules can establish what constitutes disruptive and inappropriate

behavior, thus drawing boundaries regarding what will be tolerated by the group

and what won’t be accepted. Rules may also specify who can talk to whom, thus

controlling input from outside. The Judicial Conference of the United States in 2010

ordered all federal judges to read instructions to all jurors barring the use of “any

electronic device or media” used in connection with a court case and “any Inter-

net chat room, blog, or website such as Facebook, My Space, LinkedIn, YouTube or

Twitter” (quoted in Elias, 2010). These rules are meant to prevent juror misconduct

and consequent mistrials and reversals.

Roles: Staying in Bounds A role is a pattern of expected behavior associated with parts we play in groups. The expectations attached to group roles specify appropriate

behavior, thereby fostering predictability and controlling variability. Once the pat-

tern of behavior is associated with a group member, a boundary is set.

In the United States, managers are expected to respect the boundary between an

employee’s work life and private life. Commenting on a female employee’s lack of a

husband and informing her that she will be attending a luncheon to meet an eligible

male would be viewed as clearly overstepping the boundaries separating supervisor

and employee. The same reaction may not occur, however, in India, where a lead-

ership style called paternal authoritativeness is often preferred. Indians expect that

someone in a supervisory leadership role, typically a male, will act like a father who

cares about a family member. Going to the trouble of arranging a luncheon for a

female employee to meet an eligible male would likely be perceived as showing per-

sonal interest and concern for the employee’s welfare (Brislin, 1993). The employee

would likely appreciate the gesture (and attend the luncheon), whereas in the United

States charges of sexual harassment might be filed. Role boundaries and culture are inseparably interconnected.

Networks: Controlling Information Flow Groups set boundaries by estab- lishing networks. Networks control the access and flow of information within the

group, and they may also isolate the group from outside influences. A network is a structured pattern of information flow and personal contact. Facebook was origi-

nally limited to Harvard students only. Outsiders could not get access. It was a rela-

tively closed network. Quickly, Facebook broadened to include 500 million users,

and counting, but each participant can control who has access to his or her home

page by either accepting or rejecting a request for access to become a Facebook

“friend” (“Facebook Factsheet,” 2011). The more open the network, the more ac-

cessible information is to a broad range of individuals. Open networks encourage

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 63 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 64 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 64 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

change and potential disruption; closed networks emphasize stability, privacy, and

permanence.

▶ Boundary Control and Group Effectiveness: Open and Closed Systems

Although all groups set boundaries, there is a strong bias in American culture that

encourages openness, or loose boundaries, and discourages closedness, or rigid

boundaries. We preach the value of fostering an open society and maintaining an

open mind. Having a closed mind is linked to an authoritarian personality and dog-

matism. A closed society is likened to North Korea. The belief that openness is always

good and closedness is always bad is a faulty one (Klapp, 1978). No group can long

endure unless it closes off to some outside influences and restricts access to some

information (Galanter, 1999). This is why boundary control is an essential group

function.

A group must close off when both the quantity and type of input place undue stress on the group and /or prevent it from accomplishing its task. There are times, for instance, when a family seeks advice and counsel from

friends and relatives (input), but there are also times when a family should close

itself off to intrusion from outsiders. In-laws who are overly free with advice

and criticism impose stress on the family. Permitting even well-intentioned

relatives and friends to hammer immediate family members with unsolicited

counsel can easily lead to bickering, increased tension, conflict, and even family

disintegration.

Despite the popularity of shows such as Survivor, Big Brother, The Apprentice, and

the Real Housewives of New Jersey, Atlanta, D.C., or name the city, and their billing as

“reality television,” participants do not act naturally when cameras and microphones

record their every move and conversation. It’s too intrusive. Competing for huge

prize money also makes for “unreality television.” We need our boundaries to live

our lives without the increased stress from probing eyes of strangers, as dramatically

depicted in the movies The Truman Show and EDtv, and more recently introduced

in 2008 with Fox TV’s “The Moment of Truth.” The latter asked contestants increas-

ingly invasive questions (“Do fat people repulse you?”; “Would you cheat on your

spouse?”). If contestants answered truthfully as measured by a polygraph test (highly

unreliable), contestants won increasing amounts of money. The show only lasted

until August 2009 but was highly controversial for its alleged breakup of marriages

and inappropriate self-disclosure.

Group members should watch for signs of excessive openness or closedness, such as when groups experience debilitating stress and tension, divisive conflicts, boredom and malaise, and poor productivity. Loosening or tightening boundar- ies may be in order. Knowing whether to relax or tighten boundaries depends on

whether the group is already very closed or very open.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 64 25/10/11 5:26 PM

AdAPTAbIlITY TO ChAnGE 65 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 65 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Unreality TV programs, such as Survivor, loosen boundaries and create extreme open- ness to the probing eyes of viewers.

B ri

nt on

/C B

S Ph

ot o

A rc

hi ve

/ G

et ty

Im ag

SECOND LOOK

Openness and Group Boundary Control Types of Group Boundaries Regulating Change

Physical Barriers Psychological Barriers

Linguistic Barriers Rules

Roles Networks

Boundary Control and Group Effectiveness

• Signs of Excessive Openness or Closedness:

Debilitating Stress Divisive Conflicts

Boredom Malaise

Poor Productivity

• Adjust boundaries when signs of excessive openness/closedness occur.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 65 25/10/11 5:26 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 66 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Influence of Size

Size is a central element in any human system. Fluctuations in size have enormous

influence on the structure and function of a group (Laughlin et al., 2006; Lowry

et al., 2006).

Focus Questions

1. What is the most appropriate size for a decision-making group?

2. What distinguishes a small group from a large one?

3. How are groups and organizations different?

▶ Group Size and Complexity As groups increase in numerical size, complexity increases. Try scheduling a meeting for a group of 15 or 20 members. Consider how difficult it would be to find a

time that doesn’t conflict with at least one or more members’ personal schedules and

preferences. There are numerous complications that increased complexity produces.

This section discusses these complications.

Quantitative Complexity: Exponentially Complicated As the size of a group increases, the possible number of interactions between group members increases ex-

ponentially (Bostrom, 1970). The calculations are as follows:

Number in Group Interactions Possible 2 2

3 9

4 28

5 75

6 186

7 441

8 1,056

In a dyad, only two relationships are possible, namely, person A to person B, and

vice versa. A and B may not have the same perception of their relationship. Person

A may perceive the relationship with B as a close friendship, whereas B sees the re-

lationship with A as merely acquaintanceship. In a triad, or three-member group,

there are nine possibilities:

1. A to B 4. C to A 7. A to B and C

2. B to A 5. B to C 8. B to A and C

3. A to C 6. C to B 9. C to A and B

◀ 66 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 66 25/10/11 5:26 PM

InflUEnCE Of SIzE 67 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 67 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Adding even a single member to a group enormously complicates the group

dynamics. In a study investigating why groups fail, one notable factor was the dif-

ficulty of scheduling meetings when groups grew to eight members (Fiechtner &

Davis, 1992).

Imagine the difficulty Diane and Stanley Cook experience raising their

ever-expanding family (McLaughlin, 2004). As college sweethearts they began

dreaming of raising a large family. Their wish was granted—in a big way. They raised

five biological children and 106 foster children! Many of the foster children were de-

velopmentally disabled, physically or mentally. Now in their senior years, this amaz-

ing couple has adopted 13 of these foster children. Living in a 2,000-square-foot

home, “only” 13 children lived under the same roof at the same time. Nevertheless,

preventing sheer chaos would be a substantial challenge. “It was organized,” Diane

Cook explains. “Everybody chipped in” (p. 19A).

Complexity and Group Transactions: Size Matters Variations in size affect group transactions in several specific ways. First, larger groups typically have more nonparticipants than smaller groups. This occurs partly because in larger groups there is more intense competition to seize the floor (Carletta et al., 1998). More reti-

cent members are apt to sit quietly rather than fight to be heard. This also means that

the more talkative members are likely to emerge as leaders of larger groups because

influence on the group comes partly from speaking (Kolb, 1997).

A long-term study by Jeremy Finn, a professor at the University of Buffalo Gradu-

ate School of Education, followed 12,000 students in kindergarten to senior year of

high school. These students were from urban, rural, and inner-city backgrounds,

randomly assigned to smaller classes of 13 to 17 students or regular-size classes of

22 to 25 students. Finn followed their progress until they graduated from high school.

The children who began in smaller classes had higher on-time high school gradua-

tion rates and attained more honors than students who began in the larger classes

(Elley, 2001). Larger classes provide less personal attention from teachers, and more

students are likely to become nonparticipants.

Second, smaller groups inhibit overt disagreement and signs of dissatisfaction more than larger groups. Smaller groups can apply more intense pressure to con- form to majority opinion than can be applied in larger groups (Bettinghaus & Cody,

1987). Splinter groups and factions are more likely to emerge in larger groups. In a

6-person group, there may be only a single deviant who must stand alone against

the group. In a 12-person group, however, two or more deviants may more easily

emerge, forming a supportive faction.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, only one juror votes “not guilty” on the first vote.

Hailed by many as a dramatization of the importance of one person standing against

the many in a fight for truth and justice, one scene is often overlooked. The lone

holdout debates with fellow jurors for a while, but eventually indicates that he is

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 67 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 68 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 68 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

unwilling to continue if no other juror will support his position. He makes a deal

with the jury. If no other juror votes not guilty on the next ballot, then he will join the

majority and also vote for conviction, thereby sending the defendant to death row.

When he gains an ally, the fight is continued to its dramatic conclusion. Nonconfor-

mity is easier when you don’t have to stand alone against the group.

Third, group size affects levels of cooperation (Benenson et al., 2000; Stahelski & Tsukuda, 1990). When groups of 12 to 30 members were compared, the small-

est groups were found to be the most cooperative, meaning they worked together

on tasks more interdependently, engaged in collaborative effort, and exhibited

consensus leadership. As groups increased in size, cooperation decreased. This

resulted in diminished task effectiveness, unmet goals, and increased conflicts.

Other studies have found that larger groups encourage formation of cliques or small, narrowly focused subgroups (factions) that create a competitive atmosphere

( Carron & Spink, 1995).

Fourth, group members tend to be less satisfied with groups of 10 or more (Carter & West, 1998). The overall group climate often deteriorates when groups

become large (De Cremer & Leonardelli, 2003). Tasks become more complex to per-

form, tension mounts, and dominant group members can trigger interpersonal dis-

harmony by becoming too aggressive and forceful with other members while trying

to impose order (Pavitt & Curtis, 1994).

Thus, decreased participation, inhibition of overt disagreement, diminished levels of cooperation, and reduced levels of satisfaction characteristic of larger groups all lead to significantly diminished group productivity. Research by Mar- cia Blenko and her colleagues (2010) shows that each member added to a decision-

making group that starts with seven members reduces decision effectiveness by

10%. If this “rule of seven” is taken to its logical conclusion, they explain, a group of

17 members or more “rarely makes any decisions” (p. 88). Too many group mem-

bers can create decision paralysis, not cooperative decision making. Another study of

2,623 members in 329 work groups shows that groups composed of 3 to 8 members

are significantly more productive than groups composed of 9 or more members.

Groups of 3 to 6 members are the most productive, according to one other study

(Wheelan, 2009).

So what is the ideal size for a group? Is it 3 to 6, or maybe 7 or 8? There is no per-

fect number. Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos follows the “two pizza rule.” A group

is too large if two pizzas are insufficient to feed all members (Yang, 2006). Obvi-

ously, this rule is an imprecise standard for determining ideal group size (small,

medium or large pizzas?). The best size for a group is the smallest size capable of performing the task effectively (Sawyer, 2007; Sundstrom et al., 1990). This ad- mittedly is also somewhat imprecise advice, but there is a trade-off between qual-

ity and speed when trying to determine ideal group size (Pavitt & Curtis, 1994).

If the primary group goal is the quality of the decision, then a group of 7 to 8

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 68 25/10/11 5:26 PM

InflUEnCE Of SIzE 69 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 69 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

members is advisable. These smaller-sized groups are especially effective if there

is little overlap of knowledge and skills among group members and the group task

requires substantial deep diversity in knowledge and skills (Larson, 2007; Valacich

et al., 1994). If the primary goal of the group is speed, however, then very small

groups of three or four members are advisable. Larger groups, especially those with

a dozen or more members, typically slow decision making and problem solving,

sometimes maddeningly so.

In a comparison of 6-member and 12-member mock juries, the larger juries took

much longer to deliberate and they took more votes (Davis et al., 1997). Because

juries are faced with momentous choices that significantly affect people’s lives, how-

ever, the 12-member jury has been the norm. If your freedom depended on a jury

verdict, you would certainly want the primary group goal to be the quality and not

the speed of the decision. Consensus (unanimous agreement) becomes difficult

when groups are large. Juries are structured so quick decisions are unlikely and con-

sensus is difficult to achieve. Requiring a unanimous vote from 12 jurors requires

careful deliberation on key issues and evidence to achieve consensus.

Some research (see Pavitt & Curtis, 1994) suggests five-member groups are a nice

compromise when both quality and speed are important group goals. Ultimately, there is no magic number that constitutes the ideal-sized group. Even five- member groups can circumvent high-quality deliberations by a quick majority

vote. Contextual factors (politics, legal requirements, institutional norms, avail-

ability of members, task complexity, etc.) may necessitate groups larger in size than

what works for greatest efficiency. I once worked on a campus task force on hiring

practices. Initially, the task force began with seven members. Howls of displeasure

erupted across campus. Many segments of the campus strenuously objected to a lack

of representation on the task force. Ultimately, what began as a small group became a

rather cumbersome 20-member large group because of important political consider-

ations. Not once in months of meetings did all 20 members attend the same meeting,

and discussions were often exercises in futility. Competent communicators can work

effectively in larger groups, although increased size magnifies the challenges.

▶ An Organization: A Group of Groups When groups grow, they reach a point where they may become organizations with

bureaucracies. For instance, suppose you and two friends decide to open a small

business together. Let’s say you call it Computer Repair Use and Distribution (CRUD

for short). In its initial stages, the structure of your group is informal and the divi-

sion of labor is most likely equal. Since the three of you work together as friends

(Crud Buds), communication is not hampered by cumbersome chains of command,

middle managers, and the bureaucratic complexities of a large, formal organization.

Standards of operation and procedures for decision making are informally negoti-

ated among the three of you as situations occur.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 69 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 70 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 70 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

If your little enterprise booms, employees will have to be hired, thus expanding

the business and increasing the complexity of the entire operation. Work schedules

will have to be coordinated. Perhaps a fleet of vans (Crudmobiles) will have to be

purchased to form a computer repair “strike team.” Standardized codes of dress

(Crud Duds) and conduct on the job (Crudiquette) may be required. Constant train-

ing (Cruducation) in ever-changing computer technology will be necessary. Formal

grievance procedures may also be required to settle disputes among employees and

management. You may decide to open additional CRUD outlets (Crudlets), and even

become a chain, selling franchises around the country. Now you must hire managers,

accountants, and lawyers; establish a board of directors; sell stock in the company;

and become business executives. What began as a small enterprise can grow into a

large organization.

Consider Facebook, which became the world’s largest social networking site.

Facebook began as a small enterprise in 2004 at Harvard University. Creator Mark

Zuckerberg, along with fellow roommates and classmates Eduardo Saverin, Dustin

Moskowitz, and Chris Hughes, developed Facebook as an online Harvard student

directory that quickly mushroomed into a dominant global social networking site.

Despite disputes regarding whether Zuckerberg stole the original idea for Facebook,

no one can dispute the meteoric rise of Facebook from a small group effort of four

roommates into a large organization of 1,700 employees in 12 countries in just its

first six years of operation (“Facebook Factsheet,” 2011).

When small groups grow into larger groups, finally graduating into complex orga-

nizations, the structure and function of these human systems change. Small groups

are more personal than large organizations. Small groups usually can function well as

a committee of the whole, with relatively equal distribution of power. With increas- ing group size comes greater formality. Traditional large organizations become hierarchical (members of the organization are rank ordered from top to bottom),

with clearly demarcated power structures, lines of authority, and top-down com-

munication networks (Tapscott & Williams, 2006), although recently there has been

a trend toward flattening the hierarchy by moving away from tightly defined roles of

superiors and subordinates and placing greater emphasis on teamwork. Using so-

cial networking sites for intraorganizational communication has also encouraged a

flattened hierarchy (Shih, 2010). In traditional organizations, the company is more

important than any single individual. Employees can be replaced with relative ease,

whereas in a small intimate group, loss of a single member may bring about the de-

mise of the group.

The flow of information is one of the most important differences between small groups and complex organizations. Normally, little negative information from below reaches the top of the corporate hierarchy, or, if it does, it is delayed

(Adler & Elmhorst, 2008). Who wants to be the bearer of bad tidings? They often

shoot (figuratively) the messenger who brings bad news.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 70 25/10/11 5:26 PM

InflUEnCE Of SIzE 71 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 71 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Bad decision making cannot be hidden easily when the group is small. Almost any

blunder will become incandescent when the black hole of bureaucracy is not present

to shroud it. If you have three people running a small business and one of the three

does something boneheaded that affects the enterprise, your choices immediately

narrow to two possibilities (unless, of course, you are guilty but playing dumb). One

of your two partners has to be the culprit.

Information distortion usually is a bigger problem in organizations than in smaller groups. Managers act as gatekeepers, screening messages, selecting which ones will be brought to the attention of higher-ups. By the time a message from be-

low reaches top executives in an organization, it can easily become unrecognizable

nonsense. Similarly, information from the top can be distorted by the time it filters

down to the bottom of the organization (Adler & Elmhorst, 2008).

In smaller groups, the communication is usually more direct, with fewer opportuni-

ties for distortion from messages being transmitted serially through several people. If

This cartoon illustrates 1. Negative synergy 2. Flattening the hierarchy in an organization 3. Bad decision making that cannot be hidden in an organization 4. Little negative information reaches the top of a traditional corporate hierarchy

Answers are given at end of chapter

D IL

B ER

T: ©

1 99

7 Sc

ot t A

da m

s. D

is t.

B y

U N

IV ER

SA L

U C

LI C

K . R

ep ri

nt ed

w ith

p er

m is

si on

. A ll

ri gh

ts r

es er

ve d.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 71 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 72 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 72 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

the message is communicated to the entire group at the same time—a comparatively

easy task if the gathering is small—then the problems of message distortion are reduced.

Although organizations are not emphasized in this text, I include examples from

organizational settings because many of you can relate meaningfully to such an en-

vironment. Virtually all of what is discussed is immediately relevant to enhancing

communication competence in organizations. After all, “an organization itself may

be viewed as a group of groups” (Haslett et al., 1992, p. 103). Work is often per-

formed in teams (subsystems) within the larger organizational system, a subject for

later discussion in Chapter 6.

In summary, groups are systems. The three main elements of a system are inter-

connectedness of parts, adaptability to change, and the influence of size. There is

no precise dividing line between small and large groups, and the ideal size for most

decision-making and problem-solving groups is the smallest group capable of per-

forming the task effectively. Having now laid the theoretical foundation for analyzing

small groups, I discuss the process of group development in the next chapter.

SECOND LOOK

Effects of Increasing Group Size Increases

Complexity

Factionalism/cliques

Formality—more hierarchical

Information distortion

Quality decision making (unless group becomes too large and unwieldy)

Difficulty achieving consensus/majority vote often substituted

Likelihood that talkative members become leaders

Decreases

Participation in group discussion

Cooperation (in very large groups)

Pressure to conform—coalitions likely to form in opposition to group norms

Member satisfaction with group experience (10 or more)

Access to information

Flow of negative information to top of hierarchy

Speed of decision making

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 72 25/10/11 5:26 PM

InflUEnCE Of SIzE 73 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 73 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 2, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. How does the effect of a disruptive group member demonstrate the interconnectedness element of a system?

2. In groups you belong to, what boundaries are erected? 3. Have you experienced group boundaries that are too rigid in any groups to which you belong? How

can you tell that the boundaries are too rigid? 4. What’s the largest group you’ve ever belonged to that didn’t experience serious problems because

of its size? Why did it work?

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 73 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 74 Chapter 2: GROUPS AS SYSTEMS

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 74 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

VIDEO Case Studies

City Island (2010). Comedy-Drama; PG-13 Vince Rizzo, played by Andy Garcia, is a corrections officer who secretly wants to be an actor. He hides this fact and his secret acting lessons from his wife Joyce, played by Julianna Margulies, so she thinks he is having an affair. Secrets abound between Vince and Joyce, and the spillover ensnares other family members with their own secrets. Analyze boundary control issues and openness versus closedness concerns from a systems perspective.

Freedom Writers (2007). Drama; PG-13 This is the story of a young, idealistic teacher (Hilary Swank) who lands her first job at a Long Beach high school dominated by racial tension and gang violence. Based on the true story of Erin Gruwell, this depiction avoids condescension and phony emotional displays. Analyze Gruwell’s class as a system. Apply the three main components of systems.

In Good Company (2004). Comedy/Drama Dennis Quaid plays an advertising sales executive whose life at work and home is upended when his new boss, played by Topher Grace, turns out to be a 20-something, inexperienced doofus who even begins seeing Quaid’s daughter (Scarlett Johannson). Examine the adaptability to change in both the family system and the organizational system. Consider issues of boundary control. Finally, analyze appropriateness of the Topher Grace character’s behavior in the small group (Quaid’s family) versus the organization (ad agency).

Miracle (2004). Drama; PG Faithful and involving re-creation of the 1980 “miracle on ice” performed by the U.S. Olympic hockey team when it defeated a far more talented team from the Soviet Union and went on to capture the gold medal. Focus your analysis on synergy, the ripple effect of new members, boundary control, and open and closed systems. Who were the difficult group members? How were they handled? Was it effective?

Contagion (2011). Drama; R Horrific presentation of a pandemic virus and its consequences. You have to have a strong stomach to watch this movie. Analyze this film for the ripple effect and systems theory dynamics.

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Photo 2.3 (p. 53): 3; Photo 2.4 (p. 62): 1, 2, 3; Photo 2.6 (p. 71): 4.

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 74 25/10/11 5:26 PM

46850_ch02_ptg01_hr_042-075.indd 75 25/10/11 5:26 PM

◀ 76

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 76 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. PrimAry Dimensions of GrouPs 1. Task and Social Dimensions:

Working and Socializing

2. Building Cohesiveness: Bringing Us Together

▶ B. PerioDic PhAses of GrouP DeveloPment 1. Forming: Gathering Members

a. Reasons We Join Groups: Motivation

b. Member Diversity: The Benefits and Challenges of Difference

2. Storming: Feeling the Tension

a. Primary Tension: Initial Uneasiness

b. Secondary Tension: Later Stress and Strain

3. Norming: Regulating the Group

a. Types of Norms: Explicit and Implicit

b. Purpose and Sources of Norms: Achieving Group Goals

c. Degree of Conformity: Strength of Group Pressure

d. Why We Conform: Fitting In

Group Development3

Closer Look: High School Cliques: A Lesson in Conformity

e. Conditions for Conformity: When We Bow to Group Pressure

Closer Look: Hazing Rituals: From Water Torture to Liver Swallowing

f. Addressing Nonconformity: When Groups Get Tough

4. Performing: Group Output

a Motivation to Perform: Social Loafing and Social Compensation

b When Groups Outperform Individuals: Three Heads Are Better than One

c When Individuals Outperform Groups: No Magic in Groups

▶ c. newcomers AnD GrouP DeveloPment 1. Nature of the Group: The

Challenge of Acceptance

2. Newcomer Strategies: Gaining Acceptance

3. Group Socialization Strategies: Adjusting to Newcomers

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 76 26/10/11 12:14 AM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 77 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

77 ▶

n April 24, 1997, the

board of directors for

Delta Air Lines an-

nounced the unanimous decision not to renew the contract of Del-

ta’s chairman, Ronald Allen. Allen was forced out because, as one board member put it,

there was “an accumulation of abrasions over time” (Brannigan, 1997, p. A8). So what

were these “abrasions” that led the board to replace Allen? In a memo released to Delta

employees, the board, without making direct reference to Allen, stated that it placed “a

high value on Delta’s culture of respect, unity, and deep regard for our heritage.” The

board went on to say that it intended “to select a person as our next leader who will

work well within this culture we all value so highly” (cited in Brannigan, 1997, p. A8).

Ronald Allen clearly did not engender respect, unity, and a deep regard for the

worker-friendly, family atmosphere valued by the board. Allen had a caustic man-

agement style that concentrated on the financial “bottom line” at the expense of

relationships with workers. He developed a reputation for berating employees in

front of other workers. He was known as autocratic, intolerant, and harsh (Bran-

nigan, 1997). When Hollis Harris revealed to Allen that he was resigning as Delta’s

president to head Continental Airlines, Allen demanded that Harris relinquish the

keys to his company car on the spot, leaving him stranded without transportation

home. Allen cut thousands of jobs. Employees were extremely upset with this cost-

cutting measure and the heavy-handed way in which it was done. Allen acknowl-

edged that workers were upset with his slash-and-burn tactics, but his glib response

was “so be it.” Soon, buttons reading “So Be It” began appearing on the chests of

pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics. Worker morale plunged. An exodus of

senior managers began. Many experienced workers were laid off or quit. Delta ser-

vice, once the envy of the airline industry, rapidly deteriorated. Dirty planes and

Z oo

m /J

up ite

r Im

ag es

77 ▶

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 77 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 78 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 78 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

frustrated flight attendants became the norm. On-time performance of flights sank

from the top to the bottom of the industry. Passengers began joking that Delta stood

for “Doesn’t Ever Leave The Airport.” Tough measures were necessary to save Delta financially when Allen took over, but, as Wayne Horvitz, a Washington, D.C., labor

relations consultant notes, “You don’t have to be an SOB to be tough” (Brannigan,

1997, p. A1). Allen had “broken the spirit” of this once proud company. Under his

direction, “What the airline embarked on was nothing less than a suicidal mission”

(“Plane Business Ron Allen,” 2008). His narrow focus on the task of returning Delta

to profitability ignored the vital role interpersonal relations play in group success.

Delta filed for bankruptcy protection and reorganization in 2005. “After the bank-

ruptcy, Delta spent millions to rebuild morale, flying in many of its 47,000 employees

for a series of events that were equal parts team-building and tent revival. And Delta

convinced creditors to cede 15% ownership to employees” (Foust, 2009). Richard

Anderson became CEO of Delta in 2007. He established the practice of flying in a

Delta cockpit jump seat once a month to solicit suggestions for improving the com-

pany from pilots in flight, and he spent a two-day stretch soliciting suggestions from

2,000 employees. Delta posted its first profit since bankruptcy, $500 million, in 2007.

This example highlights the strong connection between the task and social dimen-

sions of groups. Put simply, how group members are treated and the quality of their

relationships within a group can markedly affect task accomplishment. One study

showed that high-quality relationships with coworkers encourage high job motiva-

tion; low-quality relationships predict job burnout and a desire to quit (Fernet et al.,

2010). As groups move through phases of development, the relationship between

task and social dimensions of every group can become a critical factor in achieving

success or experiencing failure. The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore this interconnectedness of task and social dimensions through phases of group development. There are three related chapter objectives:

1. To explain the connection between task and social dimensions of a group 2. To discuss task and social dimensions within the periodic phases of group development 3. To discuss how newcomers affect task and social dimensions of groups, with strat-

egies offered for newcomer acceptance into groups

Primary Dimensions of Groups

Focus Questions

1. How do the task and social dimensions of groups interconnect?

2. How are the task and social dimensions integral to both the formation and development of decision-making groups?

3. How does a group build cohesiveness?

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 78 26/10/11 12:14 AM

primary Dimensions of Groups 79 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 79 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The Ronald Allen case study illustrates the importance of social relations to group

performance and effectiveness. This is not a unidirectional process, however. Social

relations in groups affect the task, but the reverse is also true. In this section, the

interconnection between the two primary dimensions of groups, task and social, are

explored.

▶ Task and Social Dimensions: Working and Socializing All decision-making groups have both task and social dimensions. The task dimension is the work performed by the group. The social dimension is the rela- tionships that form between members in the group and their impact on the group

as a whole. Because groups are systems, the task and social dimensions are intercon-

nected. Thus, degree of concern for a task affects the social or relationship aspects.

Conversely, degree of concern for relationships in the group affects the accomplish-

ment of the task.

The output from a group’s task dimension is productivity. Productivity is the result of the efficient and effective accomplishment of a group task. The output from the social dimension is cohesiveness. Cohesiveness is the degree to which mem- bers feel a part of the group, wish to stay in the group, and are committed to each

other and to the group’s work (Lanfred, 1998; Wech et al., 1998). Cohesiveness is

produced primarily by attention to social relationships.

Neither the task nor the social dimension can be ignored for a decision-making

group to be successful. Finding the optimum balance between productivity and cohesiveness is an important goal for all groups (Hardy et al., 2005). Too much at- tention to productivity can diminish cohesiveness by producing stress and conflict.

Ronald Allen’s single-minded focus on the task of returning Delta Air Lines to profit-

ability disrupted the interpersonal harmony within the company. This disruption

ultimately led to poor service, diminished worker morale, loss of valuable employees,

and a negative image within the industry and among passengers. Conversely, too

much emphasis on cohesiveness can produce a group of socializers who like each

other a great deal but accomplish nothing in particular (Hardy et al., 2005). This is

a problem unless, of course, the purpose of the group is merely to have a good time

and no task needs to be accomplished, in which case knock yourself out.

In general, cohesiveness enhances group productivity unless overemphasized (Beal et al., 2003; Gammage et al., 2001). This relationship is stronger in smaller

groups than in larger ones, for ongoing natural groups than for artificially created

groups, and for cooperative groups than for competitive groups (Klein, 1996). The

nature of the task and type of group also affects the relationship between cohesive-

ness and productivity (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). The more interconnected

group members must be to accomplish a task (e.g., flying a passenger jet, perform-

ing surgery, playing team basketball) the stronger is the cohesiveness–productivity

relationship (Gully et al., 1995).

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 79 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 80 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 80 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Building Cohesiveness: Bringing Us Together So how do groups build cohesiveness? The main strategies are:

1. Encourage compatible membership. When group members enjoy each other’s company and share an attraction for one another, cohesiveness can be easily

built. When difficult, disruptive individuals join the group, cohesiveness can

suffer. Of course, a group doesn’t always have the luxury of choosing who can

join. Sometimes membership is mandated from outside (e.g., by an institution or

corporation).

2. Develop shared goals. One aspect of cohesiveness is sharing a common vision. When all group members are pulling together to achieve a goal valued by all,

cohesiveness is likely to increase (Hardy et al., 2005).

3. Accomplish tasks. Productive groups usually become more cohesive as a result of task accomplishment. If group members feel good about work accomplished, this

often pulls the group together and promotes team spirit. This is true unless some

members suspect that they are doing the lion’s share of the work and others are

slackers. Then this can promote disgruntled feelings, may diminish the effort of

the hard-working members, which in turn may lead to poor group performance

and subsequent diminished cohesion (Hoigaard et al., 2006). As a rule, success-

ful teams exhibit harmony. Unsuccessful teams, however, frequently manifest

frustration and disappointment by sniping, sniveling, and finger-pointing (Van

Oostrum & Rabbie, 1995). Poor productivity can lead to group disintegration.

4. Develop a positive history of cooperation. If group members work together cooperatively rather than competitively, cohesiveness can flourish (Klein, 1996).

Constructing cooperation in small groups is discussed in Chapter 4.

5. Promote acceptance of group members. Make each other feel valued and wel- comed in the group. Make an effort to engage in friendly conversation. Cohesion

is disrupted if some members feel that cliques have developed and that they are

outsiders, not members embraced by others (Hardy et al., 2005).

The task and social dimensions are integral to both the formation and develop-

ment of decision-making groups. Just where these two dimensions fit into the life of

a group can be ascertained by exploring the periodic phases of group development.

Periodic Phases of Group Development

Tuckman (1965) describes the four phases of group development as forming, storm-

ing, norming, and performing (see also Wheelan et al., 2003). These phases should

not be viewed as sequential. Groups do not necessarily pass through these phases of

development in linear fashion like a person does when growing older (i.e., youth,

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 80 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 81 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 81 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

middle age, old age). Groups tend to be far messier than this, sometimes cycling back

around to a previous phase that was seemingly completed (Hare, 1994). (Unhappily,

such cycling back is not possible with aging.)

Admittedly, group development can be classified in terms of an initial phase

where individuals join together for some reason (forming), a tension phase (storm-

ing), a standards and rules of conduct for members phase (norming), and a phase

where effort is targeted toward goal achievement (performing). These phases can be

periodic, meaning that they are apt to appear, disappear, reappear, and even overlap

(Chang et al., 2006). Forming, storming, norming, and performing are also global

phases of group development relevant to groups in general, large or small. Specific

phases relevant to the process of decision emergence in small groups are discussed

in Chapter 8.

Focus Questions

1. Does why we join a group make any difference to the group? Explain.

2. How does group composition affect group efficacy?

3. Is tension in a group always undesirable? Explain.

4. Where do group norms come from? Why do we conform to group norms?

5. Under what conditions do groups outperform individuals?

▶ Forming: Gathering Members A group begins with its own formation. In this section, two issues are addressed:

(1) why we join groups, and (2) how diverse membership affects groups.

Reasons We Join Groups: Motivation The reasons we join groups act as cata- lysts for group formation. We join groups to satisfy some need (Shaw, 1981). There

are six main reasons why we join groups. They are:

1. Need to Belong: No One’s an Island Humans are communal beings. We have a powerful need to belong, one that is as much an imperative as the need for food.

This innate need is universal, not specific to any culture (Baumeister & Leary,

1995). It has survival value for humans. Forming social bonds with group mem-

bers can provide protection from outside threats to one’s person and possessions.

Group membership can stave off the “lethal poison” of chronic loneliness (Lynch,

2000). We find mates by joining groups (e.g., Parents Without Partners), and we

satisfy our desire for affection from family and groups of friends. American cul-

ture lauds individualism, but, as evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson

(1994) observes, “The quest to be alone is indeed a futile one, never successfully

followed in the history of life.” Joining a group provides an opportunity to satisfy

our deep need to belong.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 81 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 82 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 82 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

2. Interpersonal Attraction: The Drawing Power of Others We join a group because we are drawn to its members. We seem drawn to others who are similar in person-

ality, attitudes and beliefs, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, and economic status

(Aboud & Mendelson, 1998; Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Many campus clubs and

support groups are attractive because of member similarity. Physical attractive-

ness may also draw us to join a group. We may have no other reason to join a

group than that we’d like to get to know a particular attractive group member.

Although there is a popular belief that physical attractiveness is more important

to men than it is to women as a factor influencing interpersonal attraction, re-

views of hundreds of studies show otherwise (Langlois et al., 2000).

3. Attraction to Group Activities: Joining for Fun and Frolic Sometimes we join groups to participate in the group’s activities. This is a primary motivation for

joining most college athletic teams, fraternities, and sororities. Joining a group

because you are attracted to the group’s activities doesn’t preclude the additional

draw from social connection among members. When I coached intercollegiate

debate, students joined primarily for the academic competition. Secondary moti-

vations, however, developed along the way, such as traveling around the country,

cultivating friendships, falling in love, and engaging in the inevitable social activi-

ties that are attached to debating. Softball leagues are frequently rated A, B, and

C so the hard-core athletes can be separated from the Budweiser crowd. Some

players are drawn to the physical activity, and others are drawn more to the social

activities.

4. Attraction to Group Goals: A Purpose-Driven Membership Another reason why we join groups and wish to remain as members is an attraction to the group’s

goals. Political groups gain members because individuals are drawn to the cause

or the candidate. We join most volunteer groups because we are attracted to the

groups’ goals.

When you join a group for a worthy cause, you don’t have the luxury of

interacting only with members that you’d enjoy inviting to dinner. You’re

stuck adapting to the various personalities and quirks of fellow members. Your

commitment to the goal of the group, however, may be enough to keep you

coming back.

5. Establishment of Meaning and Identity: Groups-R-Us When situations are am- biguous, and we’re looking for answers, we often join groups as a means of better

understanding ourselves, our world, and others who cross our paths (Goethals &

Darley, 1987). A study of youth violence by former Massachusetts Commissioner

of Public Health Deborah Prothrow-Stith (1991) draws this similarity between

antisocial groups such as gangs and prosocial groups such as fraternities: “They

provide young people with goals and objectives, a world view, and a place where

they are valued (p. 97).” You may join a choir, a marching band, or an athletic

team for similar reasons.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 82 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 83 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 83 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

6. Fulfillment of Unrelated Needs: Our Miscellaneous Reasons Finally, we join groups to satisfy needs that are unrelated to the group’s task, goals, members,

or even our desire to belong. We may become group members to enhance our

résumé or establish business contacts. Sometimes we join a group because other

members familiar to us have joined, removing some of the uncertainty associated

with group formation (Arrow & Crosson, 2003). In some cases we are told by

persons in authority to join a group. You may be summoned for jury duty. It is

wise to comply. The instructor of your class may put you into a group of people

who interest you very little. If you are pragmatic, you will make the best of a less-

than-satisfactory situation because your grade may depend on it.

The reasons individuals join groups have noticeable effects on the productivity and cohesiveness of those groups. If they join because they are attracted to the other members, the likelihood of cohesiveness in the group is certainly more probable than

if they join to meet self-oriented needs. If they join because they are attracted to the

group’s goals, productivity is likely to be enhanced. If they join groups for personal

gain only, they’ll likely end up as deadweight and drag down the entire group.

Member Diversity: The Benefits and Challenges of Difference According to the 2010 U.S. Census, more than a third of this country’s population is nonwhite

We join groups for all sorts of reasons, attraction to group activities being just one. Individuals in fancy dress costumes engage in a group foam fight on “Raisin Monday,” a traditional activity celebrated at St. Andrews University in Scotland.

Pr es

s A

ss oc

ia tio

n vi

a A

P Im

ag es

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 83 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 84 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 84 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

(Rodriguez, 2011). By 2042, minorities composed largely of Mexican Americans and

other Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans will constitute the majority

of the population (Swift, 2008). In addition, with the advent of virtual groups whose

members may vary widely in age, ethnicity, and culture, the likelihood that you will

participate in groups whose membership mirrors yourself is becoming ever more

remote. This offers opportunities and challenges.

Groups usually benefit significantly from diverse membership (Gastil et al., 2007).

Diverse membership is defined as proportional representation by culture, ethnicity, gender, and age (Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999; McLeod et al., 1996). Heterogeneous

(diverse membership) groups are more likely to have members with deep diversity—

varied skills, perspectives, backgrounds, information, and experiences (discussed in

Chapter 2).

This deep diversity can provide a wider array of problem-solving and decision-

making resources than are likely to be found in homogeneous (nondiverse mem-

bership) groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999; Homan et al., 2007). For example,

research shows that gender diversity in small groups enhances team performance

(Curseu & Schruijer, 2010). Groups whose membership includes a rich mixture of

Asian, African, Latino, and Anglo Americans have superior performance to groups

that include only Anglos (McLeod et al., 1996). Professor Samuel R. Sommers (2006)

of Tufts University summarizes his findings in one study of 200 participants on

29 racially-diverse mock juries, “Such diverse juries deliberated longer, raised more

facts about the case, and conducted broader and more wide-ranging deliberations.”

More importantly, “They also made fewer factual errors in discussing evidence and

when errors did occur, those errors were more likely to be corrected during the dis-

cussion” (quoted in “Racial Diversity,” 2006). Finally, groups with a mix of males,

females, and various ethnicities also counteract biases more effectively than more

homogeneous groups (Marcus-Newhall et al., 1993).

Diversity in group membership, however, poses significant challenges (Chao & Moon, 2005; Mannix & Neale, 2005). Diversity may result in increased difficulty achiev-

ing agreement, especially considering individualism– collectivism cultural value

differences discussed in Chapter 1, and power–distance value differences discussed in

Chapter 9 (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Cohesiveness and group satisfaction may also

be more challenging to develop and maintain (Barker et al., 2000). A competition for

power and resources between majority and minority members may emerge and result

in hostile communication and discrimination (Mannix & Neale, 2005). With group

diversity comes the potential for conflict and misunderstanding.

Consider challenges posed by just diversity in age (Timmerman, 2000). Some

researchers have divided our population into four main categories: Matures

(“The Greatest Generation” born 1900 –1945), Boomers (born 1946 –1964),

Generation X (born 1965 –1982), and Generation Y (“Net Generation” or “Millennials”

born 1982–1991) (Eisner, 2005; Lyons et al., 2005; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005;

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 84 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 85 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 85 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Rodriguez et al., 2003; Straus & Howe, 2006). Matures are characterized by respect for

authority, rules, punctuality, and productivity. Boomers typically question authority,

have a “can-do” attitude, and are accustomed to getting what they want. Gen-Xers

take technological advances for granted, are technologically adept, are skeptical and

independent. Gen-Yers are also technologically adept, have very high expectations

for jobs, salary, and success, but may ignore what doesn’t interest them (Adler &

Elmhorst, 2008). Generalizations based on these categories should be embraced cau-

tiously, but generational differences do pose significant challenges for groups. Older

members (Matures or Boomers) in college groups composed mostly of teens and

20- somethings (Gen-Yers) may have a tough time identifying with younger members,

and vice versa. Older members may feel isolated and become nonparticipants, or they

may “take charge” as in a parental role without the willing acceptance of younger

members. Individuals fresh out of college who join the business and professional

world may find it intimidating working with more mature, experienced group mem-

bers. Issues associated with following rules, respect for authority, and attention to task

and details may trigger clashes. Despite these challenges, diverse membership in

groups is generally a positive influence.

There is no magic, however, from merely adding traditionally excluded members

to decision-making and problem-solving groups. Adding a single ethnic minority,

woman, or person of a markedly different age to a group can easily appear to be

tokenism. Tokens are often the targets of prejudice and discrimination (Fiske, 1993).

They can be easily ignored, harassed, or silenced.

In situations where group composition can be considered during the forming

phase (e.g., task force or ad hoc groups), a maximum effort should be made to have

a diverse membership (Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999). The twenty percent rule is an

important minimum standard to achieve in this regard. Researchers have observed

that discrimination against minorities and women drops substantially when no less

than 20% of a group, and no fewer than two members, are ethnic minorities and/or

women (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987).

In conclusion, the competent communicator can show sensitivity to the needs

of the group during the forming phase in the following ways (Andersen, 1988;

Mannix & Neale, 2005):

1. Express positive attitudes and feelings. This phase is the getting-acquainted stage

of group development. This is not an appropriate time to be deviant (e.g., display-

ing embarrassing lapses in social etiquette, making abrasive remarks or provoca-

tive statements, or wearing outrageous dress). Don’t put your foot in your mouth.

Put your best foot forward.

2. Appear friendly, open, and interested. Be approachable by establishing eye con-

tact with group members, initiating conversation, and responding warmly to in-

teractions from others.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 85 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 86 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 86 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

3. Encourage a “getting-to-know-you” conversation. This places the initial emphasis on the social dimension of the group before delving into the task immediately.

As noted in Chapter 1, this may be more of a stretch for men than women, gener-

ally, because men often place greater emphasis on status than connection during

conversation. A getting acquainted conversation allows you to explore interesting

differences that accompany diverse membership. View diversity as an opportu-

nity instead of an irritation. Different perspectives can improve group decision

making and problem solving.

4. Find areas of commonality and cooperation. Problems mostly arise when group members concentrate on differences, not similarities, among members.

Ethnocentrism—the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others, espe- cially when two cultures have large differences—should be avoided. Cultural dif-

ference is not deficiency. Try finding commonalities in values and perspectives

and explore ways to cooperate. Chapters 4, 9, and 10 explore commonality and

cooperation in detail.

5. Establish clear group goals (Crown, 2007). Both heterogeneous (diverse mem- bership) and homogeneous (nondiverse membership) groups function better

when clear group goals are established early in the formation phase. Developing

clear goals is discussed in Chapter 6.

▶ Storming: Feeling the Tension All groups experience some social tension because change in any system can be an

ordeal. Tension can be a positive force. We are usually at our best when we experi-

ence some tension. Athletes perform best when they find the proper balance between

complete relaxation and crippling anxiety. Excessive tension, however, can produce

damaging conflict that may split the group apart. The relative absence of tension in

a group can result in lethargy, haphazard attention to the task, and weak productiv-

ity. Finding both the level of tension that galvanizes the group and effectively managing group tension are important factors in successful group development.

There are two types of social tension: primary and secondary (Bormann, 1990).

All long-term groups experience both types.

Primary Tension: Initial Uneasiness When you first gather in a group, you nor- mally feel some jitters and uneasiness, called primary tension. Instructors meeting classes for the first time usually experience some primary tension. When you initially

meet roommates, classmates, or teammates, primary tension occurs. Even groups

that have a lengthy history can experience primary tension at the outset of every

meeting. This is especially true if groups such as the PTA, homeowners associations,

or student senate meet infrequently. Also, when virtual group members connect, if

contact with an online group is infrequent, primary tension can emerge.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 86 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 87 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 87 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

There are many signs of primary tension. Group members may become cautious and

hesitant in their communication. Long periods of uncomfortable silence and tentative

statements are all indicators of primary tension. Group members are often overly polite

and careful to avoid controversy. Interruptions normally invoke immediate apologies.

Primary tension is a natural dynamic of group life. In most instances it tends to be

short-lived and cause for little concern. With time, you become comfortable with the

group and your primary tension diminishes. Joking, laughing, and chatting about your interests, experiences, and beliefs on noncontroversial subjects all serve to reduce primary tension. You’re not trying to “Free Tibet,” “Save the whales,” or “Stop climate change.” “Hi! My name is Malcolm; what’s your position on abor-

tion?” is not a good way to begin in a group. Controversial subjects can increase

tension among members. Your purpose is to become acquainted with other group

members. As you get to know each other better, there is less perceived threat and,

consequently, less primary tension.

If a group is too anxious to get down to business and foregoes the small talk, pri-

mary tension is likely to create an atmosphere of formality, stiffness, and insecurity.

Communication will be stilted and hesitant. The ability of the group to work on a

task will be hindered by excessive and persistent primary tension.

Engaging in small talk to relieve primary tension has cultural variations. In the

United States, we tend to view small talk as wasting time, especially if our primary

focus is on a task (e.g., finalizing a business agreement) not social interaction. Many

Asian (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, and Korean), Middle Eastern (e.g., Saudi Arabian),

and Latin American (e.g., Mexican, Brazilian, and Chilean) cultures view small talk

as a necessary ritual engaged in over many cups of coffee or tea for several hours or

several meetings, during which the group’s task may not even be mentioned. Ethio-

pians attach prestige to tasks that require a great deal of time to complete. Lengthy

small talk, viewed by most Americans anxious to do business as “doing nothing,” is

considered highly significant and purposeful (Samovar & Porter, 2004).

Secondary Tension: Later Stress and Strain The stress and strain that occur within the group later in its development is called secondary tension. Having to make decisions produces secondary tension. Disagreements and conflicts— storming—

inevitably emerge when group members struggle to define their status and roles in

the group. Tight deadlines for task completion can induce tension. Whatever the

causes, you should expect some secondary tension in a long-term group. Low levels

of secondary tension may mean that the group is highly harmonious. It may also

mean that group members are unmotivated, apathetic, and bored.

Signs of secondary tension include a sharp outburst, a sarcastic barb, hostile and

antagonistic exchanges between members, or shouting matches. Extreme secondary

tension is unpleasant for the group. If it is left uncontrolled, the group’s existence

may be threatened.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 87 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 88 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 88 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Secondary tension has become an issue in jury deliberations (Weingart & Todorova,

2010). This is particularly true in cases involving controversial statutes such as “three

strikes” and death penalty laws. Even in relatively minor cases, however, secondary

tension can produce juror warfare. For example, during a Manhattan, New York,

jury deliberation involving a man charged with selling a $10 bag of heroin, jurors

yelled at each other, and after four days of antagonistic debate a note was sent to the

judge complaining about the lone holdout juror. It read: “Tension is high, nerves are

frayed, and all minds are not sound” (Finkelstein, 2001). In other instances, court

officers have broken up fistfights, jurors have flung chairs through windows, and

some jurors have screamed so loudly that they could be heard on other floors of

the courthouse. In the 2008 corruption trial of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens,

11 members of the jury sent a note to the judge about their 12th member that read,

“She has had violent outbursts with other jurors, and that’s not helping anyone”

(“Stevens Trial Jurors Warned,” 2008, p. 3A). Jurors have been caught wandering

away from the jury room, and in one case a juror tried to escape the deliberations

permanently by leaping off the jury bus. Courts all around the United States have be-

gun providing booklets to jurors detailing how to deliberate while remaining courte-

ous and even-tempered.

The goal is not to eliminate secondary tension in groups. Most decision-making

groups experience secondary tension. Within tolerable limits, such tension can be a

positive force. Tension can energize a group, challenge the members to think cre- atively, and bring the group together. Trying to avoid or to camouflage secondary tension merely tricks us into believing that the group is functioning well. Beneath

the surface, the group may be disintegrating or the decisions coming from the group

may be ill conceived, even disastrous.

The real challenge facing competent communicators is to manage secondary ten-

sion within tolerable limits. But how do we know when tension exceeds the limits?

There is no mathematical formula for such a determination. Some groups can toler-

ate a great deal of disagreement and conflict. Other groups are more vulnerable to

disintegration because members are more thin-skinned or insecure and view dis-

agreements as personal repudiations and attacks.

A group’s inability to accomplish tasks and to maintain a satisfying social climate is a general rule of thumb for determining excessive tension in a group (Wilson & Hanna, 1990). In a Los Angeles trial of defendants charged with seriously

beating a trucker named Reginald Denny, jurors clearly experienced excessive ten-

sion. One juror was dismissed by the judge at the request of the other 11 exasperated

jurors for “failure to deliberate.” One female member of the sequestered jury became

so upset about not being able to see her boyfriend that she ran down a hallway of the

courthouse yelling, “I can’t take it anymore” (Kramer, 1993, p. 1A). The judge gave

jurors the weekend off from their deliberations to recharge their batteries and to

reduce the tension so they could finish their task.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 88 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 89 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 89 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A competent communicator can handle secondary tension as follows ( Andersen,

1988):

1. Tolerate, even encourage, disagreement. Suppressing differences of opinion will likely increase tension and exacerbate conflict. The trick is to keep the disagree-

ment within tolerable limits. One way to do this is to focus the disagreements on

the task (unless, of course, the conflict is social in nature). Resist the temptation

to drift into irrelevant side issues, especially contentious ones.

2. Keep a civil tongue. Disagree without being disagreeable. You want to foster a coop- erative, not a competitive, atmosphere for discussion. You can express opinions with

conviction and exuberance without raging against those who do not agree with you.

3. Be an active listener. Encourage all group members to express their opinions and feelings. Clarify significant points that are confusing. Resist the temptation to in-

terrupt, especially if this produces defensive behavior from group members. Make

an honest effort to understand the point of view that is in opposition to your own.

4. Use humor (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). In a study of the 414-page transcript of a real death penalty trial, 51 instances of laughter, not all involving humor (some re-

vealed embarrassment), were identified. Tension release was the most common reason

for the laughter (Keyton & Beck, 2010). Humor, of course, can increase tension if it is

used as a weapon to put down other group members. Self-deprecating humor works

well to avoid the negative uses of humor. In the death penalty trial, one juror misstated

another juror’s position on sentencing, stating “30 days” as the preferred penalty in-

stead of “30 years.” Laughter ensued, but you could imagine self- deprecating humor

here lightening the tension of a serious discussion on life or death: “Sorry, 30 years.

I stand corrected. Wow, 30 days for a homicide. That’s almost as serious as a stack of

unpaid parking tickets. How could anyone think I’m soft on crime!”

There are numerous sources of conflict within a group that raise the level of ten-

sion. Reasons for stormy transactions in groups and strategies for effectively manag-

ing them are discussed in greater detail in Chapters 9 and 10. For now, recognize that

conflict and tension are a normal part of the group experience. Dealing with tension

may be smooth sailing for some groups and white-water rafting for others.

▶ Norming: Regulating the Group In groups, rules that establish standards of appropriate behavior are called norms. In this section, types of norms, their purpose and development, and conformity and

nonconformity to norms are discussed.

Types of Norms: Explicit and Implicit There are two types of norms: explicit and implicit. Explicit norms are rules that expressly identify acceptable behavior. Such rules are codified in constitutions and bylaws of fraternal organizations, religious

orders, and the like. All laws in our society act as explicit norms. Most norms in small

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 89 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 90 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 90 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

groups, however, are not so obvious. Implicit norms are rules that are indirectly indicated by uniformities in the behavior and attitudes of members.

A college seminar illustrates the difference between explicit and implicit norms. If

participating in a seminar qualifies as a new experience for you, group norms could

be determined in several ways. Usually, the professor teaching the seminar will pro-

vide a syllabus explicitly specifying what students are expected to do during the term.

Such norms as “Refrain from tardiness and absenteeism,” “All assignments must be

turned in on time,” “All papers must be typed—no exceptions,” and “Active partici-

pation in class discussions is expected” are some of the possible explicit rules.

The implicit rules for the seminar class might be such things as “Don’t interrupt

the professor when he or she is speaking,” “Sit in chairs stationed around the table,”

“Be polite when disagreeing with classmates,” and “Don’t hide the professor’s notes,

even in jest” (it happens). These norms are ascertained by observing the behavior of

your classmates and the professor.

Purpose and Sources of Norms: Achieving Group Goals The general purpose of norms is to achieve group goals. Consider the group Overeaters Anonymous (Shi- manoff, 1992). Change (i.e., losing weight) is regulated by rules, one of which is that

members are permitted to talk about food only in generic terms (carbohydrates, pro-

tein, etc.) but not in terms of specific foods (Twinkies, burgers, cookies). The rule is

based on the assumption that references to particular foods will stimulate a craving for

those foods and make goal achievement more difficult, while references to foods in ge-

neric terms will produce no such cravings. Apparently you won’t hear the refrigerator

calling your name when merely talking about carbohydrates, but mention Häagen-Dazs

and there better be a clear path to the Frigidaire or someone is going to get trampled.

The norming process takes place almost immediately in groups. When a group

is formed, members cast about trying to determine what behavior will be acceptable

and what will be unacceptable. Part of the primary tension in a group may stem from

this concern for proper group etiquette.

There are three principal sources of norms in small groups. The first source of norms is from systems outside the small group. Standards of excellence and spe- cific norms of performance for work teams within organizations often are externally

influenced by management outside of the team (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Charters

and bylaws of local chapters of fraternal organizations, therapeutic groups, and oth-

ers are usually set by parent organizations or agencies.

A second source of small group norms is the influence of a single member. Research shows that a single person can influence the group to accept higher stan-

dards of behavior and performance than would exist without the influence of this

member. Even when that influential member leaves the group, the norm typically

remains (MacNeil & Sherif, 1976). Sometimes these influential individuals are desig-

nated group leaders and sometimes they are newcomers joining an established group.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 90 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 91 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 91 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A third source of small group norms is the group itself (Jetten et al., 1996). Small group norms most often develop from transactions within the group. Some-

times this is explicitly negotiated (e.g., juries deciding what procedures will be used to

arrive at a verdict), but most often it emerges implicitly from trial and error (“Oops,

the group is looking at me like I just suggested euthanizing all family pets; guess I

shouldn’t share every thought that comes into my head.”).

Degree of Conformity: Strength of Group Pressure Solomon Asch (1955) found that when a group composed of confederates of the experimenter unanimously

judged the length of a line incorrectly, naive participants unaware of the setup chose

the obviously erroneous group judgment 35% of the time. Most of these same partici-

pants (75%) conformed to the group error at least once during the study. Social psy-

chologist Anthony Pratkanis of the University of California, Santa Cruz, replicated this

study for Dateline NBC in August 1997. In his study, 9 of 16 college students studied

fell in line with the unanimous choice made by 6 other group members, even though

the choice was clearly incorrect. Ironically, one participant interviewed beforehand

characterized himself as a nonconformist. During the study he conformed earlier and

more often than any other student. Conformity is the adherence to group norms by group members, in this case “following the crowd” by choosing the wrong answer.

Although the degree of conformity in the United States is fairly high (Baron et al., 1996), it is significantly higher in other cultures. A review of 133 conformity studies found significantly higher rates of conformity in collectivist cultures com-

pared to individualist cultures (Bond & Smith, 1996). This, of course, makes sense.

Collectivist cultures place greater emphasis on group harmony and on individuals

blending into groups than do individualist cultures.

The serious negative consequences of conformity can be seen from a Harvard School

of Public Health study of binge drinking (Wechsler & Wuethrich, 2003). Defined as

“five or more drinks at one sitting for men, and four or more drinks for women,” the

study found that almost half of college students in the United States binge drink. Subse-

quent studies found that rates of binge drinking among college students have remained

steady (Nelson et al., 2009). More than 80% of students living in fraternities and so-

rorities report binge drinking. An estimated 1,700 college students die each year from

heavy drinking (Hingson et al., 2005) and about 600,000 college students each year are

hit or assaulted by an intoxicated student ( Hingson et al., 2002). Aside from personal

injury and death, binge drinking diminishes sound judgment. In the Harvard study,

37% of binge drinkers reported that they had done something they regretted afterwards

(e.g., argued with friends, engaged in unprotected sex). Drinking to excess is encour-

aged by group norms (Wechsler & Nelson, 2008). A Zogby International poll reported

that 56% of 1,005 college students surveyed felt group pressure to drink (“Poll,” 2000).

Conformity isn’t always a negative experience. Group pressure can be applied for prosocial reasons. At Shaker Heights High School in Ohio, a group of black

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 91 26/10/11 12:14 AM

◀ 92 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 92 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

upperclassmen dressed in shirts and ties march conspicuously down the hallway to

the auditorium, where underachieving black underclassmen wait to explain their

poor grades. “You think Ds and Fs are funny?” a senior says to a grinning 15-year-

old student. “This is mediocre,” claims another, flashing a report card in front of

a clearly uncomfortable underclassman. The Minority Achievement Committee

(MAC), a small group of high-achieving African American male students, is working

to establish the norm that being smart and doing well in school is cool, not “act-

ing white.” Junior Justin Taylor reflects the committee’s point of view, “What, only

white people study? That’s just plain stupid and insulting” (Clemetson, 1999, p. 37).

Students must earn at least a 2.8 GPA to gain membership into the MAC. Weekly

MAC meetings begin with a firm handshake and the MAC credo, “I am an African

American and I pledge to uphold the name and image of the African-American man.

I will do so by striving for academic excellence, conducting myself with dignity, and

respecting others as if they were my brothers and sisters” (“About High School,”

2010). Raji Bey, a senior, comments on the MAC effort, “These guys have the grades,

the respect, and the girls. Who wouldn’t want to be like them?” (Clemetson, 1999,

p. 37) Cullen Buie, a MAC scholar, puts it this way, “We create positive peer pres-

sure. We make success seem like something real” (p. 37). MAC is fighting a trend that

moves in the opposite direction. One national report on minority academic achieve-

ment gaps in high schools notes that “hunger for peer approval” can be a disincentive

to learn when the peer group does not value academic excellence (Poliakoff, 2006).

Peer pressure in groups is a key cause of binge drinking.

A nd

re w

L ic

ht en

st ei

n/ Sy

gm a/

C or

bi s

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 92 26/10/11 12:14 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 93 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 93 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

In what ways are individuals in these photos illustrating conformity to group norms?

To ky

o Sp

ac e

C lu

b/ C

or bi

W ill

ia m

C am

pb el

l/ Sy

gm a/

C or

bi s

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 93 26/10/11 12:15 AM

◀ 94 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 94 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Why We Conform: Fitting In So why do we conform to norms, especially in a society as individualistic as the United States? We conform for two principal reasons.

First, we conform to norms to be liked. We want social acceptance, support, com- panionship, and recognition (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Cotterell et al., 1992). We must “go along to get along.” (See Closer Look: “High School Cliques.”) Loyalty to

the group is manifested in conformity to group norms and is rewarded with approval

from the members. Norms create solidarity with group members. Our natural desire

to belong and to be liked makes such solidarity attractive. Individual goals, such as

making friends or increasing social activities, can be satisfied by conforming to group

norms. As Walter Kirn (1997) notes, college students don’t usually binge drink just

to get drunk and feel the buzz: “They think they are doing something more mean-

ingful: vowing their loyalty to new friends, winning the respect of others, building a

zany memory they’ll cherish. Fraternities and selective social clubs exploit students’

desperate hunger to fit in” (p. A11).

Second, we conform to norms because we want to be right (Baron et al., 1996). Acting incorrectly can be embarrassing and humiliating. Group norms identify cor-

rect behavior. In this case, we may not want to be liked by group members as much

as we want to avoid social disapproval by being ridiculed or harassed. Few people

enjoy appearing to be a fool.

CLOSER LOOK

High School Cliques: A Lesson in Conformity

When the school lunch bell rings at high schools across the country, kids pour out of their classrooms and almost instantly sort themselves into small groups or cliques. In a field investigation of cliques at three Santa Cruz County, California, high schools, students split into a myriad of small groups—jocks, preps, dirts, surfers, skaters, Goths, nerds, and a vari- ety of ethnic groupings (Townsend, 1999b). We all remember cliques in high school. For some of you it may still be a fresh memory.

Students join cliques because the pressure to belong, to be accepted by peers, is intense

(Mandel, 2010). In some cases, the outcasts rejected by more established cliques form their own group. As one girl at Soquel High School revealed, “We’re outcasts, but at least we’re outcasts together” (Townsend, 1999b, p. A8). As Margarita Azmitia, professor of develop- mental psychology at University of California, Santa Cruz, notes, “Some kids don’t want to be in deviant cliques, but that’s their only op- tion” (Townsend, 1999b, p. A8). The clique gives them an identity, and some protection from harassment by more favored cliques on campus.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 94 26/10/11 12:15 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 95 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 95 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

High school cliques typically divide into a com- petitive hierarchy, with jocks on top and nerds on the bottom. This competitive hierarchy of- ten leads to in-group versus out-group hostility. Name-calling, threats, water balloons, and food rain down on those who belong to the less popu- lar cliques. “They throw stuff at us all the time” says one 18-year-old male student, indicating a collection of surfers, jocks, and popular kids. “I’ve had yogurt thrown at me, apples, oranges,” says another student dressed entirely in black. “They call me dirt, faggot, queer” (Townsend, 1999b, p. A1). A student athlete, one of the popular kids at Aptos High School, looks across the open quad where cliques have fanned out like ripples on a pond and says, “I hate ’em, I don’t care.” Another jock adds, “They smell . . . and they don’t wear shoes.” A 15-year-old female student expresses her anguish regarding the abuse heaped on her by competing cliques, “A lot of people yell at us. They say, ‘You freak of nature. You Satanist.’ We’ve had people harass us to tears. I’ve come back crying. They yell, ‘Go back to hell, no one wants you.’ It hurts.” “It’s almost as bad as rac- ism,” says an 18-year-old male student who is one of the objects of jock derision. “We are who we are, and we can’t be someone else” (Townsend, 1999b, p. A8). Misery loves miserable company, so the outcasts and the derided join cliques for identity and for self-protection.

Conformity to the norms of the clique is strong. At least there is some protection from

harassment when you aren’t facing it alone. Some students are so desperate to fit in that they will do almost anything to gain membership and to remain in a clique. Professor Azmitia explains that cliques are typically only 10 to 12 members in size. This sets up an intense competition to get into the cliques, especially the most favored ones, and to remain members once admitted. Even minor deviance from clique norms, such as wearing the wrong clothes, hanging with some- one from an outcast clique, or missing a clique party can get a member ousted. As a ninth grader at Aptos High confessed, “I wasn’t comfortable with myself, so I tried to conform. I felt pressure to look a certain way. To party, to use drugs and alcohol.” She would get “weird looks” when she wore a colorful scarf wrapped around her short blond hair. “They were too uptight about every- thing” (Townsend, 1999b, p. A8). Eventually she left her popular clique, but she quickly joined an outcast group.

Cliques can boost self-esteem by providing so- cial acceptance, a sense of identity and belong- ing, support, companionship, and recognition for members (Mandel, 2010). Friendships can blossom from participation in cliques. Neverthe- less, cliques can isolate those who are socially ostracized from clique membership (Hardy et al., 2005; Mandel, 2010), and they can encourage blind, desperate conformity, especially when in- tergroup competition erupts into hostility toward and abuse of those who don’t “fit in.”

Questions for Thought 1. Do you remember your experiences with cliques? Were your experiences mostly positive or negative? 2. Did you experience an intense pressure to conform as a clique member? Did intergroup rivalry exist that

produced harassment of members from other cliques? How did you respond?

3. Are there ethical issues involved in joining cliques and rejecting others from joining? Apply the five criteria for ethical communication discussed in Chapter 1.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 95 26/10/11 12:15 AM

◀ 96 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 96 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Conditions for Conformity: When We Bow to Group Pressure There is greater conformity to group norms when certain conditions exist. First and foremost, the stronger the cohesiveness in the group, the greater is the conformity to group norms (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997). The relationship between cohesiveness and con- formity is hardly surprising. Cohesiveness, by definition, is the degree of attraction we

have to a group and our desire to be a member. If there is minimal attraction to the

group and nebulous desire to be a member, then there is scant reason to adhere to the

rules of behavior. A group has little leverage against apathetic or scornful members.

Conversely, individuals who are strongly attracted to the group and wish to remain

members in good standing are much more likely to conform and to bow to peer pres-

sure for uniformity of opinion and behavior. (See Closer Look: “Hazing Rituals.”)

Second, conformity increases as the task importance increases (Baron et al., 1996). When accurately performing the group task assumes great importance, we

tend to conform even when other group members confess to a general lack of confi-

dence in the accuracy of their own judgments (Baron et al., 1996).

Third, conformity is greater when individuals expect to be group members for a long time (Smith, 1982). After all, you must live with this group. Why make your life unpleasant by not conforming, particularly in job situations in which economic

considerations may make job switching impractical?

Fourth, conformity is greater when individuals perceive that they have somewhat lower status in the group than other members or that they are not completely accepted by the group (Smith, 1982). Higher-status members have earned the right to dissent, but lower-status members must still earn that right to occasional nonconformity. Lower-

status members also feel a greater need to prove themselves to the group, to show fealty.

CLOSER LOOK

Hazing Rituals: From Water Torture to Liver Swallowing

In the wee hours of the morning of February 2, 2005, Matthew Carrington, a student at Chico State University in northern California, was pronounced dead from a fraternity hazing ritual that turned lethal (May, 2005). Carrington died from hyponatremia, a deadly drop in sodium levels in the bloodstream caused by drinking massive quantities of water in a short period of time—in this case five gallons in a few hours.

Pledging Chi Tau, a fraternity kicked off the Chico State campus in 2002 for serving alcohol to mi- nors, Carrington was not the first college student to become a victim of this bizarre hazing ritual. Walter Dean Jennings, a freshman at the State University of New York, suffered the same fate in September 2003 while pledging the Psi Epsilon Chi fraternity ( Foderaro, 2003). In Jennings’s case, he was prodded into drinking water in such

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 96 26/10/11 12:15 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 97 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 97 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

quantities that he would vomit. He endured this water torture on and off for 10 days before dying.

Hazing rituals may not turn lethal, but serious injuries can result from such practices. A Florida court convicted two former fraternity brothers at Florida A & M University for causing “serious bodily harm” to a student named Marcus Jones. Jones was beaten severely during fraternity haz- ing. He suffered a ruptured eardrum and a blood clot that required surgery. One of the individuals convicted was responsible for reviving initiates being hazed when they passed out from pain inflicted upon them during the beating ritual (“Florida Jury Convicts,” 2006; “Anti-Hazing Law and Jail Term,” 2007). A Drake University student, Nate Erickson, was hospitalized for al- cohol poisoning as the result of hazing by two members of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity. Sgt. Lori Lavorato, public information officer for the Des Moines Police Department, explained, “He was not physically forced to consume alcohol. It was more a case of peer pressure, where he thought that, in order to become a member, he felt it was a necessity to do so” (quoted in Vasi- logambros, 2009).

Recognizing the strong link between cohe- siveness and conformity to norms, groups will sometimes go to dangerous extremes to foster co- hesiveness. Hazing is an example. Hazing , or an initiation rite, is defined as “any activity expected of someone joining or participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a person’s willingness to par- ticipate” (Allan et al., 2008). According to the National Study of Student Hazing in its investiga- tion of 11, 482 undergraduate students enrolled at 53 colleges and universities, 55% of college stu- dents who are involved in clubs, teams, and cam- pus organizations experience hazing. In more than half of these hazings, someone from the “offend- ing group” posted pictures on YouTube or a social networking site of the victims engaged in humiliat- ing and dangerous activities. The most common

groups guilty of hazing are, in order of frequency, varsity sports teams and social organizations such as fraternities and sororities, club sports teams, performing arts groups, intramural teams, academic clubs, and honor societies (Allan & Madden, 2008). Hazing purposely subjects pro- spective group members to a series of activities designed to test the limits of physical exertion, psychological strain, and social embarrassment. The list of silly, stupid, dangerous, illegal, and even lethal activities actually required by some groups as a rite of passage into groups is long. Examples include forcing students to swallow quarter-pound hunks of raw liver slathered with oil; abandoning students on mountaintops or in remote areas in bitter cold conditions without suitable clothing; repeatedly punching the stomach and kidneys of students who forget parts of ritual incantations; incarcerating initiates in a locked storage closet for two days with only salty foods, no liquids, and only a small plastic cup to catch urine; requiring initi- ates to consume a mixture of urine, spoiled milk, and eggs; forcing initiates to steal; forcing initiates to abuse alcohol or illegal drugs; and requiring ini- tiates to engage in unprotected sex or sex with mul- tiple partners (Allan & Madden, 2008; Hoover & Pollard, 2000).

Hazing raises serious ethical questions. Is it re- spectful to treat those hazed by torturing, humiliat- ing, and shaming them? Is endangering their lives responsible behavior even if the intentions are worthwhile? If membership in a highly desirable group is dependent on debasing oneself or engag- ing in high-risk or illegal activities, does this not remove choice from the equation? Hazing works to create group cohesiveness and conformity, but that’s hardly the important point. Is it ethical?

Forty-four states have outlawed hazing (“State Anti-hazing Laws,” 2010). Numerous colleges and universities have followed suit. Stopping

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 97 26/10/11 12:15 AM

◀ 98 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 98 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

hazing, however, is not easy. When Richard Swanson, a University of Southern California student, gagged on an oil-soaked hunk of liver, then choked to death before anyone could help him, the university applied stringent rules to initiation practices. Students rioted in protest. Outlawing hazing is more likely to drive it under- ground than to eliminate the practice.

Why do groups insist on such harsh and risky membership rituals? There are several reasons (Keating et al., 2005; Moreland & Levine, 1987). First, the harder it is to get into a group, the greater will be the loyalty and com- mitment to the group once membership has been attained. We tend to place greater value on that which is difficult to achieve than that which requires minimal effort (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997). The more severe the hazing ritual, the more desirable a group appears to be. In one experiment, the more electric shock a woman received as part of the hazing ritual, the more she convinced herself that the group and its activities were valuable, interesting, and desirable despite the clear effort of the experimenters to make the group appear unin- teresting and worthless (Gerard & Mathewson, 1966). Another study of 54 tribal groups found that those with the most severe and difficult ini- tiation rituals had the greatest group solidarity (Young, 1965).

If you had to swallow a slimy, oil-soaked slab of raw liver, freeze off the south side of your anatomy, or risk your life to gain membership, chances are quite good that you would slavishly conform to the norms of the group once you were admitted as a member. Deviance is not likely to emerge from a tight-knit group bonded by ordeals.

Second, a harsh initiation provides the group with valuable information about the newcom- ers. If newcomers refuse to be initiated, fail the initiation tasks, or participate in the rites

of passage grudgingly, this informs the group that such newcomers are not likely to fit in with the group. They probably will not conform to group norms.

Third, a harsh initiation discourages new- comers who have a weak commitment to the

M ik

e Se

ga r/

R eu

te rs

/C or

bi s

This is a “Wizard of Oz” hazing of New York Yankee rookie baseball players. Hazing rituals

1. Include socially constructive activities 2. Aim to create cohesiveness and conformity to

group norms 3. Discourage nonconformity to group norms af-

ter the initiation is over 4. Encourage group loyalty and commitment to

the group

Answers are given at end of chapter

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 98 26/10/11 12:15 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 99 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 99 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Questions for Thought 1. Have you ever participated in hazing, either as the perpetrator or the recipient? What were the reasons? 2. Should hazing rituals, especially the high-risk ones, be outlawed? Would outlawing such practices ever stop

them?

3. Can you think of any hazing rituals that are not unethical? Explain. Is it possible to have hazing rituals that are not dangerous, illegal, or abusive and still serve the purpose of creating cohesiveness and subsequent

conformity in the group?

group or have a half-hearted desire to join the group. The sooner such individuals leave before becoming members, the less trouble they are likely to pose for group members. Troublemakers can destroy the cohesiveness of the group.

Fourth, a harsh initiation may convince newcom- ers how dependent they are on longtime members (old-timers). The old-timers make the decisions regarding who is granted membership and who is not. The old-timers must be convinced that the newcomers are worthy of that membership.

Addressing Nonconformity: When Groups Get Tough Because behavior in groups is governed by rules, a violation of a norm can be quite disturbing for group

members. Groups usually do not appreciate such violations, called nonconformity, except within fairly limited boundaries. There are four communication strate-

gies groups typically use to command conformity from nonconforming members

(Leavitt, 1964; Lipman-Blumen & Leavitt, 1999). These strategies tend to follow a

sequential order, although there may be variation in some circumstances.

First, group members attempt to reason with the deviant. The quantity of talk aimed at the nonconformist initially increases substantially (Schachter, 1951).

Groups show an intense interest in convincing nonconforming members of their

folly. Clearly, groups expect their troublesome members to change their point of

view and behavior.

Second, if reason fails to sway a nonconforming member, a group will often try seduction. This is usually a ploy to make the deviant feel guilty or uncomfortable because the group is made to look bad in the eyes of outsiders. Telling the noncon-

formist that his or her efforts are wasted and will accomplish nothing is another form

of the seduction strategy. “You won’t get anywhere anyway, so why cause such tur-

moil?” is the seduction strategy at work. Offers of promotions, perquisites, monetary

incentives, and the like in exchange for conformity are other examples of seduction.

The third line of defense against nonconformists is coercion. This is where groups begin to get rough. Communication turns abusive and threatening. Groups

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 99 26/10/11 12:15 AM

◀ 100 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 100 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

attempt to force conformity by using nasty and unpleasant tactics. In one study,

55 whistleblowers were followed over a period of several years (Glazer & Glazer,

1986). Whistle-blowers are individuals who expose to the light of public scrutiny

such abuses as waste, fraud, corruption, and dangerous practices in corporations

and organizations. In the study, coercive tactics against these whistleblowers in-

cluded threats of firing and sometimes actual terminations. In addition, some were

transferred to undesirable jobs and locations, demoted, harassed, and intimidated by

supervisors and peers (see also Levin, 2010).

The final stage of group pressure to induce conformity is isolation. Often referred

to as ostracism, this strategy ignores or excludes a member by giving the silent treat-

ment or isolating the member from social interaction with the group. It is a kind of

social death that produces significant psychological pain (Williams, 2007; Williams,

2011). Even being ostracized by a despised group such as the Ku Klux Klan hurts

the rejected individual (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Williams, 2011). Ostracism

is “an exceptionally potent form of social influence” (Williams et al., 2000, p. 760).

A member’s sense of belonging to the group is severed. When coercion doesn’t gain

conformity from whistleblowers, for example, ostracism is often the next strategy

used (Miceli & Near, 1992). When an opportunity arises to get back into the good

graces of the group, members will often seize that opportunity by conforming to

group norms (Williams, 2007).

Studies show that even cyberostracism, a remote form of ostracism that occurs on

the Internet, can be quite potent (Smith & Williams, 2004; Abrams et al., 2010). Acts

of cyberostracism occur when a group of online team members or chat room users

deliberately ignore a member who violates the group’s norms (e.g., by incorrect use of

technology, straying from the topic, using profanity, flaming). Even when the ostra-

cism isn’t clearly deliberate (using English when a member speaks primarily Spanish

or vice versa), the negative effects occur (Dotan-Eliaz et al., 2009; Hitlan et al., 2006).

The norming periodic phase of group development provides a structure for ap-

propriate and effective communication. A competent communicator should do the

following during the norming phase of group development to be appropriate and

effective:

1. Adapt communication to the norms of the group. As previously noted, com-

munication becomes inappropriate when, without sacrificing goals, violation of

norms could be averted by more prudent action.

2. Encourage change when norms are excessively rigid. Norms are not sacro-

sanct. Some norms can be suffocatingly rigid—too closed to permit adaptation

to change in the system. Norm rigidity fosters nonconformity and disruption.

Violating the norm is one avenue of change if rational argument proves unsuc-

cessful, but expect backlash from the group. Leaving the group is certainly an

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 100 26/10/11 12:15 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 101 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 101 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Groups tend to ostracize members who do not conform to the group’s norms.

Sa bi

ne D

ue ri

ch en

/l oo

k/ G

et ty

Im ag

option. Failure to loosen norms from within may require intervention from with-

out, such as court suits and protests.

3. Encourage change when norms are too elastic. Excessive openness in a system can be counterproductive. Apply the same guidelines for changing overly rigid norms.

▶ Performing: Group Output If I had a dollar for every time I have been told that a camel is a horse designed by a

committee, I’d be downing dark beers on a white sand beach in the tropics, enjoy-

ing a blissful life of leisure. Then there is the equally moth-eaten description of a

committee as “a group of people who can do nothing individually but, as a group,

can gather and decide that nothing can be done.” Along the same line is this anony-

mous offering: “Trying to solve a problem through group discussion is like trying to

clear up a traffic jam by honking your horn.” Winston Churchill, always armed with

his sardonic wit, fired this salvo: “A committee is the organized result of a group of

the incompetent who have been appointed by the uninformed to accomplish the

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 101 26/10/11 12:15 AM

◀ 102 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 102 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

unnecessary.” On my own campus, committees metastasize like cancer, eating up

professors’ and administrators’ time and sucking the lifeblood from the institution.

There was even a recent proposal to establish a committee on committees, ostensibly

to bring this energy-sucking monster under control, but nothing ever came of the

proposal.

In terms of performance, groups as decision-making units are in need of better

public relations. Too many people are inclined to believe that groups are assembled

to stymie progress and to serve as roadblocks to decision making, not to produce

better alternatives. Grouphate is real.

So, are groups as inept as the moldy jokes and caustic criticisms indicate? Berg’s

(1967) study of 124 discussion groups is not very encouraging. He found that groups

pursued their discussion topics for an average of only 58 seconds at a time before

SECOND LOOK

The Norming Process Types of Norms

Explicit—preferences and prohibitions specifically stated in some form

Implicit—preferences and prohibitions determined from observation

Sources of Norms

Other larger systems outside the small group

Influence of a single member

Transactions within the group

Why Group Members Conform to Norms

Desire to be liked

Desire to be right

Conditions for Conformity to Norms

The stronger the cohesiveness, the greater the conformity

Greater conformity when individuals expect to be group members for a long time

Greater conformity when individuals perceive they have lower status in groups

Addressing Nonconformity

Reason

Seduction

Coercion

Isolation/Ostracism

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 102 26/10/11 12:15 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 103 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 103 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

diverting to an irrelevant topic. The range varied from a low of 28 seconds to a high

of 118 seconds. One group leader in this study described his job as “chairman of the

bored.” Other studies support Berg’s results. “Whether groups were composed of

women in a Lebanese college, Japanese graduate students, university undergradu-

ates, first-line managers at IBM, or educators in public-health nursing, the average

attention span for all the groups was about one minute” (Bormann & Bormann,

1988, p. 120).

Although the tired jokes about groups and the research on the group attention

span suggest that groups hinder effective decision making and problem solving, the

evidence is far more mixed. One of the most researched areas of group communi-

cation is the comparison of individual to group performance. The key issue from this research is not whether individuals or groups are superior performers, but rather, under what conditions groups outperform individuals and vice versa. Since grouphate is often a result of poor group productivity, group versus individual

performance is a significant issue to explore.

Motivation to Perform: Social Loafing and Social Compensation Undoubtedly, you have participated in groups in which your enthusiasm for a group

task has been blunted by the lifeless response from other group members. Grouphate

is fueled by this all too common experience. Why are some group members strongly

motivated to work hard on a task, but other members are not? The collective effort model (CEM) suggests that group members are strongly motivated to perform well in a group if they are convinced that their individual effort will likely help in attain-

ing valued results (Hart et al., 2001). If members view the task as unimportant or meaningless (mere busy work) or a member’s effort is expected to have little effect on the group outcome even when the outcome is highly valued (a person of low ability working with high-ability members), then social loafing will likely occur.

Social loafing is the tendency of a group member to exert less effort on a task when working in a group than when working individually (Karau & Hart, 1998). It

is particularly problematic in virtual groups (online groups). In a survey of 600 em-

ployees of multinational corporations who participate actively in virtual groups, 75%

indicated that social loafing is a serious challenge (Solomon, 2010). The reasons are

discussed in Chapter 11. Groups in general display social loafing by missing group

meetings, showing up late to meetings, performing and participating in a lacklus-

ter manner, or failing to start or complete individual tasks requested by the group.

Please note here that reticence to participate during group discussions because of

shyness does not constitute social loafing. Loafers put out little effort because of poor

motivation, disinterest, or a bad attitude.

Social loafing is more common in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures (Early, 1989; Gabreyna et al., 1985). Personal efforts and achievements

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 103 26/10/11 12:15 AM

◀ 104 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 104 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

are less visible in a group and more likely to go unrecognized, so social loafing is

more likely in an individualist culture. In a collectivist culture, social striving or

the desire to produce for the group because group membership is highly valued

is strong.

So what can you do about social loafers? Here are several steps that can be taken to

address the problem (see also Lumsden & Lumsden, 1993):

1. Choose meaningful tasks. Groups can’t always choose their tasks, and sometimes they are given unchallenging tasks to perform by those with higher authority. If

required to choose a project from a list of several options, choose the option most

interesting to the group as a whole, not the option interesting to only one or two

relatively dominant members.

2. Establish a group responsibility norm (Hoigaard et al., 2006). Emphasize indi- vidual responsibility to the team and the importance of every member contribut-

ing a fair share to the successful completion of a task. Fairness and responsibility

are important ethical concerns.

This is a China-Guizhou-Miao ethnic group tug of war. Social loafing is a common problem in groups. Social loafing is 1. More common in collectivist cultures 2. More common in individualist cultures 3. No more common in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures 4. Never a problem in highly competitive situations

Answers are given at end of chapter

Q ia

o Q

im in

g/ X

in H

ua /X

in hu

a Pr

es s/

C or

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 104 26/10/11 12:16 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 105 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 105 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

3. Note the critical importance of each member’s effort. Impress upon all members

that their individual effort is special and essential to the group’s success. When

group members believe that their contribution is indispensable to group success,

they typically exert greater effort (Henningsen et al., 2000; Johnson, 2003). This

is especially true if the task is difficult (Matsui et al., 1987) and the member feels

uniquely capable (Huguet et al., 1999).

4. Hold members accountable. Provide each member with specific and easily identi-

fiable tasks, and set aside time for the group to assess each member’s contribution

to the overall project (Gammage et al., 2001). Face-to-face peer appraisal that

focuses on development of each group member’s abilities, not on criticizing weak

effort, diminishes social loafing (Druskat & Wolff, 1999).

5. Enhance group cohesiveness. Members of weakly cohesive groups are more prone

to social loafing than members of highly cohesive groups (Karau & Hart, 1998).

Highly cohesive groups, however, with a mediocrity norm that sets low expecta-

tions on members for performance could produce an entire group of social loaf-

ers (Hoigaard et al., 2006). See the steps for enhancing cohesiveness discussed

earlier in this chapter.

6. Confront the loafer. If the steps above are insufficient, either the leader of the

group, a designated member, or the group as a whole should approach the loafer

and ask why the lethargic attitude exists. Encourage stronger participation, reaf-

firm the importance of the loafer’s contribution to the team effort, and solicit sug-

gestions regarding how the group might help the person become a contributor.

Do not name-call or personally attack the loafer.

7. Consult a higher power (not to be confused with divine intervention, although

that would be impressive). When all of the above steps fail, consult a supervisor,

teacher, or someone with greater authority than the group members and ask for

advice. The authority figure may need to discuss the problem with the loafer.

8. Boot out the loafer. This is a last resort. Do not begin with this step, as many

groups would prefer to do. You may not have this option available, however.

9. Sidestep the loafer. Reconfigure individual responsibilities and tasks so even if

the loafer contributes nothing to the group effort, the group can still maneuver

around the loafer and produce a high-quality result.

Social loafing from some group members can produce an opposite reaction from

other group members called social compensation—an increased motivation to

work harder on a group task to counterbalance the lackluster performance of others.

Several studies show that when group members expect listless effort from others in

the group, they display greater motivation to work harder and exhibit higher than

expected productivity compared to when they work alone (Williams & Karau, 1991;

Williams & Sommer, 1997). Social compensation is especially likely when a high-

ability group member senses that his or her maximum effort is required for the

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 105 26/10/11 12:16 AM

◀ 106 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 106 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

group to be successful on a meaningful task because other group members have less ability to perform effectively (Hart et al., 2001). If poor performance from low-ability group members is perceived to be caused by external forces (bad luck, life

stresses), then compensation is likely. If, however, the poor performance is attributed

to internal causes (laziness), then compensation is unlikely. Compensation is espe- cially unlikely when high-ability group members are suspected of loafing. Few wish to play the sucker and cover for the able but unwilling sluggards in the group

(Hart et al., 2001; Hoigaard & Ommundsen, 2007).

When Groups Outperform Individuals: Three Heads Are Better than One Groups often outperform individuals. Even groups whose members have imbibed

enough alcohol to reach the legal limit of .08 blood alcohol level (“groupdrink”)

perform as well as groups whose members are not alcohol impaired, and they out-

perform intoxicated individuals working alone. The cognitively impairing effects

of alcohol are neutralized by group processes (Frings et al., 2008). This is not a

Box 3.1

Social Loafing: A Self-Assessment

Make honest assessments of your participation in small group decision making and problem solving.

1. I am on time for small group meetings

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

2. I leave small group meetings early

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

3. I am quiet during small group discussions

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

4. My attention during small groups discus- sions is focused on the task

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

5. I am strongly motivated to perform well in small groups

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

6. When other group members show little in- terest in accomplishing a task successfully, I lose interest in achieving success

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

7. When other group members seem unin- volved in participating on the group task, I also reduce my participation

RARELY ALMOST ALWAYS 1 2 3 4 5

Your scores on statements 1, 4, and 5 should be high (4–5) and your scores on statements 2, 3, 6, and 7 ideally should be quite low (1–2)—little social loafing.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 106 26/10/11 12:16 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 107 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 107 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

justification for members of small groups getting smashed on liquor, of course, but

it does reveal the potency of groups compared to individuals even under challenging

circumstances.

Groups usually outperform individuals when certain conditions exist (Laughlin et

al., 2006; Pavitt & Curtis, 1994; Sawyer, 2007). First, when the task requires a wide range and variety of information and skills, groups tend to be superior to any individual. One study found that the group scored significantly higher than its high- est scoring member (Laughlin et al., 2006). It did this by pooling knowledge. When

the highest-scoring member didn’t know the answer to a question, another member

typically did. Thus, the group as a whole benefited because members had nonover-

lapping knowledge. As humorist Will Rogers once said, “Everybody is ignorant, just

on different subjects.” A key to successful group performance is putting together a

team composed of members who do not share ignorance, but instead pool nonover-

lapping areas of knowledge (Stasson & Bradshaw, 1995).

Dr. Don Wukasch spent 19 years as part of a high-performance cardiac surgery

team. He cites an instance of effective team performance that resulted from pooling

nonoverlapping knowledge (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). When he performed surgery

at the Texas Heart Institute, a hurricane hit during one procedure and the power was

knocked out. The heart–lung machine quit, leaving about a minute or two before the

patient would start to die. Wukasch didn’t know how to restore the heart–lung ma-

chine, but functioning as a cohesive, well-trained unit, team members began hand-

cranking the machine and surgery continued within 15 seconds.

Besides pooling knowledge, another reason groups outperform individuals when

the task is comprehensive is the group remembering phenomenon or collective recall

of information. Quantitatively, the research on group remembering has consistently

shown that groups are superior to individuals (even compared to the best individual)

in recall of information (Clark & Stephenson, 1989).

Why is group remembering significant? Juries more often than not arrive at ver-

dicts on the basis of recall of the evidence and pertinent information reflecting guilt

or innocence. In one study, individual jurors averaged only a 60% accuracy rate on

recall of specific evidence and less than 30% on questions pertaining to the judge’s

instructions to the jury. As a group, however, the jury scored 90% accuracy on evi-

dentiary material and 80% accuracy on the judge’s instructions (Hastie et al., 1983).

“The group memory advantage over the typical or even the exceptional individual is

one of the major determinants of the superiority of the jury as a legal decision mech-

anism” (Hastie et al., 1983). Not surprisingly, larger-sized (12-member) juries have

superior recall of evidence compared to smaller-sized (6-member) juries (Hastie

et al., 1983).

Group remembering can be a significant benefit for a group such as personnel-

interviewing panels that often must sift through huge amounts of information and

listen to hours of oral responses to questions from numerous candidates for a job.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 107 26/10/11 12:16 AM

◀ 108 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 108 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Group remembering is also a significant advantage for student study groups prepar-

ing for an exam.

Second, groups generally outperform individuals when both the group and any individual compared are without expertise on the task (Laughlin et al., 2006). Here synergy is at work. As Johnson and Johnson (1987) remark in somewhat overstated

fashion, “None of us is as smart as all of us” (p. 131). In one study, even though no

individual group member knew the correct answer on a test question, the group as a

whole selected the correct answer in 28% of the cases. Individual members working

alone selected the correct answer only 4% of the time (Stasson & Bradshaw, 1995). The

longer group members work together, the greater is this result (Watson et al., 1991).

Long-term groups typically score significantly higher than even their best member.

Third, groups will usually outperform an individual when both the group and the individual have expertise and the task is an especially large and complex one. The ability of a group to divide labor, to share the load, will normally result in a better

decision than any overburdened individual could manage. Shaffner (1999) provides

the arithmetic logic for sharing the load. If one person had all the knowledge and

skills to single-handedly build a Boeing 777, it would take about 250 years to deliver

one plane. The logic of working in groups is indisputable when the task is large and

complex.

A group of experts is especially effective when members are highly motivated and

they are trained to work as a team. One study found that expert groups outperform

their best member 97% of the time (Michaelson et al., 1989). Teamwork allows a

group to coordinate efforts and to work at optimum effectiveness.

Fourth, even when comparing a group of reasonably bright and informed non- experts to an individual with special expertise, group decisions are sometimes superior. One of the reasons for this superiority is that when groups are functioning effectively, members perform an error correction function for the group (Hastie et

al., 1983). Assumptions are challenged and alternatives are offered that an individual

might overlook. This was the primary reason that accounted for the “groupdrink”

result discussed earlier (Frings et al., 2008). In addition, the collective energy and

chemistry of the group may produce a synergistic result.

When Individuals Outperform Groups: No Magic in Groups Although groups frequently outperform individuals, this is not always the case. There are five

conditions supported by research in which individuals outperform groups.

First, groups composed of uninformed laypersons will not usually outperform someone with special expertise, such as a doctor or lawyer, on issues of medicine and law. There is certainly no advantage to be gained from pooling ignorance. As already noted, however, even in uninformed groups, synergy sometimes compen-

sates for lack of knowledge. Negative synergy, nevertheless, is more likely when group

members are uninformed.

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 108 26/10/11 12:16 AM

perioDiC phases of Group Development 109 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 109 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Second, individuals outperform groups when groups establish norms of

mediocrity. Some groups are composed of members who are satisfied with relatively

low productivity. If norms of mediocrity prevail in a group, performance will be slug-

gish or worse (Stogdill, 1972). Even individual members who may wish to perform at

a higher level will become discouraged because of insufficient motivation to excel. Since

the group rewards middling performance, why bother trying harder than the rest?

Third, when groups become too large, individuals outperform groups. Again,

the rule of thumb is to select the smallest-sized group capable of performing the task

effectively. Quality performance is usually enhanced in moderately sized groups (i.e.,

7 to 8 members). Much larger than this and problems of coordination and efficiency in-

crease. Social loafing also becomes a bigger problem in large groups (Chidambaram &

Tung, 2005). Loafers can hide their anemic effort more easily in large groups.

Fourth, when the task is a simple one, groups are not superior to individuals.

There is no special advantage in having a group work on a remedial task. Minimal

resources are required. If any individual can likely do the task, why involve a group?

Finally, when time is a critical factor, groups usually perform less effectively

than individuals. In emergency situations or in circumstances where speed and ef-

ficiency are paramount, individuals can often perform better than groups, especially

large groups. The reason is simple. Groups tend to be abominably slow, and larger

groups usually take longer to make decisions than smaller groups (Davis et al., 1997).

There are exceptions, such as disaster teams and emergency surgical teams trained to

perform under pressure and time constraints. Most groups, though, are not trained

to operate swiftly and efficiently under pressure. As previously noted, small groups

are usually faster than larger groups, but even small groups can lag behind a single

individual in the performance of a task.

The performance phase of group development is a complex process. I have merely

laid the groundwork for more detailed discussion of group performance in later

chapters. Nevertheless, some general advice regarding communication competence

can be offered. A competent communicator does the following to enhance group

performance:

1. Focus on the task. Because task and social dimensions of groups are interconnected,

focusing on the task to the detriment of social relationships among members obvi-

ously makes little sense. Nevertheless, when there is work to be done, the primary

focus is on the accomplishment of the task. Cohesiveness can be built when the

pressure to perform has lessened. Task accomplishment also increases cohesiveness.

2. Encourage participation from group members. The group needs to utilize its re-

sources fully, which means that even social loafers may have much to contribute.

A note of caution here: Encouraging member participation should not be a blan-

ket rule. Some group members should not be encouraged to participate because

they disrupt the group’s decision-making process (more on this in Chapter 8).

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 109 26/10/11 12:16 AM

◀ 110 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 110 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Newcomers and Group Development

The interconnectedness of all components of a system makes the entry of even a

single new member into a group a highly significant event (Anderson et al., 1999).

As groups develop, relationships among members stabilize and the roles and norms

in the group become more complex. “The entry of a newcomer into the group can

threaten this development by forcing members to alter their relationships with one

another” (Moreland & Levine, 1987, p. 156).

▶ Nature of the Group: The Challenge of Acceptance Several characteristics of a group directly affect the acceptance of a newcomer

(Moreland & Levine, 1987). First, the level of group development has a direct bear- ing on newcomer acceptance. Several research and development groups in a large corporation were studied for four months (Katz, 1982). Members of the groups that

had been in existence for a relatively short time communicated more with newcomers

and were more open to their ideas than were members of older groups. A newcomer

SECOND LOOK

Group Versus Individual Performance Group Superior to Individual

Conditions Reason(s)

Broad-range task Pool knowledge, group remembering

Neither have expertise Synergy

Experts, complex task Share the load, teamwork

Individual expert, informed group Error correction, synergy

Individual Superior to Group

Conditions Reason(s)

Individual expert, uninformed group Pooling ignorance, negative synergy

Groups establish mediocrity norms Insufficient motivation to excel

Group becomes too large Difficulty coordinating, social loafing

Simple task Minimal resources required

Time is a critical factor Groups too slow

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 110 26/10/11 12:16 AM

newComers anD Group Development 111 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 111 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

in a younger group is less disruptive because he or she enters early on in the group

development process. Entering a long-standing group, where development has pro-

gressed far beyond the initial stages, can be a much greater shock to the system and

requires greater adaptation by the members. The newcomer seems more like an out-

sider in older groups than in younger ones.

Second, the level of group performance affects the acceptance of newcomers. When the system is functioning well, group members may not want to take a chance on altering

a successful formula. Accepting a newcomer may pose a big risk. When a group is per-

forming poorly, however, there is a strong impetus for change. The arrival of a newcomer

may be perceived as a welcome addition. The newcomer might turn the group around.

Third, the number of members affects acceptance of a newcomer into a group. Groups that have too few members to perform necessary tasks well are usually eager

to accept newcomers. Newcomers mean less work for each member and potentially

SECOND LOOK

Competent Communication and Group Development Forming Periodic Phase

Express positive attitudes and feelings

Appear friendly, open, and interested

Encourage a “getting-to-know-you” conversation

Find areas of commonality and cooperation

Establish clear group goals

Storming Periodic Phase

Tolerate, even encourage, disagreement and deviance

Keep a civil tongue

Be an active listener

Use humor, especially self-deprecation

Norming Periodic Phase

Adapt communication to the norms of the group

Encourage change when norms are excessively rigid

Encourage change when norms are too elastic

Performing Periodic Phase

Focus on the task

Encourage participation from group members (in most instances)

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 111 26/10/11 12:16 AM

◀ 112 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 112 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

greater success for the group. Groups that have too many members to function

efficiently, however, will probably view a newcomer as an additional burden.

Finally, the degree of turnover in a group also affects acceptance of newcomers. Groups accustomed to frequent entry and exit of members will accept newcomers

more readily than groups unaccustomed to turnover.

▶ Newcomer Strategies: Gaining Acceptance There are several strategies newcomers can employ to improve their chances of gain-

ing acceptance from a group (Moreland & Levine, 1987).

1. Conduct a thorough reconnaissance of the group. Most newcomers do a poor job of scouting out a group to determine whether they and the group are a good

match (Wanous, 1980). Newcomers should exploit all available sources of infor-

mation about the group to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the group

they contemplate joining.

2. Play the role of newcomer. Seek the advice of longtime members, avoid disagree- ments with old-timers, and talk less than they do. Listen, to show respect and to learn valuable information. Emphasize similarities to other members in the group, and seek information from old-timers (Burke et al., 2010). As you become

more accepted by the group, your communication can move away from the new-

comer role pattern.

3. Seek mentors within the group. Mentors are old-timers who develop a close per- sonal relationship with the newcomer and assist the newcomer’s entry into the

group (Oglensky, 2008). The mentoring process can increase the newcomer’s un-

derstanding of the group and enhance his or her level of group satisfaction (Allen

et al., 1999; Oglensky, 2008).

4. Collaborate with other newcomers. When more than one newcomer enters a group, they stand to gain from banding together. Newcomers can lend emotional support

and encouragement to each other. They can provide useful information about the

group. They can act as a friendly face, making the group climate more inviting.

▶ Group Socialization Strategies: Adjusting to Newcomers Established group members have a responsibility to incorporate newcomers into the

group. This group socialization—the communication process in which new and es- tablished group members adjust to one another (Anderson et al., 1999)—is a system

adapting to change. Old-timers may have expectations regarding how newcomers

should act that may not be shared by new members. A period of adjustment occurs as

new and older members adapt to one another. There are several strategies that estab-

lished members of groups can employ to make group socialization occur smoothly

(Anderson et al., 1999).

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 112 26/10/11 12:16 AM

newComers anD Group Development 113 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 113 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

1. Welcome new members into the group. An initial meet and greet gathering of group members in which newcomers introduce themselves and old-timers pro-

vide brief narratives about themselves works well.

2. Orient new members. Provide a tour of the facilities, offer a brief history of the group, engage in social activities, and discuss expectations the group has for newcomers.

3. Mentor newcomers. Have a structured mentoring process for newcomers if this is a long-standing group; brief ad hoc groups typically do not require mentoring

programs.

In summary, all groups have a task dimension and a social dimension. The output

of the task dimension is productivity. The output of the social dimension is cohe-

siveness. Productivity can affect cohesiveness and vice versa. Group development

encompasses four periodic phases: forming, storming, norming, and performing.

These periodic phases do not occur in rigid sequence. They frequently overlap, and

groups may jump around between phases depending on the circumstances and sit-

uations groups face. Some groups never progress beyond the forming and initial

storming phases. These are groups that dissolve because they do not work.

Finally, the entry of newcomers into a group can be a disturbing event. Compe-

tent communicators learn about the nature of the group to which they seek mem-

bership, and they learn the strategies that will assist their acceptance into the group.

Women and ethnic minorities, who are often in the newcomer role, add diversity to

a group, which presents challenges but usually benefits group decisions.

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 3, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. When is it appropriate to be a nonconformist in a small group? 2. Are there ever times when the task is so important that concern for the social dimension of the

group must be ignored? 3. Do established group members have a greater responsibility to adapt to newcomers than

newcomers have to adapt to established group members?

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 113 26/10/11 12:16 AM

◀ 114 Chapter 3: Group Development

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 114 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

My Cousin Vinny (1992). Comedy; R If you don’t laugh repeatedly while watching this movie, then you should have your funny bone checked by a specialist. Vinny is an inexperienced Brooklyn lawyer asked to defend his cousin on charges of murder in a backwater town in Alabama. Analyze this movie in terms of norms and conformity. Which norms are explicit and which are implicit? Is the stuttering defense lawyer a nonconformist?

Bulworth (1998). Comedy; R Warren Beatty is hilarious as a lackluster U.S. senator who revives his failing reelection campaign by speaking his mind—without editing anything. Which norms does Bulworth violate and with what effects?

Easy A (2010). Comedy; PG-13 Hilarious take on high school in the land of Twitter, texting, and YouTube. Emma Stone, in a stunningly sharp depiction, plays a high schooler who begins to “act out” the Scarlet Letter, the famous novel that is assigned in her favorite class. Her lies about having sex get her noticed then eventually ostracized. Analyze the stages of reactions to her nonconfor- mity and how she addresses the group’s reactions.

Hairspray (2007). Musical; PG You really have to like musicals as a film genre to enjoy this story of Baltimore teen life in 1962. Nevertheless, there is much to analyze from the standpoint of norms and conformity. Examine explicit and implicit norms. What are some reactions to norm violations and how do these reactions parallel research on the four typical group reactions to nonconformity?

Lord of the Flies (1963). Drama; NR There is a 1990 remake of William Golding’s grim allegory of schoolboys stranded on a de- serted island, but it is a pale, lifeless effort compared to the splendid original film. Analyze in detail all four phases of group development.

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). Drama; PG-13 Movies don’t get much better than this fantasy epic. Analyze this first-rate thriller in terms of the four global phases of group development (forming, storming, norming, and per- forming). This film is rich with applications to group development.

Mean Girls (2004). Comedy/Drama; PG-13 Lindsay Lohan plays a teen who has been home-schooled in Africa, then enters an Illinois public school. Analyze this film for newcomer strategies and the power and influence of cliques and the difficulties outsiders face dealing with cliques.

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Photo 3.5 (p. 98): 2, 3, 4. Photo 3.7 (p. 104): 2.

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 114 26/10/11 12:16 AM

46850_ch03_ptg01_hr_076-115.indd 115 26/10/11 12:16 AM

◀ 116

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 116 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. Competition And CooperAtion 1. Definitions: Conceptual Clarity

a. Competition: Winners Take All

b. Cooperation: Winners All

c. Individual Achievement: Going It Alone

d. Hypercompetitiveness: Winning Is Everything

2. Constructive Competition: Tempering the Need to Win

a. Necessary Conditions: A Trinity

b. Competition and Communication Competence: Can Me Be We?

3. Intragroup Competition and Cooperation: Challenging Orthodoxy

a. Group Productivity: Achievement and Performance on Tasks

b. Group Cohesiveness: Social Relationships among Group Members

4. Intergroup Competition and Cooperation: Them versus Us

Focus on Culture: Competition and Culture

▶ B. CommuniCAtion And Group ClimAte 1. Defensive and Supportive

Communication: Shaping Group Climate

a. Evaluation versus Description

b. Control versus Problem Orientation

c. Manipulation versus Assertiveness

d. Indifference versus Empathy

e. Superiority versus Equality

f. Certainty versus Provisionalism

g. Reciprocal Patterns: Like Begets Like

2. Competitive and Noncompetitive Listening: Shifting and Supporting

a. Shift Response versus Support Response: Focusing on Me or Thee

b. Competitive Interrupting: Seizing the Floor

c. Ambushing: Preparing Rebuttals

Developing the Group Climate4

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 116 26/10/11 12:22 AM

117 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 117 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

I DEO is “the largest and most influential product design firm in the world” (Myerson, 2001, p. 11). The company’s 500 designers

in eight cities (Palo Alto, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, New York City, London, Munich, and Shanghai) work on hundreds of projects each year (Flinn, 2010). IDEO has won more design awards than any competing design firm (www.ideo.com). In the 1990s, IDEO designed, among other things, the Palm V handheld organizer, AT&T’s answering machines and telephones, Polaroid’s I-Zone pocket camera, Nike sunglasses, the insta-cholesterol test and single-dose insulin pen, virtual reality head- gear, and the animatronic whale for the movie Free Willy. More recently, IDEO has turned to designing consumer services for some of the largest and most respected companies and institutions in the world. IDEO has worked with the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, NASA, Samsung, AT&T Wireless Services, Amtrak, Vodaphone, Nestlé, Lufthansa, and the BBC, among others (Kelley & Littman, 2005; Hyatt, 2010). In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked IDEO to design a program to tackle childhood obesity. IDEO also designed the highly successful “Keep the Change” campaign for Bank of America (Borden et al., 2008). In 2009, IDEO, in concert with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Acumen Fund, developed the Ripple Effect, a project to improve access to safe drinking water for some of the world’s poorest people (“Seeding Innovation in the Water Sector,” 2010).

What IDEO has accomplished, however, is not nearly as impressive as how the firm has accomplished it. David Kelley, the founder and driving force behind IDEO, is the most unique corporate executive you’re likely to find. Kelley has established

C or

bi s/

Ju pi

te r

Im ag

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 117 26/10/11 12:22 AM

◀ 118 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 118 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

a corporate climate that is the antithesis of most companies and small businesses. Kelley wanted three things when he established IDEO: to work with friends, to have no bosses in charge of employees’ lives, and to eliminate jerks from the workplace (O’Brien, 1995).

Kelley organizes weekly company bike rides, hosts birthday celebrations for workers according to their zodiac signs, and often conducts Monday morning meet- ings seated on the floor of a room devoid of furniture. IDEO teams go to baseball games, movies, take field trips (e.g., George Lucas’s Industrial Light and Magic at Skywalker Ranch), or sail around San Francisco Bay to recharge team members’ creative energy. They often engage in such activities during other businesses’ regular working hours.

Bob Sutton, a Stanford professor of organizational behavior, spent 15 months studying IDEO to understand the secret of its success. His conclusion: “The secret is simple but complex. It’s about people who aren’t focusing on office politics” (quoted in O’Brien, 1995, p. 25). At IDEO, developing and maintaining a positive group climate of fun, excitement, and support that is free of negative infighting is essential.

A group climate is the emotional atmosphere, the enveloping tone that is cre- ated by the way we communicate in groups. A communication climate permeates all groups and affects every aspect of a group’s social and task dimensions. A positive climate exists when individuals perceive that they are valued, supported, and treated well by the group. A negative climate exists when group members do not feel valued, supported, and respected, when trust is minimal, and when members perceive that they are not treated well.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify and explain why a positive group cli- mate is far more likely to develop when cooperative communication patterns are emphasized and competitive communication patterns are de-emphasized. There are two objectives related to this purpose:

1. to discuss the effects of competitive and cooperative communication patterns on group climate and group effectiveness, and

2. to explore ways to construct cooperation in small groups.

Competition and Cooperation

This section compares competition and cooperation in small groups. The effects of competition and cooperation on small group climate and goal attainment are presented.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 118 26/10/11 12:22 AM

Competition anD Cooperation 119 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 119 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Focus Questions

1. In what circumstances might competition be constructive in small groups?

2. What is the relationship between communication competence and competition/cooperation?

3. What is the relationship between competition and motivation to succeed?

4. What is the relationship between competition and achievement and performance?

▶ Definitions: Conceptual Clarity Although seemingly straightforward, the terms competition, cooperation, and indi- vidual achievement aren’t always used in a conceptually clear manner. To avoid any confusion, these three terms are defined, and the term hypercompetitiveness is intro- duced. The relationship of these concepts to small group communication is explored as this chapter unfolds.

Competition: Winners Take All Alfie Kohn (1992) defines competition as a mu- tually exclusive goal attainment (MEGA) process. When transactions in groups are competitive, individual success is achieved at the expense of other group members. Competition, by definition, necessitates the failure of the many for the success of the few. When the city of San Francisco solicited applications for 50 new firefighters, more than 10,000 individuals applied. That’s 50 winners and more than 9,950 losers. Pick any contest and the disproportionate number of losers compared to winners is usually enormous.

Cooperation: Winners All Distinctly unlike competition, cooperation is a mutu- ally inclusive goal attainment (MIGA) process. Individual success is tied directly to the success of other group members. Group members work together, not against each other, when attempting to achieve a common goal. The phenomenally suc- cessful Mars rover called Sojourner, which explored the surface of Mars in 1997, served as the model for future equally successful rovers in NASA’s Mars Explora- tion Rover Mission that continues today. The Sojourner project was a cooperative team effort under the direction of Donna Shirley (1997). Sojourner’s challenge was to take pictures, measure the chemistry of Martian rocks, and test the difficulty of ma- neuvering the rover on Martian soil. Sojourner, which looked like a stripped-down microwave oven on four wheels, was built at a cost of $25 million, a mere pittance for an interplanetary project. Sojourner had to weigh less than 22 pounds, survive 150-degrees-below-zero temperatures, and operate at a peak power of 16 watts. Expected to operate for only 1 week and travel no more than 10 meters from its

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 119 26/10/11 12:22 AM

◀ 120 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 120 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

mother spacecraft, Sojourner lasted 3 months and explored 100 meters across the surface of Mars at a top speed of 0.0037 mile per hour. The extraordinary success of the project was cause for jubilation from the entire team. Every team member had the exact same goal—to successfully explore Mars with the rover they built from scratch (sometimes using parts from local hardware stores to keep within their mea- ger budget). The team members succeeded or failed as a unit in attaining their goal. Team members helped each other on every part of the project; to do otherwise might have sabotaged the success of the entire mission.

The Sojourner project was successful because team members worked coopera- tively. Goals, however, are not always reached even when group members’ coopera- tive effort is stellar. That is because cooperation is a process not an outcome (King et al., 2009). Cooperation is a means to an end but not an end in itself. It is a powerful means to achieving important group goals, but two groups can negotiate coopera- tively and still end up agreeing to disagree.

Individual Achievement: Going It Alone Independently accomplishing a goal previously unrealized, such as performing your best dance routines or earning a higher grade on a calculus exam than at any other time in your academic life, is

A model of the Mars rover Sojourner, a model of success when cooperation predominates in groups, is admired by fascinated children.

N A

SA G

le nn

R es

ea rc

h C

en te

r/ N

A SA

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 120 26/10/11 12:23 AM

Competition anD Cooperation 121 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 121 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

neither competition nor cooperation. It is individual achievement—the attain- ment of a personal goal without having to defeat another person. It is, however, often mistakenly referred to as “competing with oneself.” When Mariah Nelson (1998) asked 1,030 girls and women from ages 11 to 49 to indicate with whom they compete generally, 75% responded “with myself; my own standards and goals.” For conceptual clarity it is important that we understand the difference between competition and individual achievement. If you “compete with yourself,” you will be both the victor and the vanquished—a conceptual contradiction. As Kohn (1992) notes, competition is not a solitary undertaking. Claiming that we compete with ourselves is like saying we arm-wrestle with ourselves. Arm-wrestling, and all competition, is an interactive phenomenon necessitating at least one other adver- sarial party.

Hypercompetitiveness: Winning Is Everything In a study of 198 of the world’s top athletes, more than half of the participants said that they would take a drug that would improve their chances of winning every competition for a five-year period. Here’s the stunner: these same top athletes would take the performance-enhancing drug even if they knew that it would kill them at the end of the five years (“Super- human Heroes,” 1998). The excessive emphasis on defeating others to achieve one’s goals is called hypercompetitiveness. Psychologist Elliot Aronson (1999) claims, “We manifest a staggering cultural obsession with victory” (p. 263).

Competition in the United States is everywhere. A high school athlete has only a 1 in 300 chance of receiving a “full-ride” athletic scholarship to college. Nevertheless, parents increasingly sign up their kids when they are preadolescents for expensive private lessons and enroll them in club programs and “traveling teams” that supplement traditional athletic experiences such as Little League, all to enhance the mistaken belief that this will improve their children’s chances of becoming star athletes (Emmons, 2005; Hyman, 2009). Every year about 3.5 million young athletes under the age of 15 suffer sports injuries, and half of these injuries result from intense overuse of their still-developing bodies (Hyman, 2009). In the elusive drive to win a future scholarship to college, children are being put at risk for overuse injuries and emotional and psychological abuse from hypercompetitive coaches. As Nancy Lazenby Blaser, commissioner of the Central Coast Section of California High School Athletics, notes, “It’s almost like prostituting your children for the family benefit of getting a scholarship. How could volleyball or soccer be so important that you put your kid in a situation like that?” (quoted in Emmons, 2005, p. 13A).

Our educational, economic, judicial, and political systems are also based on intense competition. U.S. universities are “intensely individualistic and highly competitive. Student is pitted against student through the grading system, and faculty member against faculty member for promotion and other academic favors” (Smith, 1990, p. 13).

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 121 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 122 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 122 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The competition for coveted academic scholarships at the nation’s highly ranked universities can be ruthless (Poto, 2010).

Gender plays some part in hypercompetitiveness. There are more than twice as many hypercompetitive men as there are women (Gayle et al., 1994). This gender difference in competitiveness is especially apparent in the workplace. A study of 7,000 applicants found that men were 55% more likely than women to apply for a job when a substantial bonus depended on beating another worker for the extra pay (Flory et al., 2010). Women manifest significantly greater discomfort about compet- ing than do men (Benenson et al., 2002). This gender difference probably results from the greater emphasis women place on connection with others and men’s greater emphasis on status, as explained in Chapter 1. As women enter the hypercompetitive job market in ever greater numbers, however, we can expect the competitive gender gap to shrink (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

▶ Constructive Competition: Tempering the Need to Win It is hypercompetitiveness, not competitiveness itself, that poses the greatest challenge to establishing a positive group climate of trust, openness, directness, supportiveness, and accomplishment. Arguing that all competition is bad and that our goal should be to replace every instance of competition with cooperation is unrealistic and pointless. There will be numerous times in groups where, despite Herculean efforts to cooperate, competition prevails. In some cases a cooperative

When competitiveness increases, constructive competition tends to decrease.

C ar

lo B

or le

ng hi

/N ew

Sp or

t/ C

or bi

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 122 26/10/11 12:23 AM

Competition anD Cooperation 123 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 123 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

alternative may not exist. How does a hiring committee, for example, transform the competition among hundreds of candidates into a cooperative endeavor when there is only a single position? In such cases, the competent communicator has to have the flexibility of skills to adapt to an adversarial, competitive situation. As discussed in Chapter 10, sometimes a competitive communication style is required to manage a conflict effectively.

Aside from the inevitability of competition in some circumstances, competition can be constructive. Constructive competition occurs when competition produces a positive, enjoyable experience and generates increased efforts to achieve without jeopardizing positive interpersonal relationships and personal well-being (Tjosvold et al., 2003, 2006).

Necessary Conditions: A Trinity Under certain conditions, competition can be constructive and won’t create a negative group climate (Johnson, 2003). These conditions are as follows:

1. When winning is de-emphasized. The less group members emphasize winning as the primary goal of competition and instead focus more on having fun and

developing skills while competing, the more positive will be the group climate.

A study of kids involved in Little League revealed that the more winning is em-

phasized, the higher is the dropout rate. Hypercompetitive managers who made

winning the central goal had a team dropout rate five times greater than teams

whose manager emphasized having fun and developing skills, not winning (“Put

Enjoyment Ahead,” 1994). There was no difference in the win–loss records of

the two comparison groups. More than 41 million youths ages 18 and younger

participate in organized sports programs in the United States, but 70% of these

kids quit by age 13. Many quit because their interests change to other pursuits

over time (Fullinwider, 2006), but many others quit because the pressure to win

is too great and consequently they aren’t having fun (Emmons, 2005; see also

Goodwin, 2010).

Legendary college basketball coach John Wooden validates the importance of

de-emphasizing winning: “Many people are surprised to learn that in 27 years

at UCLA, I never once talked about winning” (quoted in Aguayo, 1990, p. 99).

Wooden instead emphasized that every team member learn offensive and defen-

sive skills and give his best effort. The results of Wooden’s coaching philosophy

are, to this day, jaw-dropping: 10 national championships in his last 12 years at

UCLA, including an 88-game winning streak—still the record for men’s major

college basketball.

2. When opponents are equally matched, allowing all participants a reasonable chance to win. Professional athletes such as Kobe Bryant, Serena and Venus Williams, Alex Rodriguez, and Tom Brady will sing the praises of competition. Why wouldn’t they? Their phenomenal ability to win against the very best athletes

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 123 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 124 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 124 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

in the world has propelled them to superstardom and staggering wealth. Clearly, competition is often rewarding for those who have a reasonable shot at winning. Even those individuals who are not the best but are a tier below the superstars, with great effort and perhaps some luck, can become winners at least occasionally (see Figure 4.1). They will likely find competition fun and enjoyable, challenging, motivating, and personally gratifying. But what about the vast majority of people who have no special talents; who are average or worse? If the driving force of competition is winning and attaining the rewards that go with victory, why would those who know that they will never reap such rewards be motivated by compe- tition to excel? In fact, why wouldn’t the prospect of being a persistent “loser” demoralize and deject competitors? In the workplace, employees who feel unable to compete effectively want to quit their jobs (Tjosvold et al., 2003).

3. When there are clear, specific rules that ensure fairness. When there are clear rules enforced without bias, competition can be a constructive enterprise. When there

are no rules, or rules are enforced selectively or haphazardly, competition induces

strong dissatisfaction with remaining a member of a group (Tjosvold et al., 2003),

and it promotes cheating. David Callahan (2004), in his book The Cheating

Pyramid of competitive motivation

Li ke

ly m

ot iv

at ed

b y

co m

pe tit

io n

V er

tic al

d is

si m

ila rit

Stars

Potential stars

Above average skills

No stardom possible

High

Low

Horizontal similarity

Competition will likely motivate performance and achievement for those at the top of the pyramid, but increasingly less so as vertical dissimilarity (differences between competitors in skill levels) increases. Stars usually find competition against those of significantly lesser skills unchallenging; those of lesser skills are usually intimidated by stars. Horizontal similarity (individuals with equivalent skills) may motivate achievement and performance to some degree.

Figure 4.1 Pyramid of competition.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 124 26/10/11 12:23 AM

Competition anD Cooperation 125 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 125 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Culture, concludes, “Cheating thrives where unfairness reigns” (p. 263). Callahan

documents widespread cheating in America. One study of college alumni reports

that a whopping 82% of those surveyed cheated in college, the vast majority more

than once (Yardley et al., 2009).

Cheating proliferates when, in a pervasive atmosphere of hypercompetitive-

ness, rules of fair play are either nonexistent or unenforced (Callahan, 2004). The

steroid scandal in professional baseball is a prime example. Until congressional

hearings in 2005, little effort was made to stem the tide of rampant steroid use

in the major leagues. As a result, those players who may have wanted to “stay

clean” were tempted to use steroids to prevent losing the competitive edge against

those who were cheating with performance-enhancing drugs (Callahan, 2004).

The 2007 Mitchell Report to Congress merely underlined the already apparent

widespread steroid use in major league baseball. From the steroid scandal to ram-

pant cheating by students trying to get ahead, the “everybody’s doing it” mantra

encourages unethical competition.

All three of the above conditions must be satisfied for constructive compe- tition to occur. These three conditions form a single unit. Remove one condition and constructive competition erodes. Apply rules unfairly, for example, and watch mildly competitive teams transform into hypercompetitive monsters. Hypercompet- itive teams may even perceive unfairness where none objectively exists. Even closely matched teams engaged in a hypercompetitive contest can produce some very ugly consequences, as we have all observed so often in professional sporting events. Also, the less these three conditions for constructive competition are met, the more likely that competition will turn negative. Being “a little bit fair” or a little less intensely competitive might reduce the negative effects, but it won’t likely eliminate them and replace them with constructive outcomes.

Competition and Communication Competence: Can Me Be We? If coop- eration is We-oriented (working together) and competition is Me-oriented (work- ing against others for one’s own sake), how can competitive patterns of interaction be anything but incompetent communication? First, communication competence is a matter of degree. Drinking a small amount of alcohol does not make you an alcoholic and it may be beneficial in some instances, if kept to a minimum. Like- wise, a small amount of competitiveness in groups usually does no harm and may be beneficial to the group. Second, although competent communication requires a We-orientation (rather than a Me-orientation), this does not exclude any consid- eration of individual needs. Orientation implies primary, not exclusive, focus. The emphasis matters, not the mere presence of occasional competitive, individualistic communication patterns. Third, many activities combine both competition and cooperation. Intergroup (between groups) competition usually requires a great deal of intragroup (within a group) cooperation.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 125 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 126 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 126 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Intragroup Competition and Cooperation: Challenging Orthodoxy

The pervasiveness of competition in American society and the vehemence with which it is defended make competition difficult to challenge. Bruce Ogilvie, a profes- sor emeritus at San Jose State University and a pioneer in sports psychology, states, “We have to be careful in our country about ever attacking winning. It’s a deeply embedded ethic in our culture” (quoted in Kutner, 1994, p. D2). Nevertheless, a sober, analytical review of the research comparing the effects of competition and cooperation is warranted, if for no other reason than to base common beliefs on cred- ible evidence, not mere anecdotal experiences. More than 750 research studies have been conducted on the relative merits and demerits of competition and cooperation (Johnson, 2003). This section discusses intragroup (within a group) effects derived from this voluminous research. The subsequent section addresses intergroup effects.

Group Productivity: Achievement and Performance on Tasks Reviews of hundreds of studies clearly show that cooperation, not competition, produces higher levels of group achievement and performance on a wide variety of tasks (Johnson, 2003). For example, cooperative, not competitive, learning clearly leads to higher academic achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). One study determined that when competitive groups were compared to cooperative groups within an organization, overall the cooperative groups vastly outperformed the competitive groups. Even the worst cooperative groups that were relatively weak on task accomplishment, on aver- age, outperformed the best competitive groups (Van Oostrum & Rabbie, 1995). The cooperative advantage is especially significant when compared to the disadvan- tages of competition that is hypercompetitive, between unequal opponents, and conducted unfairly (Stanne et al., 1999).

There are two primary reasons why cooperation promotes and competition dampens achievement and performance for most groups and individuals (Kohn, 1992). First, attempting to achieve excellence and trying to beat others are differ- ent goals. A series of studies conducted at a business school at Cambridge University makes the point. Teams composed of members with high IQ scores performed worse than teams whose members had more ordinary IQ scores. (The groups did not com- pete against each other, but were merely compared on the basis of results.) Why did the high-IQ groups perform relatively poorly? High-IQ members spent a great deal of time in hypercompetitive debate, attempting to outshine each other. Moderate-IQ members worked as a team, uninterested in competing with each other for intellec- tual star status (Belbin, 1996). Trying to beat other group members diverts attention from achieving group excellence.

Second, resources are used more efficiently in a cooperative climate. A co- operative climate promotes the full utilization of information by a group, whereas a competitive climate typically promotes information hoarding (Johnson & Johnson,

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 126 26/10/11 12:23 AM

Competition anD Cooperation 127 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 127 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

2005; Stanne et al., 1999). When group members work together toward a common goal, not competitively to advance individual goals, there is likely to be less duplica- tion of effort, better utilization of members’ skills, and greater pooling of information and knowledge. Synergy is more likely to occur in a cooperative climate.

Group Cohesiveness: Social Relationships among Group Members Closely associated with group achievement and performance is group cohesiveness. When group members feel liked, valued, supported, and accepted, cohesiveness is strong. When group members feel disliked, unvalued, unsupported, and rejected, cohesive- ness suffers. Does competition enhance intragroup cohesiveness? A review of more than 180 studies concluded that cooperative communication promoted significantly greater liking, support, and acceptance of group members than did competitive com- munication (Johnson, 2003).

Jules Henry (1963) noted that “a competitive culture endures by tearing people down.” Although many adolescents quit sports because they fear failure and they can’t handle the pressure of intense competition, many others never try out because they wish to avoid embarrassment and the ridicule of team members. Remember those agonizing moments in childhood when you engaged in the ritual of choosing up sides for basketball, soccer, or some other competitive game? If your schoolmates considered you a star, your inclusion on the team was assured. Your main concern was the prestige and enhanced self-esteem that accompanies being chosen first, second, or third. If your schoolmates viewed you as inept at sports, however, then your main concern was whether you would suffer the humiliation of being taken last in the playground draft.

In a competitive environment, the most skillful are valued. The less skillful just make defeat more probable and thereby become a burden on the team. Most people quit rather than absorb the torment of being called a loser. “We reward winners and are disdainful of losers” (Aronson, 1999, p. 263).

▶ Intergroup Competition and Cooperation: Them versus Us

In one of my group communication classes, students were assigned a symposium project. When we discovered that two of the four groups had chosen the same topic, hypercompetitiveness erupted. One of the two groups immediately negotiated with me to present its symposium first, thereby hoping to steal the thunder of the other group. When members of the competitor group overheard the negotiations, they screamed foul. Bitter recriminations flew between the antagonists. I stepped in to calm tempers. I instituted a random drawing to designate the order of presenta- tions. Despite my assurance that both groups could work on the same topic and that grades would not be determined on any comparison between groups, the competi- tors seemed unsatisfied.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 127 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 128 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 128 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Outside of class the antagonism continued. Members of the two competing groups verbally accosted each other during lunch in the cafeteria. When class resumed, both groups could be heard muttering unflattering comments about their adversaries. In- formation from researching was jealously guarded by each group. On her own initia- tive, one member asked to speak to the rival group, but her rivals rudely rebuffed her.

Neither group needed to compete, yet compete they did. By pooling resources and emphasizing different aspects of the topic, they could have improved both of their final presentations. Instead, the two groups became instantly rigid and systemically hostile, each demanding that the other group choose a different topic. The result? Both groups gave mediocre symposium presentations.

A huge body of research shows conclusively that intergroup interactions are generally far more competitive than interactions between individuals (Wildschut et al., 2003). Plato in his Republic has Polemarchus stating that “justice consists of helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies.” This is an ancient statement of what is now referred to as the norm of group interest—a collective prescription that group members should pursue maximum group outcomes (winning at all costs), even if this means acting hypercompetitively against other groups when members may privately not wish to do so (Wildschut et al., 2002). We want to help our group succeed, even if we may disagree with the ultimate goal of defeating another group and preventing its success. Just in the last decade of the twentieth century, this intergroup hypercom- petitive hostility claimed the lives of 30 million people worldwide (McGuire, 1998).

The norm of group interest can produce some astoundingly bizarre hypercom- petitive behavior between groups and individuals “fighting” for their team’s victory. A Little League organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled the baseball sea- son for 500 kids because of hostility and fights among parents, coaches, and league officials brought about by intergroup hypercompetitiveness. A coach in Whitehall, North Carolina, slashed the throat of a rival coach, spattering blood on one of the Little Leaguers. A teen umpire was shot at by an assistant coach in East St. Louis, Illinois, over a perceived bad call. So widespread is the aggressive behavior of parents at youth team sporting events that Fred Engh, president of the National Alliance of Youth Sports, began the Parents Association of Youth Sports to teach parents sports- manship (Dreyfuss, 1999).

Despite the intergroup hostility, doesn’t wanting to defeat another group increase cohesiveness within your own group? This is true to an extent. There are “weak in- dications” that intergroup competition generates internal group cohesion. This is primarily true when your group has to pull together to face a common foe. In the long run, however, cohesiveness is enhanced primarily for winning teams. Losing teams typically fall apart and members look for someone to blame (Van Oostrum & Rabbie, 1995). Competition is simply more enjoyable for winners than it is for losers.

Even if intergroup competition stimulates internal group cohesion, this method is a questionable way to achieve such a result. The group will have to manufacture

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 128 26/10/11 12:23 AM

Competition anD Cooperation 129 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 129 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

enemies to defeat in order to maintain cohesion within the group. Cohesion, then, is artificially induced. It doesn’t flow naturally from group interaction. Once the foe has been bested, the reason for cohesion is removed. A cooperative group climate, on the other hand, enhances the social relationships within the group, thereby increasing cohesiveness and group productivity as a by-product (Rabbie, 1993).

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Competition and Culture

T he pervasiveness of competition in the United States can easily trick us into be- lieving that humans are competitive by

nature. But where is the evidence that hu- mans must compete because nature makes

it inescapable? Brain research suggests that humans are neurologically wired for coop- eration, not competition (Tomasello, 2009).

Intergroup competition can be fierce. Winning teams are usually cohesive, but los- ing teams often lose cohesiveness and group members look to blame each other for losing.

W on

g A

da m

/R ed

lin k/

R ed

lin k/

C or

bi s

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 129 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 130 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 130 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Even the depiction of life in the animal world as “survival of the fittest” and “red in tooth and claw,” to use Tennyson’s metaphorical description, vastly overstates the competitive aspects of life on earth. Zoologist Frans de Waal notes, “Aiding others at a cost or risk to oneself is widespread in the animal world” (Boyd, 1996). Cooperation, according to this new school of thought, has survival value (de Waal, 2010). Animals that help each other find food and ward off predators do better than those that go it alone (Boyd, 1996).

Comparing cultures reveals that “it is the norms of the culture that determine its com- petitiveness” (Kohn, 1992, p. 39), not hu- man nature. Anthropologist Margaret Mead (1961) claimed that “it is the way the struc- ture of the society is built up that determines whether individual members shall cooperate or shall compete with one another” (p. 481).

Consider the typical case of an elementary student who experiences difficulty discerning the correct answer to a math problem. The teacher urges the student to “think harder,” applying further pressure to the intimidated youngster, who desperately hopes for a flash of brilliance. Meanwhile, fellow classmates are frantically waving their hands, certain in their own minds that they have deduced the right answer. Finally, giving up on the perplexed

child, the teacher recognizes another student who excitedly shouts the correct answer. One child’s misery is another child’s triumph. Henry (1963) summarizes this commonplace com- petitive situation in U.S. classrooms this way: “So often somebody’s success has been bought at the cost of our failure. To a Zuni, Hopi, or Dakota Indian, [besting another student] would seem cruel beyond belief, for competi- tion, the wringing of success from somebody else’s failure, is a form of torture” (p. 35).

There is abundant evidence demonstrating that American hypercompetitiveness flows primarily from an individualist cultural value system, not a biological imperative (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). Collectivist cultures tend to be far less competitive than the United States (Cox et al., 1991). Two separate studies comparing American groups (highly individualist) with Vietnamese groups (highly collectivist) found that Americans were competitive but the Viet- namese exhibited an “extraordinarily high rate” of cooperation, even when faced with competi- tive strategies from others. The authors of these studies concluded: “The difference between the extremely individualist and extremely col- lectivist cultures was very large and consis- tent with cultural norms” (Parks & Vu, 1994, p. 712). Cultural norms heavily influence the degree of competitiveness in a society.

Questions for Thought 1. Can you imagine any culture entirely free from competition? In what ways would that be desirable and

in what ways might that be undesirable?

2. Have you had experience with other cultures in which cooperation is emphasized? If so, how did you react to it?

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 130 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 131 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 131 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Communication and Group Climate

Urgent pleas and pious pronouncements (“Let’s all just get along”) rarely produce cooperation in groups, even if our intentions are noble. Learning cooperative com- munication skills, however, is critical to the establishment of a positive group climate (Johnson, 2003).

Focus Questions

1. In what ways might positive evaluation of others produce defensiveness?

2. When is controlling communication appropriate and when is it inappropriate?

3. What’s the difference between a shift response and a support response?

▶ Defensive and Supportive Communication: Shaping Group Climate

Jack Gibb (1961), in an eight-year study of groups, identified specific communication patterns that both increase and lessen defensiveness—a reaction to a perceived at- tack on our self-concept and self-esteem. We feel personally diminished by defensive communication patterns. Typical responses to such diminishment include denying the truth of the attack, counterattacking or striking back at those who diminish us, and withdrawing from defensive situations (Ellison, 2009). One study reported that defensive communication patterns lead to worker burnout and a desire to leave the job (Becker et al., 2005).

Defensive communication patterns invite a hypercompetitive response to protect our self-image. Supportive communication patterns invite cooperation. As each of these communication patterns is discussed, see if you recognize any of them in your own experience with groups (take the self-assessment test in Box 4.1).

Evaluation versus Description A friend of mine was in his townhouse when the 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake hit Santa Cruz, California, in October 1989. Objects flew across the rooms, kitchen cabinets emptied onto the counters and floor, and glass shattered throughout his home. When the 15 seconds of rocking and rolling to Mother Nature’s syncopation subsided, a momentary quiet ensued. Then from the back room came the timid, frightened little voice of his 5-year-old daughter: “Daddy, it wasn’t my fault.” We are quick to evaluate each other in American society, especially negatively, and we are ready to defend ourselves with self-justification— providing excuses that absolve us of blame—even when no evaluation is offered (Tavris & Aronson, 2007).

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 131 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 132 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 132 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Box 4.1

Reactions to Defensive and Supportive Communication

Project yourself into each situation below and imagine how you would react. Choose a number for each situation that reflects how much you would like or dislike the statements presented.

1. You live with two roommates in an apart- ment. You forgot to clean your dishes twice this week. One of your roommates says to you, “Do your dishes. I’m tired of cleaning up your mess.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

2. You’re working with your team on a group project. One member says to the group, “I’m feeling very concerned that we will not finish our project in time. We’re about halfway and we only have two days before our presenta- tion. What do the rest of you think?”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

3. You are a member of a softball team. Your coach says to you in front of the team, “You blew the game last week. Are you pre- pared to do better this game?”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

4. At work, you tripped and badly bruised your shoulder. Your boss says to you, “I heard that you injured yourself yesterday. Do you need time off? That must really hurt. Can I do anything to make you more comfortable while you work in your office?”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

5. Your support group meets once a week to share experiences and solve personal problems. The group facilitator announces

to the group, “We haven’t got time to hear from (your name). We have more impor- tant things to consider.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

6. During a group problem-solving session, one member says to the group, “I have a suggestion that might solve our problem. Perhaps this will move us forward.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

7. You are a member of the student sen- ate. During discussion on a controversial campus problem, the senate president says to the group, “We’re obviously divided on this issue. Because I’m the president of this body, I’ll have to make the final decision.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

8. During a dorm council meeting, one mem- ber says to the council, “I know we all have strong feelings on this issue, but let’s put our heads together and see if we can find a solution everyone can support. Does any- one have ideas they wish to share with the group?”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

9. During a heated group discussion with fellow classmates, one group member says, “I know I’m right and there’s no way any of you will convince me that I’m wrong.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 132 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 133 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 133 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Negative evaluations include criticism, contempt, and blame. Positive evalu- ations include praise, recognition, and flattery. Negative evaluations produce de- fensiveness (Gottman & Gottman, 2006; Robbins et al., 2000). Criticism produces more conflict in the workplace than mistrust, personality clashes, pay, or power struggles (Baron, 1990), and harsh criticism demoralizes participants, reduces their work effort, and leads to refusals to work with criticizers on future tasks (Baron, 1988). Criticism from outgroup members (those from another group) provokes con- siderably greater defensiveness than from ingroup members (those from your own group) (Sutton et al., 2006). Criticism from an ingroup member may also provoke considerable defensiveness if the ingroup member is either a newcomer to the group (Hornsey et al., 2007) or seems uncommitted to the group (Hornsey et al., 2004). In either case the criticizer’s identification with the group is suspect.

Praise, on the other hand, is usually welcomed. A survey by Robert Half International of 150 executives from Fortune 1,000 firms found that scant praise and limited recog- nition were the main reasons employees left their companies (“Praise the Employees,” 1994). A Gallup study of more than 80,000 managers concluded: “Praise and recognition are essential building blocks of a great workplace” (Buckingham & Coffman, 2002b).

Nevertheless, even praise can induce defensiveness, especially when one group member receives praise and others don’t (“Hey, how come I didn’t get compli- mented?”), or when we suspect an ulterior motive prompts the positive evaluation.

10. Your class project group approaches your teacher and proposes an idea that your tea- cher initially dislikes. She says to your group, “I can see that you really like this idea, but it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of the project. I suggest that you keep brainstorming.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

11. You’re a member of a hiring panel. During a break from an interviewing session, one member of the panel takes you aside and says, “Look, I want you to support my candidate. We’ve been friends a long time. This is important to me. Whaddaya say? Can I count on you to back me up?”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

12. You’ve been asked to work on a committee to solve the parking problem on campus. The chair addresses the committee: “It is my hope that this committee can come to a con- sensus on solutions to this parking problem. I’ll conduct our meetings, but I only have one vote, the same as everyone else.”

STRONGLY DISLIKE STRONGLY LIKE 5 4 3 2 1

Answers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 = defensive communica- tion (control, evaluation, indifference, superiority, certainty, and manipulation—in that order); 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 = supportive communication (descrip- tion, empathy, provisionalism, problem orientation, assertiveness, and equality—in that order). Find your average score for each set (divide by six both the sum of the odd-numbered items and the sum of the even- numbered items). Which do you like best (lower aver- age score)—defensive or supportive communication?

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 133 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 134 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 134 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Note also that praise should accompany real accomplishments. Praising that which is not praiseworthy merely encourages false hope and future disappointment, as anyone can witness from watching numerous talentless individuals compete on American Idol. Effusively praised by family and friends in an understandable, but misguided effort to be supportive, the painful attempts by some contestants who screech and croak a tune inevitably leads to crushing, demoralizing disappointment when the panel of judges mercifully (for the viewing audience) bounces them from the com- petition. Suffering such disappointment may not produce a soul-searching personal reappraisal of their talent but it often seems to trigger a defensive counterattack from distraught contestants against the judges.

Description can minimize defensiveness. Description is a first-person report of how an individual feels, what he or she perceives to be true, and what behavior is de- sired from others. When American Idol judges focus on actual singing of contestants (“That rendition of a classic song didn’t really work for me” or “Forgetting the lyrics isn’t helpful at this stage of the competition”), the comments are more constructive and less defensive producing than personal assaults (“You sound like a dog in heat”) and sarcasm (“Pretty good for a person with absolutely zero talent”) so often typical of Simon Cowell when he was on the panel of judges. The former comments are pref- erable to the latter ones, but they still don’t minimize defensiveness as much as they could. Consider these four steps for achieving descriptive effectiveness:

1. Praise first, then describe. Try beginning with praiseworthy behavior before de- scribing behavior that is problematic (“This is a well-written task force report.

I do have a few suggestions, however, for improvement”). When praise is used be-

fore negative feedback, there is greater likelihood that the recipient will agree with

the negative feedback. Motives of those group members providing the negative

feedback are also more likely to be assumed to be constructive than destructive

when praise precedes negative feedback (Hornsey et al., 2008). There is the risk, of

course, that this “praise first” strategy might be seen as patronizing and manipula-

tive. Praise that is genuine, however, does minimize defensiveness (Hornsey et al.,

2008). Remember, though, that if there is nothing worth praising, or any praise

offered would appear lame and superficial at best, then skip this step.

2. Use I-statements, not You-statements (Narcisco & Burkett, 1975; Notarius & Mark- man, 1993). I-statements may begin with an identification of the speaker’s feeling, followed by a description of behavior linked to the feeling. “I feel excluded and isolated when my contributions receive no response from the group” is an ex- ample. Such an I-statement focuses the attention on the person speaking. If there are no important feelings involved, simply offer recommendations for improve- ment (“I have a few changes I’d like you to consider”). Suggestions for change imply that a group member has “not measured up” in some ways (negative evalua- tion), but framing your message as an I-statement can seem less like an accusation (“You need to make these changes”). If you are speaking on behalf of your group,

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 134 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 135 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 135 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

I-statements shift into We-statements (“We are very concerned that our presenta- tion will not be finished on time”). We-statements are simply the plural form of descriptive I-statements.

A You-statement of negative evaluation, on the other hand, places the focus

on someone who is an object of attack. “You have excluded me from the group

and you make me feel isolated” is a statement that blames. Expect denial from

group members so accused (“We’ve never excluded you”) or a counterattack

(“If you’ve been excluded, it is because your comments sound like those of a

simpleton in a Jackass movie”). Any statement that begins with “You didn’t . . .”

or “You shouldn’t . . .” or “You haven’t . . .” can instantly put the receiver on

guard because it can seem like an accusation will follow. Avoiding You-statements

is not always warranted to minimize defensiveness (“You might consider these

changes,” for example), but try developing the habit of using I-statements instead.

3. Make your descriptions specific, not vague. Strive for clarity (Baron, 1988). “I feel weird when you act inappropriately around my boss,” is an inexact description. “Weird” and “inappropriately” require specific elaboration. Get to the point. “I feel awkward and embarrassed when you tell my boss jokes that ridicule gays and women” is more specific.

4. Eliminate editorial comments from descriptive statements. Some I-statements are undisguised personal assaults. “I feel ashamed when you act like an idiot in front

of my colleagues” uses the I-statement form without the supportive intent or

phrasing. Even an I-statement that may appear to be a specific description devoid

of judgment sometimes inadvertently travels into evaluative territory. “I get ir-

ritated when you waste the time of this committee by commenting on trivial side

issues” loads the statement with provocative phrasing. “Waste time” and “trivial”

retain the evaluative and attack elements likely to induce defensive responses.

Simply jettison the loaded language.

Textbook-perfect, praise-first, first-person-singular, specific, editorial-free state- ments, of course, induce no supportive climate if the tone of voice used is sarcastic or condescending, eye contact is threatening, facial expressions and body language are intimidating, and gestures are abusive. Focus on your own feelings and spotlight the specific behaviors you think need improvement without sending mixed messages composed of verbal descriptions and nonverbal, negative evaluations.

Control versus Problem Orientation English poet Samuel Butler once said, “He who agrees against his will, is of the same opinion still.” Issuing orders and de- manding obedience, especially when no input was sought from group members who were told what to do, is controlling communication. Dictatorial, demanding behaviors from teachers are poorly received by students (Schrodt et al., 2008). Jack Brehm (1972) developed a theory of psychological reactance to explain our resistance to efforts aimed at controlling our behavior. Simply put, psychological reactance

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 135 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 136 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 136 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

means the more someone tries to control us by telling us what to do, the more we are inclined to resist such efforts or even to do the opposite. The following bit of wisdom captures this well: “There are three ways to make sure something gets done—do it yourself; hire someone to do it; forbid your kids to do it” (Landers, 1995). The more intensely parents admonish their kids not to smoke, ingest drugs, or get various parts of their anatomies pierced, the more likely their children are to do these behaviors so they can assert their sense of personal freedom (Dowd et al., 1988).

Tell someone they can’t do something and, typically, it is what they want to do most. A 15-year study of “radical groups,” involving more than a thousand subjects,

99 7

W ile

y M

ill er

. D is

t. B

y U

N IV

ER SA

L PR

ES S

SY N

D IC

AT E.

R ep

ri nt

ed w

ith p

er m

is si

on . A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

This cartoon illustrates 1. Defensiveness 2. First-person-singular language 3. Criticism 4. Psychological reactance

Answers are given at end of chapter.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 136 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 137 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 137 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

concluded that the coercive practice of “deprogramming” individuals to give up their cult membership “can drive young people back into their group, or into a pattern of cult-hopping, for years” (Levine, 1984, p. 27).

We help prevent a defensive climate from emerging when we collaborate on a problem and seek solutions cooperatively. The orientation is on the problem and how best to solve it, not on how best to control those who have less power. All control- ling communication can’t be eliminated (parents want to protect their children from foolish or dangerous behavior), but it can be kept to a minimum (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Group members who are not acting responsibly (for example, being late with reports due to laziness) may have to be told to change their behavior by the group leader or the group as a whole: “We need your report so our group can finish this proj- ect. Is there a problem, and can we help?” Generally, however, by focusing on problem solving, personality conflicts and power struggles should fade into the background.

A study of decision making at 356 U.S. companies discovered that 58% of strategic plans were rejected when executives overseeing the plans attempted to impose their ideas on colleagues. When executives asked instead for problem-solving ideas from colleagues, 96% of the plans were approved (McNutt, 1997). Ownership of a solution to a problem comes not from mandating it (“This is what I’ve decided and you must do it”), but from collaborating as a group and brainstorming possible solutions.

Wanting to be less controlling and more oriented toward problem solving is not the complete answer. The competent communicator must know how to problem- solve, have the requisite skills, and be committed to finding solutions. More will be said about these in later chapters.

Manipulation versus Assertiveness Most people resent and resist being ma- nipulated. If you are like most people, simply knowing that someone is attempting to influence you for his or her own benefit is repellent. I experienced my own private purgatory when I sold encyclopedias door to door for a brief time one summer fol- lowing graduation from college (when door-to-door sales were common). Working out of Denver, Colorado, I diligently knocked on doors of strangers, most of whom were not exactly thrilled by my presence on their doorsteps. After I suffered many rude comments and slammed doors, the first person to invite me in was a young, friendly woman who had no idea I hoped to sell her encyclopedias. I was trained to camouflage my real purpose to avoid immediate rejection (rarely successful). Upon entering her home, I noticed the woman’s inebriated husband and his snarling German shepherd. “If you’re selling something,” the unpleasant husband snapped at me, “you’ll be dealing with my dog.” I concocted a quick excuse and exited. I imme- diately sought sanctuary, but found no churches in the vicinity. I luckily found refuge in the house of an older Czechoslovakian couple. I was served tea and cookies while I engaged in friendly conversation about “the old country” for almost three hours. I gave up trying to sell encyclopedias for the evening, having recognized how

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 137 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 138 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 138 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

intensely people in my sales territory resented being disturbed by a stranger attempt- ing to sell them something. To this day, I wonder if that sweet couple ever thought of the young man who came to visit them for no apparent reason. I quickly retired from the encyclopedia business.

A study of 6,000 team members in 600 organizations found that playing poli- tics, an especially cutthroat version of manipulative communication, destroys social relationships and team effectiveness (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Hidden agendas— personal goals of group members that are not revealed openly and that can interfere with group accomplishment—can create a defensive atmosphere. When you suspect that a team member is complimenting your performance merely to gain an ally against other members in a dispute, this hidden agenda will likely ignite defensiveness.

Assertiveness is the alternative to manipulation. Assertiveness is honest, open, and direct, but not aggressive, communication. It is the opposite of game playing and strategic manipulation. An assertive message says, “This is how I feel and this is what I need.” A much more extensive discussion of assertiveness appears in Chapter 9.

Indifference versus Empathy We like being acknowledged when we are present in a group. We dislike being treated like a piece of furniture, sitting alone in a cor- ner. Indifference from group members, or what Gibb (1961) calls neutrality, makes us defensive. Making little or no effort to listen to what a member of your group has to say exhibits indifference and treats the communicator as a nonperson. Failure to acknowledge another person’s communication effort either verbally or nonver- bally is called an impervious response (Sieberg & Larson, 1971). Such indifference is disconfirming.

You counter indifference with empathy. Howell (1982) defines empathy as “think- ing and feeling what you perceive another to be thinking and feeling” (p. 108). Empa- thy is built on concern for others (Rifkin, 2009). It requires that we try to see from the perspective of the other person, perceiving the needs, desires, and feelings of a group member because that is what we would want others to do for us (Fisher & Shapiro, 2005). “How would you like it if I treated you the way you treat me?” is a plea for empathy from others.

Rosenfeld (1983) determined that creating a supportive climate in the college classroom was a key determinant of whether classes would be liked by students. In classes liked by students, instructors show interest in the problems students face, they exhibit a perception of subject matter as students see it, and they make students feel understood. Showing that we understand and relate does make a difference.

Superiority versus Equality Communicating superiority sends the message that one is Me-deep in self-importance. It can be a tremendous turnoff for most people. Group leaders who exhibit superiority to group members undermine their credibility and influence (Reicher et al., 2007). The Rosenfeld (1983) study on defensiveness in

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 138 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 139 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 139 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

the college classroom found that the behavior of instructors in classes that are dis- liked by students is characterized as predominantly superior. One of the key factors characterizing classes that were liked was “My teacher treats us as equals with him/ her.” Whatever the differences in our abilities, talents, intellect, and the like, treat- ing people with respect and politeness—as equals on a personal level—encourages harmony and productivity. Treating people like they are IRS agents at the award ceremony for the state lottery winner will invite enmity and retaliation. One study showed that embarrassing and belittling students for “inferior” performance in the class produced negative student evaluations of teachers (Schrodt et al., 2008).

Equality does not mean we all have the same abilities. I will never swim with the grace and speed of Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps. Despite three sets of swim- ming lessons when I was a child, I sank to the bottom of the pool everytime the instruc- tor tried to teach me to float on my back. I had the buoyancy of a granite slab. Equality from the standpoint of group climate means that we give everyone an equal opportu- nity to succeed and exhibit whatever potential they possess. We recognize that everyone has faults and limitations. In fact, one way of demonstrating equality as a means of minimizing defensiveness is to share your own shortcomings with group members (Hornsey et al., 2008). Self-deprecating humor that makes fun of your own failings is also an effective means of communicating equality, not superiority (Greengross & Miller, 2008). Comedian Wendy Liebman demonstrates self-deprecating humor: “I’ve been getting back to nature . . . well I was evicted . . . from my parent’s house . . . but we’re still very close . . . genetically . . . I’m engaged now . . . it was so romantic . . . he turned off the TV . . . well he muted it . . . during the commercials.” Poking fun at yourself just makes you seem more human and likable if it’s done occasionally. It is the antithesis of ego. If it is done frequently, however, you may come off as a loser.

Certainty versus Provisionalism There are very few things in this world that are certain—death, taxes, your clothes dryer will eat your socks, your toast will fall buttered-side down, and your technological devices will fail at the most inopportune times are a few that come to my mind. Communicating certainty to group members is asking for trouble. I listened to students in my class argue with one of their group members who insisted that crystals really do have healing powers and that only pig- headedness kept the group from accepting the truth of what he was adamantly assert- ing. This individual would entertain no contrary point of view, so certain was he of the unalterable correctness of his belief, nor would he accede to requests from mem- bers for hard evidence of crystals’ healing power. He was certain he was right and anyone who couldn’t accept this truth must be stupid. This was dogmatism in action.

Dogmatism is the belief in the self-evident truth of one’s opinion. The dogma, or declaration of truth, warrants no debate in the mind of the dogmatist. A dogmatic individual exhibits closed-mindedness and rigid thinking. Alternative ideas are not seriously considered. Interestingly, the word dogma spelled backward is am-god.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 139 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 140 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 140 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Dogmatists act godlike in the certitude of their own point of view. These self-appointed deities can easily inflame the tempers of group members. Some people derive pleasure from trying to prove the dogmatist wrong. Competitive contests fought over assertions of truth by dogmatists and their antagonists can degenerate into adolescent bickering.

Leathers (1970) conducted a study in which typical dogmatic statements were intro- duced into group discussions (“You are wrong, dead wrong!”). Subjects responded with increased tension (e.g., rubbing their hands together nervously and squirming in their seats). These statements also elicited opinionated statements from group members. A climate of inflexibility was produced and trust among group members deteriorated.

Certainty is reflected in terms such as never, always, impossible, can’t, and won’t. “We’ll never finish this project on time” and “We can’t get an A” are two examples of using terms of certainty. These terms of certainty may shut down group discussion and kill motivation to succeed.

Provisionalism counters certainty. Provisionalism means you qualify statements, avoiding absolutes. Provisionalism is reflected in the use of qualifying terms such as pos- sibly, probably, perhaps, occasionally, maybe, might, and sometimes. “We may have diffi- culty finishing this project on time unless we organize our effort” and “We have a chance of getting an A if we keep working” are provisional statements. This is the language of precision, not fence-straddling. Problems are approached as interesting issues to be in- vestigated and discussed, not defensive power struggles regarding who is right or wrong.

Reciprocal Patterns: Like Begets Like Once a group climate develops, it can set in motion a reciprocal pattern—tit for tat. One famous tit-for-tat exchange oc- curred between Lady Astor, the first female member of the British Parliament, and Winston Churchill. Exasperated by Churchill’s opposition to several of the causes she

SECOND LOOK

Defensive versus Supportive Communication Patterns Defensive Supportive

Evaluation Description

Control Problem orientation

Manipulation Assertiveness

Indifference Empathy

Superiority Equality

Certainty Provisionalism

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 140 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 141 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 141 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

espoused, Lady Astor acerbically remarked, “Winston, if I were married to you, I’d put poison in your coffee.” Churchill replied, “And if you were my wife, I’d drink it” (Fadiman, 1985, p. 122). Verbal attack begets verbal attack.

One study found that supportive/confirming communication patterns by one party during a conflict elicited similar responses from the other party (Burggraf & Sillars, 1987). The same held true for defensive/disconfirming communication pat- terns (Sundell, 1972). Remember the “bad apple” research of Felps and his colleagues (2006) discussed in Chapter 2? Insults (evaluation) from the bad apple begat insults from other group members, slacker behavior (indifference) begat slacker behavior, and cynical behavior (indifference and certainty) begat reciprocal cynical behavior from others in the group.

The challenge in any group experience is to maintain the positive reciprocal pat- tern of support and to break the cycle of the negative reciprocal pattern of defensive- ness. A positive reciprocal pattern of support and cooperation should emerge from the communication transactions among group members. Group leaders may play an important role in this process by setting a cooperative tone for the group. The responsibility for establishing a positive group climate, however, rests on all group members.

▶ Competitive and Noncompetitive Listening: Shifting and Supporting

Listening effectively is one of the most critical on-the-job communication skills you can exhibit (Darling & Dannels, 2003; Landrum & Harrold, 2003). “Good listening skills can help you to feel easy in all sorts of social situations, and to build the kind of rapport that leads to solid emotional bonds” (Gottman & DeClaire, 2001, p. 198). Despite the obvious importance of listening well in groups, evidence shows that for the most part we don’t listen effectively. One report (cited in Adler & Towne, 2007) discovered that only 12% of college students were actively listening to a class lecture and another 20% were mildly attentive. The remaining students were pursuing erotic thoughts (20%), reminiscing (20%), or worrying, daydreaming, or thinking about lunch or religion (8%). This study was conducted before the widespread availability of text messaging and social networking that have become common distractions in the classroom. A more recent study of 269 college students revealed that 90% of those surveyed admitted to text messaging during class lectures. It is now the top class- room distraction. Text messaging distracts other students, not just those texting. In the same study, 25% of students were distracted by fellow classmates texting during class. This study also found that 75% of these students were disturbed by cell phones ringing during class (Mayk, 2010). Active listening is focused listening. We make a conscious effort to focus our attention on the speaker and his or her message. Too often when sitting in groups we do not make the effort to listen actively. We allow our minds to wander and our attention to be distracted.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 141 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 142 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 142 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Competent listening, however, goes far beyond actively listening to other group members. How we listen is also extremely important. In this section I will briefly discuss competitive and noncompetitive listening.

Shift Response versus Support Response: Focusing on Me or Thee Listening can become a competitive event. When we vie for attention during a group discussion, our listening becomes competitive. Conversation becomes a contest. An attention-getting initiative by a listener, called the shift response, is a key com- petitive listening strategy. Here the listener attempts to shift the focus of attention from others to oneself by changing the topic of discussion. The shift response is Me-oriented. The support response, in contrast, is an attention-giving, cooperative effort by the listener to focus attention on the other person, not on oneself (Derber 1979; Vangelisti et al., 1990). Consider the following example:

Maria: I’m feeling very frustrated by our group’s lack of progress on our project. Michael: I was more frustrated by Jerry’s snotty attitude during yesterday’s meet-

ing. (Shift response)

Notice how Michael does not respond to Maria’s frustration. Instead, he shifts the focus to his own frustration about another issue in the group. Now compare this shift response with a support response, as follows:

Maria: I’m feeling very frustrated by our group’s lack of progress on our project. Michael: I hear you. What do you think we should do about it? (Support response)

Here, the response from the listener keeps the focus on the speaker and encour- ages Maria to explore the topic she initiated.

A shift response can easily provoke shift responses from other group members in a hypercompetitive battle for attention, such as in the following example:

Beth: I don’t think our project fulfills the requirements of the class assignment. I’m worried that we will get a bad grade.

Greg: The assignment is too difficult. I don’t understand what we are supposed to do. (Shift response)

Carla: The project isn’t too difficult. It is really interesting and fun. I’m looking forward to the next project, aren’t you? (Shift response)

Beth: But what about our report on this current project? I still don’t think we’ve fulfilled the assignment. (Shift response to refocus attention on initial topic)

Greg: You worry too much. I need help on my speech. What’s the main point I need to make first? (Shift response)

Although the shift response may be appropriate in some instances where indi- viduals drift from the main topic of conversation and need to be refocused, com- petent communicators emphasize support responses and use shift responses infrequently. Background acknowledgment (“really,” “uh-huh,” “yup”), a supportive

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 142 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 143 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 143 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

assertion (“That’s super,” “Nicely done”), and a supportive question (“How do you think we should proceed?”) are the types of supportive responses that encourage cooperative discussion, not competitive struggles for attention.

Competitive Interrupting: Seizing the Floor Nathan Miller bitingly asserts that “conversation in the United States is a competitive exercise in which the first person to draw a breath is declared the listener” (cited in Bolton, 1979, p. 4). Com- petitive interrupting is closely related to the shift response. It differs, however, in one key way. Listeners who use the shift response usually observe the “one speaker at a time” rule of conversation. Competitive interrupters do not.

Interrupting becomes competitive when the listener attempts to seize the floor from the speaker and dominate the conversation. Not all interrupting, of course, is competitive. Sometimes group members interrupt to express support (“I agree with Joe”) or enthusiasm (“Great idea”), seek clarification (“I’m confused. Could you ex- plain that again before we move on?”), warn of danger (“Look out. You’re falling over backwards”), or cut short a “talkaholic’s” nonstop monologue that prevents other group members from participating (James & Clarke, 1993).

Competitive interrupting is Me-oriented. The focus is on individual needs, not group needs. Competitive interrupting creates antagonism, rivalry, hostility, and in some cases withdrawal from group discussion by frustrated members. Group mem- bers often mirror the interrupting patterns of others. If one member interrupts to seize the floor, another member will likely interrupt to seize it back. If members rarely interrupt, and when they do, primarily offer support, others will likely follow suit and keep the conversation supportive and cooperative.

Ambushing: Preparing Rebuttals When a group member is ready to pounce on a point made by a speaker, that member is listening with a bias. The bias is to at- tack the speaker verbally, not try to understand the speaker’s point of view. This is called ambushing. Ambushing is clearly competitive listening. Ambushers aim to defeat a speaker in a verbal jousting match. Preparing a rebuttal while a speaker is still explaining his or her point shows little interest in comprehending a message. In competitive debates, message distortion is a common problem. The focus is on win- ning the argument, not discerning a message accurately.

Debating ideas is a useful and important process in a democratic society. Ambushing, however, puts the caboose in front of the train engine. Defeating an opponent becomes the driving force for ambushers, not clarity of messages. During group discussion, try to understand messages clearly and accurately before evaluating them. Otherwise, you may be evaluating and refuting ideas that were never advanced by any group member.

Probing and paraphrasing can short-circuit ambushing. Probing means seek- ing additional information from a speaker by asking questions. Probing includes

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 143 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 144 Chapter 4: Developing the group Climate

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 144 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 4, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. Why do you think supervisors faced with poor employee performance use predominantly control- ling, not problem-solving, strategies?

2. Are there instances when you should act as a model of cooperative behavior even though other group members will take advantage of you?

3. Is hypercompetitive communication ever ethical? Explain.

clarifying questions (“Can you give me an example of an important goal for the group?”), exploratory questions (“Can you think of any other approach to this prob- lem?”), and encouraging questions (“Who can blame us for making a good effort to try a new approach?”).

Paraphrasing “is a concise response to the speaker which states the essence of the other’s content in the listener’s words” (Bolton, 1979, p. 51). Paraphrasing should be concise and precise. For example:

Gabriela: I’m so sick and tired of working and working on this report and we have so little to show for it. If we’d started earlier, we would be done by now.

Frank: You seem frustrated and unhappy with the group’s effort. Gabriela: I am frustrated, but I’m not unhappy with our group. We’ve all worked

hard. None of us could arrange our schedules to begin any sooner on this.

Paraphrasing can reveal misunderstanding. Ambushing merely assumes a mes- sage is understood without checking. Noncompetitive listening is a useful commu- nication skill.

In summary, there is perhaps no greater challenge nor more important task in a group than establishing a positive, cooperative climate. A negative, competitive climate will bode ill for your group. Defensive climates promote conflict and dishar- mony in groups. Supportive climates do not free groups entirely from conflict, but such an atmosphere enhances the likelihood of constructive solutions to conflict in groups.

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 144 26/10/11 12:23 AM

CommuniCation anD group Climate 145 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 145 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Cartoon (p. 136): 1, 4.

Leatherheads (2008). Comedy; PG-13 Goofy comedy about the early days (1920s) of professional football, starring George Clooney. Is the competition in all of its aspects depicted as constructive or destructive? Apply the three criteria for constructive competition.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf ? (1966). Drama; R Engrossing but lengthy film depicting George and Martha, a troubled couple, “entertain- ing” another couple in the wee hours of the morning. This film is loaded with examples of defensive communication. Identify as many examples as you can find.

Playing by Heart (1998). Romantic Comedy; R This is a wonderful, romantic comedy about people’s lives intersecting, sometimes poignantly. Look for defensive and supportive communication patterns.

Remember the Titans (2000). Drama; PG Feel-good true story of a black football coach who has to deal with racism in a newly inte- grated high school in Virginia. Examine this film for both intragroup and intergroup com- petition. Do the results of competition depicted in the movie parallel the research in this chapter? Is the competition constructive? Explain.

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch04_ptg01_hr_116-145.indd 145 26/10/11 12:23 AM

◀ 146

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 146 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. Group roles 1. Influence of Roles:

Not Just Playing Games

a. Role Reversal: When Students Become Teachers

Closer Look: The Stanford Prison Study

b. Role Conflict: Torn between Two Roles

2. Types of Roles: Formal and Informal

3. Role Emergence: Springing to Life

a. Group Endorsement: Accepting a Bid

b. Role Specialization: Settling into One’s Role

4. Role Fixation: Stuck Playing One Part

▶ B. leAdership 1. Definition of Leadership: An

Evolving Consensus

a. Leadership and Influence: A Two-Way Process

b. Leadership and Followership: It Takes Two to Tango

c. Leader versus Manager: Interpersonal versus Positional Influence

Roles and Leadership in Groups

d. Leadership and Communication: Duct-Taped Together

2. Gaining and Retaining Leadership: Getting There Is Just the Start

a. How Not to Become a Leader: Thou Shalt Not

b. General Pattern of Leader Emergence: Process of Elimination

c. Retaining the Leader Role: Hanging onto Power

Focus on Gender/Ethnicity: Gender and Ethnic Bias in Leader Emergence

3. Perspectives on Effective Leadership: An Evolving View

a. Traits Perspective: The Born Leader View

b. Styles Perspective: One Style Doesn’t Fit All

c. Situational (Contingency) Perspective: Matching Styles with Circumstances

d. Functional Perspective: Leadership Responsibilities

e. Servant Leadership Perspective: Ethics in Leadership

f. Culture and Leadership: Are Leadership Theories Universal?

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 146 26/10/11 12:25 AM

147 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 147 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

I n a study of a surgi-cal team at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the distinction between the roles of doctor and nurse

was evident. During a coronary bypass operation, the two surgeons began swapping

stories about the Detroit Tigers while loud rock music played in the background.

Two nurses assisting with the operation began a quiet discussion of their own, only

to be reprimanded by the head surgeon, who bellowed, “Come on, people; let’s keep

it down in here!” (Denison & Sutton, 1990, p. 301). Nurses did not have the same

leeway to talk, laugh, and joke with each other as surgeons did. Surgeons, by neces-

sity, were in charge of the operation. Surgeons were in the leader role and nurses

were in the follower role, expected to do the bidding of the surgeons without ques-

tion. Surgical teams have clearly defined roles. Nurses, nevertheless, complained

bitterly that the doctors were unnecessarily oppressive in exercising their superior

power (that is, they used defensive communication patterns of control and superior-

ity). Nurses described being treated like slaves, and often were expected to perform

demeaning tasks when ordered by surgeons to do so. The power disparity between

the higher-status physician role and the lower-status nurse role “can cause a great

deal of resentment and impede successful collaboration” (Ellington, 2008, p. 185).

The power disparity can also lead to abusive behavior by the more power-

ful doctors. Social psychologist Dacher Keltner (2007) observes “that most rude

behaviors—shouting, profanities, bald critiques— emanate from the offices and

cubicles of individuals in positions of power.” Results from a survey of more than

2,100 physicians and nurses conducted by the American College of Physician

Executives, show that the clash of roles between doctors and nurses and the abusive

behavior it produces is stunningly frequent. Almost 98% of those surveyed reported

M ar

k D

. M az

ia rz

/J up

ite r

Im ag

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 147 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 148 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 148 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

witnessing bad behavior between physicians and nurses. A surprising 40% said

that these clashes occurred at least weekly or daily. Typical bad behavior included

cursing, yelling, and demeaning behavior, and most of it was initiated by doctors

toward nurses. In one case, a doctor told a nurse, “You don’t look dumber than

my dog. Why can’t you at least fetch what I need?” In another instance, a surgeon

shouted for all to hear that “monkeys could be trained to do what scrub nurses do”

(Johnson, 2009). “While there were complaints about nurse behaviors, both doc-

tors and nurses who filled out the survey said physicians were to blame for a large

part of disruptive behaviors” (Johnson, 2009). Many survey respondents claimed

that doctors acted as though they should be accorded special treatment befitting

their superior role and status.

Abuse by doctors has consequences. The more that abuse is heaped on nurses,

the more likely they are to quit their jobs (Grenny, 2009). Aside from the del-

eterious effects on nurses, patient care is also at risk from the bad behavior of

“superior” doctors. A previous study called “Silence Kills,” conducted by Vital-

Smarts and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, reports that more

than 20% of healthcare professionals have witnessed harm to patients because of

disrespectful and abusive treatment mostly by doctors toward nurses (Maxfield

et al., 2005).

In the drama of life we play many roles often with telling consequences. A group

role is the pattern of expected behavior associated with parts that we play in groups. Individuals act out their roles in transactions with group members. What might

have begun as a casual or unnoticed pattern of behavior may quickly develop into

an expectation. For example, when you tell a few jokes during the initial meeting of

your group, you may be assuming the role of tension reliever without even notic-

ing. Other group members may come to expect you to interject humor into tense

situations.

Roles are not static entities. When the composition of your group changes,

when phases of development change, when the group climate shifts either toward

or away from a cooperative /supportive one, or when you move from one group

to another, you have to adapt to these changes in the system. The required behav-

iors for your role may change as a consequence, or the roles members play may

change.

The principal purpose of this chapter is to discuss group roles, with special focus on the prime group role of leader. There are five objectives relevant to this purpose:

1. To explain the significance of roles in groups 2. To identify the different types of group roles 3. To discuss the role emergence process 4. To explore how members gain and retain group leadership 5. To discuss how to be an effective leader in groups

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 148 26/10/11 12:25 AM

GRoup Roles 149 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 149 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Group Roles

Norms and roles form the basic structure of a group. Structure is the systematic interrelation of all parts to the whole. Structure provides form and shape for a group.

Norms are broad rules that designate appropriate behavior for all group mem- bers, while roles stipulate specific behaviors that are expected for individual group members. A norm for a group might be that every member works hard on all tasks. Roles, however, specify different task behaviors for a vice president, a middle man-

ager, and an office worker. In this section, the effects of roles on behavior, types of

roles, role emergence, and role fixation are explored.

Focus Questions

1. Are there some group roles that the competent communicator should avoid?

2. When two roles conflict, which role is likely to prevail?

▶ Influence of Roles: Not Just Playing Games The expectations attached to roles can have a marked influence on group mem-

bers’ perceptions (see Closer Look: “The Stanford Prison Study”). This influence

was demonstrated in a study in which pairs of students performed the roles of ques-

tioner and contestant in a college bowl type of quiz game (Ross et al., 1977). Ques-

tioners were instructed to think of 10 difficult questions for which they knew the

answers. They then were to ask contestants these questions. Both students and the

audience knew that the roles of questioner and contestant were randomly assigned.

Yet, both the audience and the contestants thought that those students playing the

questioner role were smarter than those students playing the contestant role. Ques-

tioners, of course, looked more impressive asking difficult questions for which they

already knew the answers, while contestants looked less impressive trying to answer

the questions and sometimes making mistakes. Despite the obvious advantage given

to the questioners and despite the fact that students playing both roles were equally

intelligent, the predominant perception was markedly influenced by the role each

student played.

Role Reversal: When Students Become Teachers The effects of roles on per- ceptions can be seen in a dramatic way by doing a role reversal, which is stepping into a role distinctly different from or opposite of a role we’re accustomed to play-

ing (from child to parent, student to teacher, and employee to employer or vice

versa). The CBS hit reality show Undercover Boss begun in 2010 uses role reversal to

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 149 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 150 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 150 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CLOSER LOOK

The Stanford Prison Study

It happened one Sunday morning. Police officers, with vehicle sirens screeching, swept through the college town and arrested 10 male college students. Charged with a felony, the stu- dents were searched, handcuffed, and taken to police headquarters for booking. Then they were blindfolded and transported to the “Stan- ford County Prison,” located in the basement of the Stanford University psychology depart- ment building. Upon arrival they were stripped naked, issued a smock-type uniform with an ID number across the front and back, and forced to wear a cap made out of nylon to simulate a shaved head. Each prisoner received towels, soap, a toothbrush, and bed linen. Jail cells were sparsely furnished—cots and bucket toilets. Per- sonal belongings were prohibited.

The 10 inmates were guarded by 11 other col- lege students. These guards carried nightsticks, handcuffs, and whistles. They dressed in khaki uniforms and wore reflecting sunglasses to make eye contact difficult. They remained nameless.

Guards established a set of rules that the prisoners were to follow without hesitation or resistance. The rules were rigid: no talking dur- ing meals, rest periods, or after lights were out. Head counts were taken at 2:30 a.m. Trouble- makers faced loss of “privileges.” At first, these privileges included opportunities to read, write, or talk to other inmates. Later, privileges were defined as eating, sleeping, and washing.

The inmates revolted against the repressive conditions. Some barricaded the doors of their cells with cots. Some engaged in hunger strikes. Several tore off their ID numbers. The guards became increasingly abusive and authoritar- ian in response to the revolt. They used a fire extinguisher to quash the rebellion. Punishment for disobedience included cleaning toilets with

bare hands, doing push-ups, and spending time in solitary confinement (a closet). Head counts were used as a means of harassment. Head counts took 10 minutes or less on the first day. By the fifth day, the head counts lasted several hours as the guards vilified prisoners, who were standing at attention the entire time, for minor infractions of the rules.

Within a short time some of the prisoners be- gan to act depressed, dependent, and disturbed by their incarceration. Several prisoners expe- rienced severe stomach cramps. One prisoner wept uncontrollably. He flew into fits of rage and experienced disorganized thinking and bouts of severe depression. Three other inmates devel- oped similar symptoms. Another inmate devel- oped a psychosomatic rash over his entire body when his “parole” was denied.

The chief form of communication initiated by the guards to the prisoners consisted mostly of commands, insults, verbal and physical abuse, degrading references, and threats. The princi- pal form of communication used by the prison- ers when interacting with the guards consisted mostly of resistance and ridicule in the begin- ning, but became more compliant later (e.g., answering questions and giving information). Prisoners even turned on each other, engag- ing in far more uncomplimentary and negative evaluations than supportive and complimentary communication.

Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo (2007), who conducted this mock prison study, termi- nated the experiment after only six days. The study was originally planned for a two-week period, but he decided that the roles had be- come real. “In guard roles, college students who had been pacifists and ‘nice guys’ behaved aggressively—sometimes even sadistically. . . .

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 150 26/10/11 12:25 AM

GRoup Roles 151 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 151 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

As prisoners, psychologically stable students soon behaved pathologically, passively resigning themselves to their unexpected fate” (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002, p. 537). Zimbardo had taken 21 healthy, well-adjusted male students who exhib- ited no signs of emotional instability or aberrant behavior when given extensive personality tests and clinical interviews prior to the experiment, and he had transformed them into pathological guards and compliant prisoners. The guard and prisoner roles were randomly assigned by the flip of a coin, so pathological behavior cannot be explained by looking for character flaws in the men acting as guards. Clearly, the young men in this controversial field study became the prod- uct of their designated roles. As one guard in the prison study explained afterward, “Once you put a uniform on, and are given a role . . . then you’re certainly not the same person if you’re in street clothes and in a different role. You really become that person once you put on the khaki uniform, you put on the glasses, you take the nightstick, and you act the part” (quoted in Zimbardo, 2007, p. 213).

The parallels of the Stanford study to the shocking abuse by American soldiers of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in 2004 are stunning (Zimbardo, 2007). In both the real and the experimental prison, guards stripped prisoners naked, forced them to wear bags over their heads, chained prisoners to- gether, and finally forced prisoners to endure sadistic sexual degradation and humiliation. Guards said to a group of prisoners, “Now you two, you’re male camels. Stand behind the fe- male camels and hump them.” This was just one of the many examples of abuse heaped upon prisoners, not by guards at Abu Ghraib, but by college students playing the role of guards in the Stanford prison study. In both the Stanford “prison” and Abu Ghraib, the guards were or- dinary individuals placed in extraordinarily bad situations, and they acted brutally.

As Zimbardo (2007) notes, although students are unlikely ever to play the roles of prisoner or guard in real life, this study is analogous to more commonplace role status differences. Whenever the power accorded certain roles establishes unequal power distribution, the potential for abuse is real. Teacher–student, doctor–patient, supervisor–employee, and parent–child rela- tionships are just a few examples of role status differences that can potentially lead to verbal, even physical, mistreatment.

The Stanford prison study and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showed chillingly similar results.

Ph ili

p G

Z im

ba rd

o, In

c. A

P Ph

ot o

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 151 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 152 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 152 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Questions for Thought 1. Considering the effects this experiment had upon its subjects, do you have any ethical concerns about con-

ducting similar studies?

2. Would you have preferred to be a prisoner or a guard? Why? 3. How do you think you would have acted in the guard role and in the prisoner role? How confident are you

that you would not act as most prisoners and guards did in the experiment? On what is this based?

dramatize how different it is for CEOs of companies to experience the day-to-day tri-

als of ordinary workers. The boss, unbeknownst to employees, becomes an ordinary

worker at his or her own company. The insight gained from reversing roles from

CEO to worker is often profound.

A study on the impact of role status—the relative importance, prestige, or power accorded a particular role—showed the power of role reversal (Geis et al.,

1984). When viewers saw television commercials depicting a man in a high-status,

important person role (his wishes, needs, and preferences were the central con-

cern of the commercial) and a woman in the relatively low-status, helpmate role

(her wishes, needs, and preferences were never addressed or acknowledged), they

described the man as a “rational, independent, dominant, ambitious leader.” The

woman, by contrast, was described as an “emotional, dependent, submissive, con-

tented follower.” A markedly different result from these stereotypic depictions of

male–female interactions occurred when the roles were exactly reversed. When

the woman in the commercial performed the high-status role and the man acted

out the low-status role, viewers described the woman as a “rational, independent,

dominant, ambitious leader” and the man as an “emotional, dependent, submis-

sive, contented follower.”

As a student, I complained on more than one occasion about the quality of in-

struction I was receiving from my college professors. When I became a college pro-

fessor myself, however, similar complaints from students seemed unjustified, and

I initially made excuses for some ineffectual teaching practices. As a teacher, I began

to appreciate on a more personal basis the many challenges instructors face when

attempting to motivate student interest in class. Reversing roles can promote a real

appreciation for the constraints of roles on your behavior (e.g., you’re required to

grade students even if you dislike the practice because of its potential for triggering

defensiveness). Role reversal can also promote changes in behavior, as it thankfully

did early on in my teaching career.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 152 26/10/11 12:25 AM

GRoup Roles 153 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 153 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Role Conflict: Torn between Two Roles The effects of roles can be seen in an- other way. When we find ourselves playing roles in different groups that contradict

each other, we experience role conflict. Usually we are forced to make a choice be-

tween the two. Students who have children are often faced with conflict between

their student role and their parent role. Do you take the final exam or do you stay

home with your sick child? Women with careers and families are increasingly con-

cerned with this perceived role conflict. When a woman is in an important business

meeting in which colleagues depend on her input and she receives a phone call from

her child’s school, what does she do? Let me note that the same role conflict could

also exist for a man, but women are still typically cast as the primary caregiver except

in single-parent situations. The perception that family demands will intrude upon

a woman’s work world more than on a man’s can impede women’s advancement in

organizations (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Haslett et al., 1992).

An extensive review of 42 studies on role conflict showed significant effects

(Fisher & Gitelson, 1983). When individuals felt role conflict within organizations

(family role versus professional role), they exhibited an increased tendency to leave

an organization. They also showed decreases in commitment to the organization,

involvement in the job, satisfaction with the job, and participation in decision mak-

ing (see also Naus et al., 2007). Role conflict in organizations, with all its negative

consequences, is usually chronic not temporary (Perrewe et al., 2004).

Some roles have a greater impact on us than others. The role that has the greatest importance and most potent effect on us is usually the one we choose when we have to decide between conflicting roles. The expectations associated with group roles and the perception of the value, prestige, influence, status, or stigma attached

to each role by both the group and the individual can strongly affect us.

▶ Types of Roles: Formal and Informal It is not possible to enumerate here all the roles a person can play in groups. In the

broadest sense, roles are categorized as formal and informal. A formal role is a posi- tion assigned by an organization or specifically designated by the group leader. Titles

such as president, chair, and secretary usually accompany formal roles. Especially

within larger organizations, a set of expected behaviors to fulfill the role is explicitly

spelled out. A job description used to hire an individual to fill a specific position is an

example. Formal roles exist within the structure of the group, team, or organization.

They are designated; they do not emerge naturally from communication transac-

tions. Formal roles are often independent from any person filling the role.

In smaller groups, the roles are mostly informal. An informal role emerges from the group transactions, and it emphasizes functions, not positions (see Box 5.1).

A group member may fulfill leadership functions, that is, perform as a leader, with-

out any formal designation. Actual duties and specific behaviors expected from a

group member playing an informal role are implicitly defined by communication

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 153 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 154 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 154 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Box 5.1

Playing by the Roles: A Self-Assessment

Fill out the self-assessment on roles for any impor- tant group that you choose: family, study group, project group, and so on. This should reveal which roles you play most often in your group. Optional Alternative: After answering this questionnaire, ask fellow class or team members to complete this same assessment about you, but only if you feel comfortable making such a request. If team mem- bers are hesitant, encourage them to complete the assessment without identifying themselves in the questionnaire (ideally, all team members should complete the assessment to preserve anonymity). Compare the results.

1. My degree of participation in group activi- ties was

LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5

2. How task-oriented (showed interest in meeting group goals) were you?

LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5

3. How socially oriented (concerned about the relationships among group members) were you?

LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5

4. How much influence did you have on the group’s decisions?

LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5

Using the same 1–5 scale, indicate the degree to which you played the following roles (see Table 5.1) by writing the appropriate number:

TASK ____ Information giver ____ Information ____ Initiator-contributor seeker ____ Clarifier-elaborator ____ Coordinator ____ Energizer ____ Facilitator ____ Devil’s advocate ____ Opinion ____ Secretary-recorder seeker

MAINTENANCE ____ Supporter-encourager ____ Gatekeeper ____ Feeling expresser ____ Harmonizer–tension reliever

DISRUPTIVE ____ Stagehog ____ Isolate ____ Fighter-controller ____ Blocker ____ Zealot ____ Clown ____ Cynic

transactions among members. The group does not tell an individual explicitly how

to be a good leader, but members do indicate degrees of approval or disapproval

when an individual assumes the role. Informal role playing is improvisational, not

scripted.

Informal roles are typically classified into three types: task, maintenance, and self-

centered (Benne & Sheats, 1948; Mudrack & Farrell, 1995). Task roles move the group toward the attainment of its goals. The central communicative function of

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 154 26/10/11 12:25 AM

GRoup Roles 155 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 155 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

task roles is to extract the maximum productivity from the group. Maintenance roles focus on the social dimension of the group. The central communicative func- tion of maintenance roles is to gain and maintain the cohesiveness of the group. Self-centered or disruptive roles serve individual needs or goals (Me-oriented) while impeding attainment of group goals. Individuals who play these roles often war-

rant the tag “difficult group member.” The central communicative function of self- centered, disruptive roles is to focus attention on the individual. This focus on the individual can diminish group productivity and cohesiveness. Competent commu-

nicators avoid these roles (see Chapter 2 for ways to deal effectively with disruptive,

difficult group members). Table 5.1 provides samples of task, maintenance, and dis-

ruptive roles with corresponding communication behaviors.

Playing roles is a fluid process. During a single committee meeting, an individual may play several roles. A group member may even adopt a disruptive role following

an unsuccessful attempt to play a maintenance role such as tension reliever or en-

courager. Individuals in a system are so interconnected that what one group member

does can influence significantly the roles other group members play.

▶ Role Emergence: Springing to Life In large groups and organizations, roles are largely determined by their formal struc-

ture. Even within this formal structure, however, role emergence occurs. Functional

roles operate in smaller group meetings within the organization or in factional sub-

units of large groups.

Role emergence, however, is a relevant concern primarily to small, informal, lead-

erless groups without a history. These groups could be ad hoc project groups set up

within formal organizations (e.g., self-managed work teams), classroom discussion

groups formed for the purpose of completing a class project, or a jury in a crimi-

nal trial. The roles each member will play have not been designated in advance but

emerge from the transactions conducted among group members. How roles emerge

in zero-history groups has been studied extensively at the University of Minnesota

(Bormann, 1990).

Group Endorsement: Accepting a Bid Individuals initially make a bid to play a role. They may bid for a role because they have special skills that suit the role, or

they may succumb to gender role stereotyping. Group endorsement of the bid to play a specific role must occur before a person gets to play that role. In a competitive

culture, high-status roles are generally perceived to be those that are task oriented.

Accomplishing tasks brings victories, tangible accomplishments, and recognition.

The roles of facilitator, initiator-contributor, information giver, and devil’s advocate

are high-status roles because individuals are perceived as doers—they accomplish

important tasks for the group’s success.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 155 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 156 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 156 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Table 5.1 Sample of Informal Roles in Groups

Task Roles 1. Initiator-Contributor: Offers lots of ideas and suggestions; proposes solutions and new directions. 2. Information Seeker: Requests clarification; solicits evidence; asks for suggestions and ideas from

others. 3. Opinion Seeker: Requests viewpoints from others; looks for agreement and disagreement. 4. Information Giver: Acts as a resource person for group; provides relevant and significant informa-

tion based on research, expertise, or personal experience. 5. Clarifier-Elaborator: Explains, expands, extends the ideas of others; provides examples and

alternatives. 6. Coordinator: Draws together ideas of others; shows relationships between facts and ideas; pro-

motes teamwork and cooperation. 7. Secretary-Recorder: Serves group memory function; takes minutes of meetings; keeps group’s

records and history. 8. Facilitator: Keeps group on track; guides discussion; reminds group of goal; regulates group activities. 9. Devil’s Advocate: Gently challenges prevailing point of view for the sake of argument to test and

critically evaluate the strength of ideas, solutions, or decisions.

Maintenance Roles 1. Supporter-Encourager: Bolsters the spirits and goodwill of the group; provides warmth, praise, and

acceptance of others; includes reticent members in discussion. 2. Harmonizer–Tension Reliever: Maintains the peace; reduces tension through humor and by recon-

ciling differences between members. 3. Gatekeeper-Expediter: Controls channels of communication and flow of information; encourages

evenness of participation; promotes open discussion. 4. Feeling Expresser: Monitors feelings and moods of the group; suggests discussion breaks when

mood turns ugly or when energy levels flag.

Self-Centered or Disruptive Roles 1. Stagehog: Seeks recognition and attention by monopolizing conversation; prevents others from

expressing their opinions fully; wants the spotlight. 2. Isolate: Deserts the group; withdraws from participation; acts indifferent, aloof, uninvolved; resists

efforts to be included in group decision making. 3. Clown: Engages in horseplay; thrives on practical jokes and comic routines; diverts members’ at-

tention away from serious discussion of ideas and issues; steps beyond the boundaries of mere tension reliever.

4. Blocker: Thwarts progress of group; does not cooperate; opposes much of what group attempts to accomplish; incessantly reintroduces dead issues; makes negative remarks to members.

5. Fighter-Controller: Tries to dominate group; competes with members; abuses those who disagree; picks quarrels with members; interrupts to interject own opinions into discussion.

6. Zealot: Tries to convert members to a pet cause or idea; delivers sermons to group on state of the world; exhibits fanaticism.

7. Cynic: Displays sour outlook; engages in faultfinding; focuses on negatives; predicts failure.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 156 26/10/11 12:25 AM

GRoup Roles 157 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 157 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Despite their critical importance to group success, maintenance roles are often viewed as lower status in a competitive culture such as the United States. Those who play maintenance roles are viewed as the helpers, not the doers. Helpers typi-

cally receive less status than doers in our society (e.g., surgeons are viewed as the

doers and nurses are seen as the surgeon’s helpers). Women have been socialized to

play primarily the lower-status maintenance roles. As Wood (2007) notes, “Women

remain disproportionately represented in service and clerical jobs, whereas men are

moved into executive positions in for-profit sectors of the economy. Women are

still asked to take care of social activities on the job, but men in equivalent posi-

tions are seldom expected to do this” (p. 54). Thus, group roles such as supporter-

encourager, harmonizer–tension reliever, feeling expresser, and secretary-recorder

(a task role that is lower status and helping in nature) are roles traditionally played

more by women than men. When women are underrepresented in groups, it is par-

ticularly difficult to break through the stereotyping and receive the endorsement of

the group to play nonstereotypic, higher-status roles or to enhance the perceived

status of maintenance roles.

The endorsement process proceeds by trial and error. A group member tries out a role, perhaps initiator-contributor, for example. If the group does not reinforce

the effort (members ignore the contributions), then the member will try another

role, hoping to get an endorsement. An individual who persists in an effort to play

a specific role in the face of group resistance may be characterized as inflexible and

uncooperative.

Role Specialization: Settling into One’s Role Once a role for a member has been endorsed by the group, role specialization—when an individual member settles into his or her primary role— occurs. If the group wants you to be an infor-

mation giver, then that will be your principal function. This specialization doesn’t

preclude you from assuming other roles, however. Role specialization does not grant

a monopoly to a single member. There may be more than one harmonizer in the

group, although there is likely to be only one member with the primary responsibil-

ity. Too much effort to operate in what is perceived to be another member’s primary

role territory can invite negative feedback from the group.

▶ Role Fixation: Stuck Playing One Part Professional comedians sometimes don’t know when to be serious in social gather-

ings. They are always “on.” Lawyers who cross-examine their spouses as they do

hostile witnesses on the stand at a criminal trial may find their role fixation is a ticket

to a court of a decidedly civil sort. Competent communication requires the ability

and the willingness to adapt communication behavior to changing situations. Some

individuals, however, get locked into the mindset that they must play a certain role

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 157 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 158 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 158 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

and there are no good substitutes. Leader, information giver, feeling expresser, and

tension reliever are among the most likely candidates for role fixation—the acting out of a specific role and that role alone no matter what the situation might require

(Postman, 1976).

Role fixation in decision-making groups can occur when an individual moves from one group to another, or it can happen within a single group. If you were a gatekeeper in your last group, you may insist on performing the same role in your

new group. There may be another member, however, who can play the role better. If

you insist on competing for the role instead of adapting to the new group by assum-

ing another role, you will be a source of conflict and disruption. If the other member

is truly better in the role than you are, then the resources of the group will not be

utilized to their fullest if you continue to fight for the role.

Sometimes the group insists on role fixation to its own detriment. The reluc- tance of men to accept women in high-status roles, for instance, can lead to role

fixation against a woman’s wishes. Expecting women to play feeling expresser in all

or most groups erects overly restrictive boundaries within the system and uses group

resources inefficiently. Women should have the opportunity to play roles that re-

quire more than nurturing (e.g., supporter-encourager) or low involvement (e.g.,

secretary-recorder).

You can demonstrate appropriate and effective communication in terms of group

roles as follows:

1. Demonstrate flexibility. Playing a variety of maintenance and task roles adapts to the needs of the group. Fighting for roles perceived to be more prestigious and desirable may leave vital group needs unattended.

2. Avoid disruptive roles. Show commitment to group effectiveness, not self- centeredness at the expense of group success.

3. Be experimental. Try different roles in different groups. Don’t get locked into play- ing the same role in all groups. You’ll become role fixated.

Leadership

Scholars, philosophers, social scientists, even novelists have exhibited an intense

interest in leadership. “Authors have offered up over nine thousand different sys-

tems, languages, principles, and paradigms to help explain the mysteries of manage-

ment and leadership” (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 53). Conduct a Google

search of articles, books, and viewpoints on leadership and you’ll get millions of

hits. Business executives and management consultants regularly author books on

leadership, mostly consisting of anecdotes that purport to prove allegedly sage advice

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 158 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 159 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 159 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

garnered from years of corporate experience or management training. Matthew

Stewart (2009), a former management consultant turned disapproving critic, com-

ments: “Upon putting the gurus’ books down, however, I find that I get the same

feeling I get after reaching the bottom of a supersized bag of tortilla chips. They taste

great while they last, but in the end, what am I left with?” (p. 8). He later answers:

“platitudes,” “bundles of nonfalsifiable truisms,” and “transparently unsubstantiated

pseudotheories.”

Echoing Stewart’s criticism, what I see most of these business executives and man-

agement consultants too frequently offering is ego gratification for the authors who

endlessly tout their self-proclaimed mastery of leadership based on experience only

as CEOs, and sometimes not even that. Untroubled by the lack of social scientific

research to support this supposed mastery of leadership, they provide advice that

may have worked for them but doesn’t readily translate to others who must adapt to

markedly different situations and circumstances than a corporate CEO might face

(Vroom & Jago, 2007). Stewart argues that they “write with complete indifference

to or even against the academics” (p. 249). I present this assessment because careful,

insightful academic research on leadership effectiveness too often is ignored while

these flashy, quick-fix books are lionized by the press and the popular culture. With

few exceptions (some referenced later in this chapter), they have minimal merit.

Fortunately, you don’t have to depend on the self-promotional and self-

congratulatory peppy platitudes of these personal testimonials on leadership. One

communication scholar estimated more than a decade ago that nearly 8,000 research

studies had been published on group leadership (Pavitt, 1999), and hundreds more

have been produced since this estimate was offered (Vroom & Jago, 2007). One

highly acclaimed reference book on leadership takes more than 1,500 pages to review

the vast research and theory on leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008).

This reservoir of research serves as the foundation for my discussion of leadership

effectiveness in groups. In far fewer than 1,500 pages, much to your relief I’m sure,

I define leadership, discuss how to gain and retain leadership, and explore several

perspectives on what constitutes effective group leadership that have evolved one

from the other.

Focus Questions

1. How is the process for retaining the leader role different from the process for emerging as group leader?

2. Are women and ethnic minorities equally capable as white males at leader- ship? Does your experience parallel the research results on this question?

3. After considering all the perspectives on leadership, what is the central overriding point that can be made about leadership in small groups? What questions about leadership effectiveness still remain unanswered?

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 159 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 160 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 160 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Definition of Leadership: An Evolving Consensus As far back as 1949, there were at least 130 different definitions of leader and leader-

ship (Bass, 1960). Despite the numerous definitions, there is an evolving consensus

on what leadership is and is not.

Leadership and Influence: A Two-Way Process There seems to be agreement that leadership is a social influence process (Hackman & Johnson, 2004; Northouse, 2007; Vroom & Jago, 2007). This influence can come from status, authority, per-

sonality, interpersonal and group communication skills, and a host of other factors.

“Credibility is the foundation for successful influence . . .” (Hackman & Johnson,

2004, p. 154). The ancient Greeks called it ethos, defined by Aristotle as good will,

good character, and good sense. More recently, communication scholars have de-

fined credibility as a composite of competence (knowledge, skills), trustworthiness (honesty, consistency, character), and dynamism (confidence, assertiveness). “We

want to believe in our leaders. We want to have faith and confidence in them as peo-

ple. We want to believe that their word can be trusted, that they have the knowledge

and skill to lead” (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 22).

The social influence, however, occurs with the consent of the governed (Bennis,

2007). Leaders influence followers, but followers also influence leaders by making

demands on them, requiring them to meet members’ expectations, and evaluating

their performance in light of these expectations (Avolio, 2007; Nye, 2002).

Leadership and Followership: It Takes Two to Tango The leader and follower roles either exist together or they exist not at all. A leader must have someone to lead and followers must have someone to follow. Behavior labeled as leadership in the ab-

sence of followers “is no more leadership than the behavior of small boys marching

in front of a parade, who continue to strut along Main Street after the procession has

turned down a side street toward the fairgrounds” (Burns, 1978, p. 427). “The only

person who practices leadership alone in a room is the psychotic” (Bennis, 2007, p. 3).

Negative connotations have been associated with the term follower, such as pas-

sive, pliable, sheeplike, even unintelligent. Henry Ford, who pioneered the mass-

production assembly line, articulated an apparent contempt for his workers who he

expected to follow directions from their supervisors without thinking: “The average

worker,” Ford asserted, “wants a job . . . in which he does not have to think.” Ford fur-

ther claimed that, of the 7,882 operations necessary to construct a model-T automo-

bile, 2,637 could be completed by “one-legged men,” 670 by “legless men,” 715 by

“one-armed men,” 2 by “armless men,” and 10 by “blind men.” Continuing in this

vein of supposedly amusing contempt for the worker/follower, he asked, “Why is it

that when I ask for a pair of hands, a brain comes attached?” (Ford, 2003). This vision

of followers parking their brains at the door and mindlessly moving in whatever di-

rection leaders coercively tell them to go has been relegated to the trashcan of archaic

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 160 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 161 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 161 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

thinking. Modern researchers and scholars see leadership as a partnership. Lead- ers and followers are like ballroom dancers. One leads and the other follows, but they

influence each other, and they must work in tandem to be effective. “Leadership, in

short, is very much a ‘we thing’” (Haslam et al., 2011, p. xxi).

Thus, “Leadership is a process and not a person” (Hollander, 1985, p. 487; see also

Vroom & Jago, 2007). When you look at leadership from this angle, there can be no

doubt that focusing only on leaders without analyzing the complex social transac-

tions that take place between leaders and followers misses the mark. For example,

one study investigated whether angry leaders (chef Gordon Ramsay on Hell’s Kitchen,

for example) motivate followers better than leaders who are generally positive (such

as Barack Obama). The answer depends on levels of agreeableness among followers.

Agreeableness is a tendency to be pleasant and accommodating with others. Groups

comprised of members with higher average levels of agreeableness performed more

effectively when their leader expressed support and was positive, whereas groups

comprised of members low on agreeableness performed more effectively when their

leader expressed anger, even though they may have disliked the emotional outbursts

(Van Kleef et al., 2010). There is no one-size-fits-all leader–follower relationship.

Some followers can easily handle a leader’s anger and be motivated to improve per-

sonal performance, although disrespectful expressions of anger (such as screaming

“You moron”) are generally a questionable practice. Other followers may fall apart

and become demoralized by leader anger.

Although some authors and scholars offer special advice on how to be a good fol-

lower, that seems unnecessary and redundant. There are no special guidelines for be- ing an effective follower that diverge from what makes an effective team member (see Chapter 6) and a competent communicator in small groups. Leaders and fol- lowers are interconnected parts of a system, not separate entities (Balkundi et al., 2009).

Leader versus Manager: Interpersonal versus Positional Influence There are two primary differences between a leader and a manager (Hackman & Johnson,

2004; Rost, 1991). First, a leader does not ordinarily operate from positional authority; a manager does. Anyone in a group can exhibit leadership even without being designated the leader. Only a manager is permitted to manage. Thus, managers

are formally assigned the position of authority. A leader exercises interpersonal in-

fluence (leader–follower relationship), but a manager exercises positional influence

(supervisor–subordinate relationship). “Persons who can require others to do their

bidding because of power are not leaders” (Hogan et al., 1994). This means that as

a student you won’t exercise managerial authority, but you can become a leader on

your project team, during discussion sessions, or in study groups through your com-

munication with group members.

Second, leaders work to change the status quo; managers typically maintain it. Managers implement “the vision and strategy provided by leaders” (House & Aditya,

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 161 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 162 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 162 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

1997, p. 445). They do this by working with budgets, by organizing tasks, and by car-

rying out policies and plans devised by leaders. Managers enforce rules when they

are broken, but they don’t create the rules (Bryant & Higgins, 2010; Powell & Graves,

2006). Their primary goal is efficiency, not transformation. “There are many institu-

tions that are very well managed and very poorly led. They may excel in the ability to

handle all the routine inputs every day, yet they may never ask whether the routine

should be preserved at all” (Bennis, 1976, p. 154).

Leadership implies change because influence inherently means change—a change in attitude, belief, or behavior (Haslam et al., 2011). “People expect leaders to bring change about, to get things done, to make things happen, to inspire, to mo-

tivate” (Husband, 1992, p. 494). Some have called this transformational leadership, and they have distinguished it from transactional leadership (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978).

Transactional leadership is described in terms that are similar to what I’ve described as management, not leadership. I agree with Rost (1991) and his postindustrial model

of leadership, when he claims, “Leadership, properly defined, is about transformation, all

kinds of transformations” (p. 126). Change, small and large, brought about through the

leadership process is inherently transforming. Influencing group members through

persuasion (not coercion) transforms them from what they were to what they become.

All leadership, therefore, is transformational to a greater or lesser degree. This doesn’t mean that every leader must have charisma—loosely defined as

exhibiting a constellation of personal attributes that group members find highly at-

tractive and strongly influential. Leaders perceived to be highly transformational,

however, are sometimes referred to as charismatic leaders (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Hackman and Johnson (2004) label them the “superstars of leadership” (Gandhi,

Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or Pope John Paul II, for example). Charismatic

leaders are visionary, decisive, inspirational, and self-sacrificing (House & Javidan,

2004). They have a significant impact on group members’ lives and they provoke

fierce loyalty, commitment, and devotion from followers. A strong identification

with the leader develops, and the followers’ goals, self-esteem, and values become en-

tangled with the charismatic leader–follower relationship (Fiedler & House, 1988).

Bennis and Nanus (1985), however, studied 90 top American leaders and concluded

that hardly any were charismatic. In fact, “charisma is (probably) the result of effec-

tive leadership, not the other way around” (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).

These distinctions do not exclude managers from being leaders, any more than being a leader excludes you from being a manager (Dubrin, 2010). One person can be both (House & Aditya, 1997). Some even argue that being both a strong leader

and a manager is the ideal (Kotter, 1990). The point is not to denigrate managers in

order to exalt leaders. The two can overlap, and often do. Leaders who inspire and

motivate followers to strive for wholly unreachable goals, who can’t organize a plan

of action, or who quickly lose focus on one challenge when a new challenge emerges

will have very limited effectiveness because they lack management skills. Conversely,

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 162 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 163 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 163 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

a manager may be interested in more than merely maintaining the status quo. When

a manager seeks positive change, motivates and inspires followers, and creates direc-

tion for the group, however, he or she is acting as a leader, not a manager.

Leadership and Communication: Duct-Taped Together Leadership is fundamentally a communication process exercised within the group (Barge & Hirokawa, 1989). “Extraordinary leadership is the product of extraordinary com-

munication” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p. 98). Competent communication is a

necessary precondition for a high-quality leader–follower relationship to develop

(Flauto, 1999). Those leaders rated as the most skillful communicators are deemed

the most effective leaders (Riggio et al., 2003). The leader sets the emotional tone for

the group. When discussing emotional intelligence, Daniel Goleman (1998) notes:

“Interpersonal ineptitude in leaders lowers everyone’s performance: It wastes time,

creates acrimony, corrodes motivation and commitment, builds hostility and apa-

thy” (p. 32). Leaders who fail typically do so because they exhibit insensitivity toward

group members, are brutally critical, and are too demanding (Goleman, 1998). In

other words, they do not respect their followers.

Showing respect for followers is a critical communication imperative for lead- ers (van Quaquebeke & Eckloff, 2010) and a key element of ethical communication (see Chapter 1). Leaders exhibit respect by recognizing and appreciating the impor-

tance and worth of others. You compliment good work, and when mistakes occur

you engage in constructive dialogue to correct the error instead of criticizing and

deflating the individual. You act politely toward group members. You show a genuine

interest in others’ opinions, and you don’t blame others for your own mistakes. In

short, you exercise supportive communication not defensive communication pat-

terns (see Chapter 4). Because of the interconnectedness of leaders and followers, the

more followers “feel respected by their leaders, the more they will ‘return the favor’

by being open to their leader’s influence” (van Quaquebeke & Eckloff, 2010, p. 352).

Unfortunately, respect from leaders is highly desired by followers but too rarely experienced (van Quaquebeke & Eckloff, 2010).

Consider the president of a large organization whose open contempt and dis-

respect for his employees was reflected in his oft-stated motto: “Bring ’em in and

burn ’em out.” He seemed to enjoy bullying and abusing his workers. A junior staff

member, for instance, announced that it was her birthday and offered pieces of cake

to fellow workers, including the president. The president’s response was to complain

loudly to a nearby manager, “Can’t you get your staff to work?” Then, to the junior

staffer, he looked at her derisively and said, “And you sure don’t need the calories in

that cake” (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 194).

Emotional outbursts, or what Birgitta Wistrand, CEO of a Swedish company, calls

“emotional incontinence,” also create a ripple effect that spreads fear, mistrust, and

anger in all directions. This is not a climate conducive to effective leadership and group

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 163 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 164 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 164 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

performance. As the old maxim goes, “A fish rots from the head down.” Ineffective

leaders are ineffective communicators. Effective leaders create a supportive, coopera-

tive group environment through their communication with others (Goleman, 1998).

Leadership, then, is a leader–follower influence process, directed toward positive change that reflects mutual purposes of group members and is largely accomplished

through competent communication (Hackman & Johnson, 2004; Rost, 1991). Con-

ceptualizing what constitutes leadership, however, is a far cry from knowing how to

exercise leadership in a group. How leaders emerge and the ways to retain leadership

in groups are discussed next.

▶ Gaining and Retaining Leadership: Getting There Is Just the Start

Some zero-history groups never do settle on who will lead and who will follow. In

a study of 16 such groups that worked for as long as 12 weeks, almost a third of the

groups never had a leader emerge (Geier, 1967). These leaderless groups were uni-

formly unsuccessful at their tasks and were also socially unsuccessful. Strife predomi-

nated. Time was wasted and members became frustrated. Cohesiveness suffered and

members began skipping meetings rather than suffer more disharmony. In contrast,

groups that have leaders emerge and that develop stable roles for their members are

usually successful (De Souza & Kline, 1995). The emergence of leaders, therefore, is

a significant event in the life of a group.

How Not to Become a Leader: Thou Shalt Not Why do people want to be leaders? There are numerous reasons, but the most obvious ones are status that

comes from running the show, respect from group members for doing a good job of

guiding the group, and power accorded leaders that allows them to influence others

and produce change.

It is often easier to determine what you shouldn’t do more than what you should

do if you wish to become a leader. We know that corruption or sex scandals, for

instance, can send the media into a feeding frenzy and can torpedo a promising po-

litical career, but the absence of such scandals won’t capture any headlines. Having a

spotless character may just brand you as dull in some people’s minds. Lack of nega-

tives does not necessarily equal leadership potential.

There are important negatives to avoid, however, if you hope to have a chance

to become group leader. The competent communicator who wishes to emerge as

group leader should heed the following dictums (Bormann, 1990; Fisher & Ellis,

1990; Geier, 1967):

1. Thou shalt not show up late for or miss important meetings. Groups choose indi- viduals who are committed, not members who exhibit insensitivity to the group. As an anonymous wit once observed, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder—of someone else.”

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 164 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 165 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 165 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

2. Thou shalt not be uninformed about a problem commanding the group’s attention. Knowledgeable members have a greater chance of emerging as leaders. The clue-

less need not apply.

3. Thou shalt not manifest apathy and lack of interest by sluggish participation in group dis- cussions. Group members are not impressed by “vigor mortis.” Indifference provokes

defensiveness. Participation is a sign of commitment to the group, and commitment

to the group and its goals is part of the leadership process (De Souza & Kline, 1995).

4. Thou shalt not attempt to dominate conversation during discussion. Leadership is not “loudership” (Kluger, 2009). Loudmouths who won’t dial down the volume and the

intensity of their speech can be annoying. Learning when to shut up is a useful skill.

5. Thou shalt not listen poorly (Bechler & Johnson, 1995). Leadership is not a mono- logue; it’s a dialogue. As someone once said, a monologue is “the egotist’s version

of a scintillating conversation.” Dialogue means leaders and followers listen care-

fully to each other.

6. Thou shalt not be rigid and inflexible when expressing viewpoints. A hardened posi- tion is plaque on the cortex. It decays the mind and contracts the brain.

7. Thou shalt not bully group members. Browbeating members to do your bidding will gain few admirers. There may be no way to avoid issuing orders in some

situations (e.g., in the military), but watch out for psychological reactance (see

Chapter 4). Bullies get banished to the playground.

8. Thou shalt not use offensive and abusive language. Blue language produces red faces. This will surely alienate many, if not most, group members, except in rare instances such as locker room talk within some sports teams.

Some of these counterproductive communication patterns are more likely than

others to prevent an individual from becoming a group leader (Geier, 1967). The

three most relevant, in order of importance, are: being uninformed, not participat-

ing, and being rigid and inflexible.

General Pattern of Leader Emergence: Process of Elimination The exten- sive research conducted at the University of Minnesota under the direction of Ernest

Bormann (1990) discovered a pattern of leader emergence in small zero-history groups.

In general, a group selects a leader by a process of elimination in which potential candi-

dates are systematically removed from consideration until only one person remains to

be leader. We may be quite clear on what we don’t want in a leader but not as sure about

what we do want. This narrowing of the candidate field makes good sense. As we elimi-

nate candidates, complexity is reduced. The breadth of possibilities is narrowed, while

the depth of understanding of each candidate’s qualifications for the role is increased.

There are two phases to the process-of-elimination explanation of leader emer-

gence. During the first phase, roughly half of the members are eliminated from

consideration. The criteria for elimination are crude and impressionistic. Negative

communication patterns—the “thou shalt nots”—weigh heavily. Quiet mem- bers are among the first eliminated. Nonparticipation will leave the impression of

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 165 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 166 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 166 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

indifference and noncommitment. There was not a single instance in the Minnesota

studies of a quiet member who became a leader.

Conversely, talkativeness also influences the leadership emergence process. Those who talk the most are perceived initially as potential leader material (Jones & Kelly, 2007; Riggio et al., 2003). The group will quickly eliminate a group member

from consideration, however, if he or she blathers or makes pronouncements on

subjects without making a great deal of sense. Such individuals are reminiscent of

William Gibbs McAddo’s characterization of President Warren G. Harding as “an

army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea.” Windbags

gain no favor. Quality of discussion contributions plays an important part in de- termining who emerges as group leader (Jones & Kelly, 2007).

The members who express strong, unqualified assertions are also eliminated. These individuals are perceived to be too extreme and too inflexible in their points

of view to make effective leaders. The attitude of certitude will provoke defensiveness

from group members. The uninformed, unintelligent, or unskilled are next in line for elimination (Riggio et al., 2003). Groups look for task-competent individu- als who are committed to the group goals to emerge as leaders (De Souza & Klein,

1995). Inept members distract the group from goal attainment.

In the second phase, about half the group still actively contend for the leader role.

This part of the process can become quite competitive. Frustrations and irritations

can mount. Of these remaining contenders, those who are bossy or dictatorial and those whose communication style is irritating or disturbing to group mem- bers are eliminated.

So who emerges as leader if more than one member survives the elimination

rounds? There are several possibilities. First, if the group feels threatened by some

external or internal crisis (e.g., the inability to choose a topic for a symposium pre-

sentation, or if members with expertise fall sick or leave the group), the group often turns to the member who provides a solution to the crisis, and he or she becomes the leader. Second, those members perceived to be effective listeners can make a strong bid to be chosen leader (Johnson & Bechler, 1998). Effective listening estab- lishes connections with followers. Third, those individuals who exhibit high levels of emotional intelligence—“the ability to perceive, glean information from, and manage one’s own and others’ emotions”—emerge as group leaders more readily than those who don’t (Lopez-Zafra et al., 2008; see also Goleman, 1995). This affirms the importance of competent communication. Fourth, members who remain active

contenders for the leader role often acquire lieutenants. A lieutenant is an advocate for

one of the contenders. He or she boosts the chances of the contender becoming the

group leader. If only one of the members gains the support of a lieutenant, then this person will likely become the leader. If two members each gain a lieutenant, then the process of leader emergence can be drawn out or can even end in stalemate.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 166 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 167 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 167 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Recent research on leader emergence in virtual groups parallels these findings

of leader emergence in standard, face-to-face groups. Degree of participation was

considered to be an important consideration, as it is in standard group research.

The type and quality of the participation, however, mattered. Virtual group partici-

pants had a negative view of those positioning themselves to emerge as leaders when

they were perceived to be “dominant, opinionated, outspoken, uncompromising,

and pursuant of their own agenda.” Virtual group participants had a positive view

of those who were “inclusive, collaborative, concerned about others, good listeners,

and in search of consensus” (Shollen, 2010).

The general tendency in both standard and virtual groups is for members to accept as leader the person who provides the optimum blend of task efficiency and sensitivity to social considerations. This tendency, of course, does not trans- late into a tidy formula or precise recipe. Some groups prefer a leader who concen-

trates more on task accomplishment and less on the social dimension of the group.

Other groups prefer the opposite.

Ultimately, if you want to become the leader of a group you should take the

following steps (Bormann, 1990):

1. Manifest conformity to the group’s norms, values, and goals. 2. Display proper motivation to lead. 3. Avoid the “thou shalt nots” previously identified.

Deviants, dissenters, and disrupters will be eliminated early as potential leaders.

Women and ethnic minorities may also have greater difficulty emerging as leaders

(see Focus on Gender/Ethnicity: “Gender and Ethnic Bias in Leader Emergence”).

Groups prefer leaders who will assist them in the attainment of their goals, who will

defend the group vigorously against threats, and who will remain loyal to the group.

Since most group members think of a leader as the single individual who does most

of the work, anyone hoping to be leader must also demonstrate a willingness to work

hard for the group (Hollander, 1978).

Retaining the Leader Role: Hanging onto Power The process for retaining the leader role is not the same as the process for emerging as the group leader. An indi-

vidual could conform to group norms, display a strong motivation to lead the group,

and avoid the “thou shalt nots” and still not retain the role of leader, as many politi-

cal leaders have learned. A leader is sometimes deposed if his or her performance is

felt by members to be unsatisfactory. There are three primary qualifications for retaining leadership (Wood et al., 1986):

1. You must demonstrate your competence as leader. 2. You must accept accountability for your actions. 3. You must satisfy group members’ expectations.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 167 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 168 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 168 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON GENDER

Gender and Ethnic Bias in Leader Emergence

C ornelia Dean (2005) was the New York

Times science editor from 1997 to 2003.

At a dinner for the superstars of the sci-

entific community, a colleague introduced

Dean to one of America’s foremost neuro-

scientists without indicating her title. “Oh

yes,” the self-important scientist muttered

as he surveyed the room for someone more

noteworthy to converse with than this appar-

ent nobody. He then asked, “Who is the new

science editor of the New York Times, that

twerpy little girl in the short skirt?” Flab-

bergasted by this clueless inquiry, Dean re-

sponded, “That would be me” (p. F3).

Bias against women and ethnic minorities

is a significant issue in the leadership emer-

gence literature. The research on gender bias

is far more voluminous than it is on ethnic

bias (Northouse, 2007). Studies of gender bias

in the workplace, where emerging leaders live

their daily lives and engage in small group

communication, provide mixed results. The

issue of a glass ceiling, an invisible barrier of subtle discrimination that excludes women

from top jobs in corporate and professional

America, remains relevant. Only 12 women

were CEOs of the 500 largest companies in the

United States midway into 2011, and only two

women headed one of the 50 largest compa-

nies. An additional 14 women were CEOs of

the next 500 largest U.S. companies (“Women

CEOs,” 2011). That’s a total of 26 women and

974 men running our largest 1,000 corpora-

tions. A mere 15.7% of Fortune 500 corporate

board seats were occupied by women in 2010,

and only 14.4% of executive officers at these

same companies were women (“Women in

U.S. Management,” 2011). In politics, women

held only 17 (17%) of the 100 U.S. Senate seats

in 2011, 76 of the 435 House seats (17.4%),

1,811 (24.5%) of state legislative seats, 71

(22.5%) of statewide elective executive offices,

and 202 (17.5%) of all mayors of U.S. cities

exceeding 30,000 people. The United States

ranked 73rd in the world in 2010 regarding

women’s representation in national legisla-

tures or parliaments out of 186 direct election

countries (“Member FAQs,” 2011; “Women

in Government,” 2010; “Women in the Sen-

ate, 2011). These figures represent very slow

progress for women.

That’s the bad news. The encouraging news is that women are poised to make huge strides. Women are well positioned to advance in the information-based economy

driven by the microchip. The new economy is

based primarily on the knowledge and skills of

the workers instead of seniority, and women

are well positioned to take advantage of this

trend (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Rosin, 2010).

Consider the evidence of such a trend.

Women in 2010 held more than half (51.5%)

of all managerial and professional positions

in the United States (“Women in U.S. Man-

agement,” 2011). Women dominate 13 of the

15 job categories projected to grow the most

in the next decade (Rosin, 2010). More than

half of all accountants are women, and women

/ eThnIcITy

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 168 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 169 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 169 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

hold about half of all banking and insurance

jobs in the United States. Roughly a third of all

physicians and most pediatricians are women,

and 45% of associates in law firms are women

(Rosin, 2010). This trend is very likely to con-

tinue, even to grow more robust in the imme-

diate future because women are receiving more

education than men in preparation for the

developing job market. Women earn almost

60% of all bachelors degrees, 60% of master’s

degrees, about half of all law and medical de-

grees, and 42% of MBAs (masters of business

administration). They also earn more than half

of all doctoral degrees (Rosin, 2010).

Nevertheless, women still have difficulty

becoming leaders despite convincing evi-

dence that women and men are equally ca-

pable (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Some research

even shows that women in many respects

make better leaders than men (Eagly et al.,

2003; Eagly, 2007). One study of 58,000 indi-

viduals revealed that women outranked men

on 20 of 23 leadership skills. Another study of

2,482 executives revealed that women again

outranked men on 17 of 20 leadership skills

(Sharpe, 2000). Addressing the perceived is-

sue of deficiency in female leadership effec-

tiveness, Margaret Thatcher once remarked,

“I was always asked how it felt to be a woman

prime minister. I would reply: ‘I don’t know:

I’ve never experienced the alternative’”

(Thatcher, 1993, p. 18).

Despite research findings on the leader-

ship effectiveness of women, in a variety of

group settings, men are typically favored over

women when leaders are selected and evalu-

ated, even when no differences in actual lead-

ership behavior occur (Eagly & Karau, 2002;

Forsyth et al., 1997). Gender bias, although

diminished in recent years, remains a barrier

to the upward advancement of women into

positions as upper-level leaders (McEldowney

et al., 2009). Even when women do emerge as

leaders, they suffer penalties. When women

exercise leadership by being assertive, reac-

tions are often negative, but if they behave in

stereotypic ways by exhibiting a kind, gentle,

empathic approach, they are often seen as inef-

fectual and a poor leader (Eagly, 2007; Eagly &

Carli, 2007). Female leaders are scrutinized

more especially when they take positions that

are usually held by men (Brescoll et al., 2011).

Women are less liked and more personally

disparaged than equivalently successful men.

These penalties can negatively affect the ca-

reers of female leaders both in advancement

and in recommendations for pay increases

(Heilman et al., 2004).

This is a good news/bad news record, but,

overall, the outlook for women in leadership

positions is optimistic. The outlook for ethnic

minorities in leadership positions is less op-

timistic. In 2010, there was only one African

American woman who was a CEO of a For-

tune 500 company, and only four African

American men occupied such a lofty posi-

tion (Buchanan, 2010; Woertz, 2010). A mere

1% of senior corporate officers are African

American women, and only 3% are African

American men (Washington, 2009). The

percentage of African Americans on Fortune

500 boards of directors is less than 8% (“Black

Lost Ground,” 2009). The situation for His-

panic Americans is even worse, as Rob Kuznia

(2010) of Hispanic Business.com notes. For

example, only 2% of directors of Fortune 500

companies are Hispanic.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 169 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 170 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 170 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Asian Americans, despite their phenom-

enal success in technical and scientific fields,

also struggle to scale the upper echelons of

leadership in corporate America. A mere eight

Asians were CEOs of Fortune 500 companies

in 2010. Despite comprising more than one-

third of the workforce in many Silicon Valley,

California, technology companies, only

13 Asians were CEOs of the largest 100 Bay

Area companies in 2010, and six of these were

founders of the companies (Choo, 2010).

How do we combat gender and ethnic-

ity bias in emergent leadership in groups?

First, the twenty percent rule again comes into play. When women and minorities find

themselves flying solo in groups, the chance

that they’ll land in a leadership position is re-

mote. As the number of women and ethnic minorities increases in a group to as much as 20% of the membership, however, the likelihood that a woman or a minority will emerge as leader also increases because bias decreases (Shimanoff & Jenkins, 1996). When women and ethnic minorities are no

longer perceived as tokens, but instead form a

substantial portion of group membership and

increasingly occupy top leadership positions,

then competence will be judged less on gen-

der and ethnic bias and more on actual per-

formance (Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999).

Second, if group members are allowed to mingle, interact, and work on a project before determining a leader, the decision is more likely to be made on the basis of indi- vidual performance rather than gender (or ethnicity, if we extrapolate the research find-

ings). Small groups that met for 6 to 15 weeks

on a project were as likely to name a woman

as their leader as they were a man (Goktepe &

Schneier, 1989). Allowing women and minor-

ities to display their strengths increases their

chances of emerging as group leaders.

Third, engaging in task-relevant com- munication behavior is a key to emerging as leader of a small, task-oriented group (Hawkins, 1995). Task-relevant communi-

cation includes initiation and discussion of

analysis of the group problem, establishment

of decision criteria, generation of possible

solutions to problems, evaluation of possible

solutions, and establishment of group operat-

ing procedures. Task-oriented female group

members are as likely to emerge as leaders of

small task groups as are task-oriented male

group members (Hawkins, 1995). This find-

ing is bolstered by a 2006 Gallup poll (Car-

roll, 2006) showing that the rate at which

both males and females prefer or accept fe-

male bosses is quite high (males are actually

slightly more accepting than females— 66%

to 58%).

Fourth, if women and minorities are among the first to speak in the group and they speak fairly frequently, their chances of emerging as leaders increase (Shimanoff & Jenkins, 1996). Speaking early

and often without dominating discussion is

perceived as assertive. Speaking early is more

important for women and minorities than it

is for men.

Finally, women and ethnic minorities can advance their chances of becoming leaders in small groups by honing their communi- cation skills and abilities. Developing com- petence in communication by using skills

appropriately and effectively can go a long

way toward combating gender and ethnic

leadership bias (Hackman & Johnson, 2004).

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 170 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 171 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 171 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Questions for Thought 1. Should group members encourage women and minorities to speak early and often by inviting their

participation?

2. Do you feel that the glass ceiling will shatter soon, as the number of women and minorities in the middle ranks of leadership swells? What might prevent this from happening?

3. What responsibilities do white males have regarding the issue of leadership bias?

Retaining the role of leader can be a tricky business. Groups can be fickle. Carly

Fiorina was named CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) in 1999, one of only a handful

of women leading a Fortune 500 company. Expectations were high that Fiorina, a

charismatic and articulate leader in her previous positions, would reverse the gradual

downward slide the company had been experiencing. Her signature decision was the

controversial purchase of Compaq Computer in 2002. “Fiorina was a controversial

figure at HP, partly because of the abrasive manner in which the takeover of Compaq

was fought in 2001 and 2002” (Oates & Cullen, 2005). In February 2005, Fiorina was

forced to resign her position. She failed to meet expectations and to demonstrate

her leadership competence in a cutthroat business. Her vision clashed with that of

stockholders and employees, thousands of whom were forced out of HP in painful

cost-cutting measures. As a San Jose Mercury News editorial summed it up, “In the

corporate world, change must be a catalyst for results, and at HP, it wasn’t. And so

Fiorina was asked to leave” (“Out of ‘Internet Time,’” 2005, p. 6B). In 2010, Fiorina

tried to parlay her business experience into a political leadership position. She ran

for United States Senator in California, only to be overwhelmed by the incumbent

Barbara Boxer. Her competence as a business leader was a central issue and haunted

her campaign.

Group expectations of a leader may shift as circumstances alter. Members’ confi-

dence in and loyalty to their leader may be shaky. A leader must demonstrate com-

petence and satisfy group expectations on a continuing basis or member loyalty may

disappear quickly. Last year’s success may not compensate adequately for this year’s

failure, as Fiorina and many athletic coaches have learned.

▶ Perspectives on Effective Leadership: An Evolving View Scholarly perspectives on leadership effectiveness have changed greatly over the three-

quarters of a century since the first serious research was conducted. In this section,

the primary perspectives that have generated considerable interest are discussed.

I begin with the most basic perspective and show how each perspective evolves from

previous efforts to explain what constitutes effective leadership in groups.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 171 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 172 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 172 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

SECOND LOOK

Pattern of Leader Emergence General Pattern

(Process of Elimination)

Phase One

Quiet members eliminated

Members who express strong, unqualified assertions eliminated

Uninformed, unintelligent, and/or unskilled eliminated

Phase Two, part one

Bossy, dictatorial members eliminated

Members with irritating or disturbing communication style eliminated

Phase Two, part two

Member who provides solution in time of crisis considered

Member who exhibits effective listening skills considered

Member who exhibits emotional intelligence considered

Member who acquires a lieutenant considered

If more than one member acquires lieutenant—possible stalemate

How to Become a Leader

Manifest conformity to group norms, values, and goals

Display proper motivation to lead

Avoid the “thou shalt nots”

Modifying Factors of Leader Emergence

Gender bias

Ethnic bias

Traits Perspective: The Born Leader View This is the “leaders are born not made” perspective; sometimes referred to as the “heroic model” of leadership (Vroom & Jago,

2007). This perspective views leadership as a person, not a process. Thus, we hunt for

the “heroic” and exceptionally talented individuals to idolize as model specimens of

leadership. This journey has taken us to strange places. You can buy books on the

leadership secrets of Jesus, Colin Powell, Meg Whitman, Donald Trump, Attila the

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 172 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 173 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 173 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Hun, and Osama bin Laden. Clearly, mixing such vastly disparate individuals into the

leadership recipe suggests a perspective with substantial limitations.

Nevertheless, the earliest academic studies on leadership set out to discover a uni-

versal set of traits applicable to all those who become leaders. Traits are relatively enduring characteristics of an individual that highlight differences between people

and that are displayed in most situations. There are physical traits such as height,

weight, physique, beauty, and attractiveness. There are personality traits such as be-

ing outgoing, sociable, or introverted and shy. There are traits associated with inher-

ent capacities of an individual such as intelligence and quick-wittedness. There are

also traits associated with consistent behaviors such as confidence, trustworthiness,

and integrity. A huge number of traits were studied. We know, for instance, that

height, weight, and physical attractiveness have a bearing on social influence. Tall

individuals usually have greater influence with others than do shorter individuals.

In the last 29 U.S. presidential elections, the taller candidate won 24 of the elec-

tions. Very heavy or skinny people have less influence than more “ideal weight” types

(Hickson & Stacks, 1989). Good-looking individuals can influence a group.

So why don’t all tall, fit, and physically attractive individuals become leaders instead

of short, dumpy, plain-looking individuals? Fred Thompson was the tallest candidate

among Republicans in the 2008 presidential primaries, but his campaign was a dismal

failure, while the shortest of his rivals, John McCain, won the nomination (he did,

however, lose to the much taller Barack Obama). And what are we to make of Micro-

soft’s CEO, Bill Gates, who is a walking advertisement for Revenge of the Nerds?

Will any single trait likely make a person an effective leader? Clearly not (Hackman &

Johnson, 2004; Northouse, 2007). One study by John C. Turner and Alexander

Haslam showed that when students were faced with a rival group that had an intel-

ligent leader who also exhibited inconsiderateness, they wanted their own leader to

be unintelligent. Conversely, when the rival leader was perceived to be unintelligent,

they preferred an intelligent leader for their own group (cited in Reicher et al., 2007).

What is usually considered a desirable leader trait can become undesirable when

other traits intrude. A trait such as intelligence could be neutralized by unfriendli-

ness, ethical indifference, laziness, arrogance, or insensitivity.

What combination of traits might make a leader effective? Fiedler and House

(1988) claim that “effective leaders tend to have a high need to influence others,

to achieve, and they tend to be bright, competent, and socially adept, rather than

stupid, incompetent, and social disasters” (p. 87). Stogdill (1948, 1974), however,

twice reviewed hundreds of studies on the relationship between traits and leader-

ship and concluded that no universal set of traits assures leader emergence or leader

effectiveness.

Consider, for example, the analysis of a USA Today expert panel assembled to ex-

plain why Amy Henry, the front-runner candidate on Donald Trump’s “reality” tele-

vision show The Apprentice, appeared to have a lock on winning the show’s ultimate

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 173 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 174 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 174 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

prize in its first season (she didn’t win). Consisting of CEOs, entrepreneurs, and

management experts, the panel members each offered a separate and distinct list of

leadership traits that Amy Henry supposedly exhibited. Panel member Joe Moglia

listed spiritual soundness, dedication, courage, and love. Jay Sidhu offered clear vi-

sion and human skills. Stephen Covey said character and moral authority were her

critical traits. Deborrah Himsel claimed she had humility, strength, and was a team

player. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld suggested being upbeat, intelligent, and confident were her

strong traits. Alfred Edmond offered sense of humor and keeping cool under pres-

sure. Necole Merritt claimed that she had “the heart to serve.” David Moore asserted

that Amy was a strong leader because she had “an engaging personal style” and “a

really neat haircut” (Jones, 2004, p. 4B).

Perhaps intelligence, social and verbal skills, integrity, sense of humor, extrover-

sion, likability, confidence, or some other set of characteristics accounts for effective

leadership in groups. These and other traits seem appropriate, even essential, for a

leader to possess (Avolio, 2007). These traits, however, seem necessary yet not suf- ficient for an individual to be an effective group leader. Certain basic traits move an individual into the leadership arena. They may be the irreducible minimum qualifica-

tions to become a leader, but to retain the role of leader and ultimately to perform

effectively in this role, other factors play a more important part. A 25-year study by

the Gallup Organization of 80,000 leaders found that the greatest leaders in the world

don’t share a common set of characteristics (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).

The principal problem with the trait approach to effective leadership is the as- sumption that leadership resides in the person, not in transactions between lead- ers and followers conducted within the group system (Northouse, 2007). No one set of leadership traits will fit every situation and group. Why do individuals become

leaders in some groups, but not in others, if an individual possesses the requisite lead-

ership traits? Why doesn’t every intelligent, outgoing person become a leader? Prob-

ably for the same reason that every tall person doesn’t become a star basketball player.

Although the trait perspective is not entirely without merit, there’s much more to

leadership effectiveness. Leaders are not born; they are developed (Ruvolo et al., 2004).

Styles Perspective: One Style Doesn’t Fit All Unsatisfied with the trait approach to leadership, Kurt Lewin and his associates developed a new approach based on

three leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Lewin et al., 1939).

Autocratic style exerts control over group members. The autocratic leader is highly directive. This leadership style does not encourage member participation. Douglas

McGregor (1960) describes autocratic leadership as a “my way or the highway” ap-

proach: do what I say or hit the road. Autocratic leaders are not concerned about

making friends or getting invited to parties. The autocratic style (usually referred to

more neutrally as the directive style) puts most of the emphasis on the task, with little

concern for the social dimension of the group (high task, low social).

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 174 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 175 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 175 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

K EV

IN L

A M

A R

Q U

E/ R

eu te

rs /C

or bi

s M

A R

K L

YO N

S/ ep

a/ C

or bi

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 175 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 176 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 176 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The traits perspective explains relatively little about effective leadership. Which traits, for instance, do Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin (see previous page), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder), Arnold Schwartzenegger, Meg Whitman (former eBay founder) and Jerry Brown (California governor) share that would ex- plain their leadership positions: Good looks? Intelligence? Physical Size? Charisma? Personality? Age? Ethnicity? Gender? Verbal Skills? Knowledge? Can they possess any or all of these traits and still be ineffective leaders?

The democratic style encourages participation and responsibility from group members. Democratic leaders work to improve the skills and abilities of group mem-

bers (Gastil, 1994). Followers have a say in what the group decides. The democratic

style (usually referred to more neutrally as the participative style) puts a balanced em-

phasis on both the task and social dimensions of the group (high task, high social).

The laissez-faire style is a do-nothing approach to leadership. It is “the avoidance or absence of leadership” in which individuals “avoid making decisions, hesitate in

taking action, and are absent when needed” (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 756). Laissez- faire amounts to a sit-on-your-derriere style. This style doesn’t try to influence anyone, so it is by definition non-leadership. “Without influence, leadership does not

exist” (Northouse, 2007, p. 3). Thus, it has been dropped from serious consideration

in most of the research.

The extensive research comparing autocratic-directive and democratic-

participative leadership styles shows mixed results (Northouse, 2007). Both directive

and participative styles can be productive, and although the participative style fosters

more member satisfaction than does the directive style (Van Oostrum & Rabbie,

1995), the difference is neither large nor uniform (Gastil, 1994). Participative leader-

ship seems to work best when it springs naturally from the group itself. Not all small

groups, however, want or expect their leaders to adopt the participative leadership

style (see Box 5.2). Some cultures prefer the “paternal authoritative” (benevolently

K im

K ul

is h/

C or

bi s

Te d

So qu

i/ C

or bi

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 176 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 177 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 177 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Box 5.2

What Is Your Leadership Style Preference?

Fill out the self-assessment on leadership styles. Note: The rating scale changes.

1. I like it when my supervisor at work admits openly that he/she made a mistake.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 2 3 4 5

2. I want to be told what to do on the job, not have to figure it out for myself

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 5 4 3 2 1

3. If my team were hiring a new applicant, I prefer that the entire team interview the candidate and make the final decision, not the team leader only.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 2 3 4 5

4. I don’t want my boss to be my friend; I prefer that my boss remain aloof from the group so he/she can be objective when de- cisions need to be made.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 5 4 3 2 1

5. I do not think that my boss should reverse the decision of his/her team except in extraordinary circumstances (dangerous mistake).

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 2 3 4 5

6. I prefer to be told what decisions have been made then informed what I should

do to implement these decisions, not en- gage in time-consuming debate.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 5 4 3 2 1

7. I prefer having many opportunities to pro- vide input before my team leader makes a final decision.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 2 3 4 5

8. I want my boss to make the important decisions, not get me and others on our team involved; that’s why he/she gets paid the big bucks

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 5 4 3 2 1

9. I want my boss to encourage robust de- bate and differences of opinion before any decisions are made.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 2 3 4 5

10. I want my boss to be decisive, to make decisions confidently, and model a person who is totally in charge.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 5 4 3 2 1

Tally your total score and divide by 10. The higher your average score, the more you prefer partici- pative leadership from supervisors/bosses/team leaders. The lower the average score, the more you prefer the directive leadership style.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 177 26/10/11 12:25 AM

◀ 178 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 178 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

directive) style to the participative style (Brislin, 1993). In such cultures, the partici-

pative style may not work as well as the directive style.

Gender also plays a role in the leadership style–effectiveness equation. Male and female leaders are evaluated by group members as equally competent when the

democratic-participative style is used. When the autocratic-directive style is used,

however, group members evaluate women as substantially less competent leaders

than men (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Van Engen & Willemsen, 2004). Apparently, group

expectations influence judgments of leader competence. Female leaders are expected

to adopt the participative leadership style, which complements the desire for connec-

tion, but groups are less accustomed to seeing women use the directive style, which

places more emphasis on independence and power than on connection (Tannen,

2010). Men clearly have more flexibility in choice of leadership style. With time, this

stereotype that locks women into a single style of leadership should virtually vanish

as women challenge the expectation.

One weakness of the participative/directive leadership style duality is that these

styles are viewed as extreme opposites. Individuals operate as either participative or

directive leaders, but not both. Realistically, though, a combination of participative and directive leadership styles is required in small groups. In organized sports, the autocratic leadership style is preferred by some athletes but not by others, and

among high school wrestlers, autocratic is preferred toward the end of the season but

not at the beginning (Turman, 2003). Also, consider a “temp worker” who is new

on a job. Should this person be consulted on how the job should be accomplished

when he or she doesn’t even have a good idea what the job entails? Should teachers

consult their students before determining course content when the students know

little or nothing about the subject? Should military commanders seek the advice of

their troops before launching an offensive? “All those in favor of attacking the heavily

armed enemy signal by saying aye; those opposed, nay. Okay, the nays have it. We’ll

stay put and live another day.” Group members can’t always meaningfully participate

in decision making.

No one style of leadership will be suitable for all situations any more than one set

of leadership traits will mesh with every situation. This realization has led research-

ers to explore yet another approach to leadership—the situational or contingency

perspective (Vroom & Jago, 2007).

Situational (Contingency) Perspective: Matching Styles with Circum- stances This is the “it depends” approach to leadership. Since no one style of leadership is appropriate for all situations, effective leadership is contingent upon

matching styles with situations. Those leaders whose style fits well with their situ-

ation exhibit strong confidence and perform at a high level (Chemers, 2000). One

caveat, however, should be noted at the outset of this discussion of situational leader-

ship: In open systems, leadership effectiveness may be influenced by situational

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 178 26/10/11 12:25 AM

leadeRship 179 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 179 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

forces beyond the control of any leader (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Military officers, coaches of sports teams, orchestra conductors, and others receive adulation for suc-

cesses and blame for failures, but group success or failure is largely systemic. Even

the most gifted and capable leaders can be victimized by the harsh situational reali-

ties of inadequate resources, adversarial hostilities, weak systemic support, and the

like. Nevertheless, leaders who can adapt flexibly to systemic situations have the best

chance of success.

There are two principal situational models of leadership effectiveness. The first is

Fred Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model. Fiedler’s model, however, does not offer

guidance on how to become a more effective leader once you’re in a group. In this

sense it has rather limited application for our purposes, so I will spare you an expla-

nation of his complicated model.

What style of leadership is depicted in this photo? 1. Democratic/participative 2. Laissez-faire/sit-on-your-derriere 3. Functional 4. Autocratic/directive

Answers are given at end of chapter.

B ar

ry W

ill ia

m s/

G et

ty Im

ag es

N ew

s/ G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 179 26/10/11 12:26 AM

◀ 180 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 180 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A more flexible and useful situational model of leadership effectiveness has been

offered by Hersey and Blanchard (see Hersey et al., 2001). Although their model is

targeted at organizations, it applies well to groups large and small, especially ones

with long life cycles. Hersey and Blanchard have combined three variables in their situational model:

1. The amount of guidance and direction (task emphasis) a leader provides 2. The amount of relationship support (socio-emotional emphasis) a leader provides 3. The readiness level in performing a specific task, function, or objective that follow-

ers demonstrate

There are four leadership styles in the Hersey and Blanchard model that flow from the first two variables. The telling style (high task, low relationship empha- sis) is directive. A leader using this style provides specific instructions regarding a

task and closely supervises the performance of followers but places minimal focus

on developing social relationships with followers. The selling style (high task, high relationship) is also directive. A leader using this style explains and clarifies decisions

but also tries to convince followers to accept directives. The participating style (low task, high relationship) is nondirective. A leader using this style encourages shared

decision making with special emphasis on developing relationships in the group. The

delegating style (low task, low relationship) is nondirective. A leader using this style allows the group to be self-directed. Responsibility for decision making and imple-

mentation of decisions rests with the group. The key to leadership effectiveness is matching the appropriate style to the group environment.

Fisher (1986) criticized the situational approach to leadership by contending that

no leader could consider all possible situational variables to know which style to

use. Hersey and Blanchard agree with the thrust of Fisher’s criticism. They contend,

however, that there is no need to consider all or even most variables. The relationship

between the leader and followers is the prime consideration because if group mem-

bers decide not to follow the leader, then all other situational variables (nature of the

task, time involved, expectations, etc.) are irrelevant.

The primary situational variable that the leader must consider when adapting leadership styles to the specific group is the readiness level of followers. Readi- ness is “the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task” (Hersey et al., 2001, p. 175). Ability “is the knowledge,

experience, and skill that an individual or group brings to a particular task or activ-

ity” (p. 176). Willingness “is the extent to which an individual or group has the confi-

dence, commitment, and motivation to accomplish a specific task” (p. 176). This all

sounds remarkably like communication competence.

Decisions are leader directed at lower levels of readiness; decisions are follower

directed at higher levels of readiness. As readiness levels increase, effective lead- ership requires reduced guidance and direction from the leader and less socio- emotional support for followers. These relationships are depicted in Figure 5.1.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 180 26/10/11 12:26 AM

leadeRship 181 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 181 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Followers, for whatever reasons (e.g., divorce, midlife crisis, lack of challenges),

may regress in their readiness levels, losing motivation or slipping in their skill

performance. In such cases, the leader moves backward through the styles curve

(i.e., from delegating to participating or even to telling), adapting to the change in

circumstances.

The situational leadership model makes sense, but is it supported by research?

The research on situational leadership is skimpy and contradictory (Northouse,

2007; Vecchio et al., 2006; Yukl, 2006). Nevertheless, clearly one leadership style does

not fit all situations. Newly formed groups typically require greater supervision and

direction than experienced groups. Experienced, capable groups work best when a

leader is more a “guide on the side” than a “sage on the stage.” The situational leader-

ship model rightly emphasizes the significance of context to leadership effectiveness.

Functional Perspective: Leadership Responsibilities The functional per- spective views leadership in terms of certain functions, or responsibilities, that must

High

Low

R ea

di ne

ss o

f f ol

lo w

er s

Situational Leadership

Telling

Delegating

Participating

Selling

Figure 5.1 The telling (S1), selling (S2), participating (S3), and delegating (S4) leadership styles related to follower readiness.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 181 26/10/11 12:26 AM

◀ 182 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 182 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

be performed for the group to be successful. Typically, these functions fall into two

categories: task requirements and social or maintenance needs.

The functional perspective can be divided into two schools of thought. William Schutz dubbed the first as the leader-as-completer viewpoint. Leaders are thought to perform those essential functions within a group that other members have failed

to perform. Typically, the list of possible functions falls into the standard task and

social (maintenance) responsibilities. The list of task and maintenance roles previ-

ously identified indicates functions essential to a group (e.g., giving information,

coordinating, facilitating, gatekeeping, and relieving tension). Leader, then, is seen as

an adaptive role. Leadership is demonstrated when any member steps in and assumes

whatever role in the group is required at a particular time that has not been filled by

any other member (e.g., researching an issue on the group task or making a list of

group members’ phone numbers).

A second school of thought, the vital functions viewpoint, sees leaders perform- ing key responsibilities different in kind and/or degree from other members. Fisher

and Ellis (1990) offer a list of such functions:

Group Procedural Responsibilities 1. Plan an agenda. Group meetings proceed more smoothly when the leader has

constructed a list of topics for discussion and decision making. 2. Handle routine “housekeeping” details. These include taking roll, calling the meet-

ing to order, making important announcements, modifying the agenda before

discussion proceeds, and so forth.

3. Prepare for the next meeting. Announce the time, place, and date of the next meet- ing. Plan ahead by making certain that the meeting room is appropriate in size and physical conditions.

Task Responsibilities 1. Initiate a structure. The leader identifies issues to be discussed, proposes proce-

dures for such discussion, guides the discussion, focuses members on the agenda, and may suggest possible solutions to problems.

2. Seek information. More so than other members, the leader requests facts, asks for clarification of points that are unclear, and asks questions.

3. Give information. Leaders are the most prepared group members. They research the important issues in advance. They can inform other group members when

there are gaps in their knowledge.

4. Offer informed opinions. Leaders give opinions based on evidence and sound rea- soning. So as not to stifle discussion, these opinions will usually be offered after

other group members have had their say.

5. Clarify, summarize, and elaborate. The leader provides closure for the group. Points agreed to and points still disputed are identified.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 182 26/10/11 12:26 AM

leadeRship 183 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 183 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Social Responsibilities 1. Facilitate involvement and communication. Leaders encourage participation from

all members. Keeping meetings lively and fast-paced can prevent the nonpartici- pation that results from boredom.

2. Harmonize. The leader is responsible for establishing a supportive climate. This may mean confronting members who are disrupting meetings or creating com-

petitiveness. Humor helps to relieve tension and improve the group climate.

3. Express feelings. A leader expresses feelings when appropriate and promotes a sup- portive environment in which others can express their feelings.

Of the two functional viewpoints, the leader-as-completer seems to have the greater merit. A large-scale investigation of the question “Which communicative functions do leaders perform more frequently or more characteristically than non-

leaders?” revealed no unique functions associated with the leader role (Drecksel, 1984).

The set of leader responsibilities listed above is essential for the effective function- ing of a small group, but Fisher (1986) also observes that “there is no particular rea- son to believe that leaders should or do contribute more of those functions than other

members” (p. 212). During the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, many ordinary people

exhibited extraordinary leadership. Office workers carried injured coworkers down

daunting flights of stairs. Heroes emerged to rescue strangers because everyone, not

just designated leaders (managers, fire battalion chiefs), felt responsible for the lives of

fellow citizens and coworkers. They completed what was needed.

From the leader-as-completer functional perspective, leadership is a shared responsibility, not a specific individual’s responsibility. This perspective truly embraces the view that leadership is a process, not a person. No one person can

provide a group with everything that it needs to be successful. A designated leader

has a few procedural duties such as conducting an efficient meeting and guiding

group discussion. All the members, however, especially in informal small groups,

have the responsibility for leadership. This is especially true of teams (Pearce & Sims,

2002; see also Chapter 6). If the group strays off task, any member can and should

refocus the group. If a minority point of view has been ignored, any member can and

should encourage the group to listen and give a fair hearing to a differing viewpoint.

If conflict is smoldering beneath the surface of group discussion, any member can

and should confront this.

Servant Leadership Perspective: Ethics in Leadership He’s been called “the most cold-blooded businessman around . . . brutal, heartless, and arrogant” (Plotz,

1997, pp. 1, 3). He’s been nicknamed “Rambo in Pinstripes,” “the Shredder,” and

“Chainsaw Al” for his “downsizing” tactics when he was called in to “save” a com-

pany. He wrote a self-promoting book entitled Mean Business.

Albert Dunlap was a notorious corporate turnaround specialist, a hired gun who

was given the position of CEO in a company. He used this position to “turn around”

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 183 26/10/11 12:26 AM

◀ 184 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 184 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

a company by eliminating thousands of employees’ jobs, increasing stock values, and

selling off the remaining business. Dunlap slashed 18,000 jobs when he was CEO

of Scott Paper Company. He cut more than 6,000 jobs when he took over the helm

at Sunbeam. In the bargain, he received a $70 million contract with Sunbeam. He

bragged, “You can’t overpay a great executive . . . Don’t you think I’m a bargain?”

(quoted in Byrne, 1999, p. 185).

“Nothing that is valued by less steely businessmen—loyalty to workers, responsibility

to the community, relationships with suppliers, generosity in corporate philanthropy—

matters to Dunlap” (Plotz, 1997, p. 2). In his book, Dunlap offered this glib advice to

those who lost their jobs and livelihood to his slash-and-burn tactics: “Those whose

jobs will be eliminated in a restructuring should still consider the outcome philosophi-

cally, and have enough confidence in themselves to know they will have opportunities

somewhere else. A company is not your high school or college alma mater. Don’t get

emotional about it” (Dunlap, 1997, p. 272). “Don’t get emotional,” he tells workers who

must find a way to pay their mortgages and support their families after abruptly losing

their jobs in a tight job market—this flippant advice coming from a multimillionaire.

As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich remarked when he heard that Dunlap planned

to cut thousands of employees at Sunbeam, “There is no excuse for treating employees

as if they are disposable pieces of equipment” (quoted in Byrne, 1999, p. 68).

Those who studied Dunlap’s leadership style claim that it consisted of intimida-

tion and fear (Byrne, 1999). As Richard Boynton, president of the household prod-

ucts division of Sunbeam Corporation, put it, “It was like a dog barking at you for

hours. He just yelled, ranted, and raved. He was condescending, belligerent, and dis-

respectful” (Byrne, 1999, p. 5).

Ironically, Dunlap himself was fired as CEO of Sunbeam in June 1998. His trade-

mark downsizing strategy faltered. The company’s board of directors apparently lost

faith in Dunlap’s leadership. Those employees who remained at Sunbeam after the

downsizing reportedly cheered when they heard that he had been fired.

Al Dunlap’s leadership approach raises ethical concerns. Dunlap’s communica-

tion exhibited little apparent respect for workers. He told them that if they wanted a

friend “get a dog.” He created a defensive work climate that squelched personal choice.

Dunlap came into an organization ready to wield the downsizing axe, and those most

affected by his “burn the walls to heat the house” (Fenton, 2005) tactics were given

little say in the matter. He showed “the worse kind of corporate irresponsibility” (Fen-

ton, 2005). Even his honesty became an issue. In 2002, Dunlap paid $500,000 to settle

charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission of defrauding investors by inflat-

ing sales at Sunbeam. He also paid $15 million to settle a class-action shareholder law-

suit that was based on similar charges (Roland & Mathewson, 2002). As a condition of

the settlement, Dunlap was barred from working as an executive at a public company.

His attorney, Frank Razzano, remarked that following the settlements Dunlap could

now “pursue his retirement” (Roland & Mathewson, 2002).

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 184 26/10/11 12:26 AM

leadeRship 185 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 185 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A key principle of ethical leadership recently gaining popularity is the dic- tum to “serve others.” An ethical leader is a servant leader—a leader who “focuses on the needs of followers and helps them to become more knowledgeable, more

free, more autonomous, and more like servants themselves” (Northouse, 2007,

p. 349). Initially offered by Robert Greenleaf (1977), the concept of servant leadership

has been studied and developed more recently (Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya &

Sarros, 2002). Heavy emphasis is placed on caring for others, not advancing one’s

own self-interest. Servant leadership embraces the five elements of communication

ethics (see Chapter 1). A servant leader is scrupulously honest, respectful and fair

toward followers, provides choices for followers when possible, and is responsible for

helping the group achieve goals in ethically acceptable ways. These are all important

elements to consider when acting as a leader in a small group. “A servant leader is

therefore a moral leader” (Dubrin, 2010, p. 108).

If reports are accurate, Albert Dunlap, from the point of view of servant leader-

ship, failed. He exhibited little apparent interest in serving others (except perhaps

for shareholders), made no obvious attempt to accept social responsibility for those

most damaged by his decisions, provided little or no opportunity for anyone to in-

fluence or even discuss his choices, and seemed to care little that inequalities and

social injustices might occur because of his actions.

Culture and Leadership: Are Leadership Theories Universal? “Almost all of the prevailing theories of leadership, and about 98% of the empirical evidence at

hand, are rather distinctly American in character” (House & Aditya, 1997, p. 409).

This hasn’t changed appreciably in recent years. Can we apply the leadership theo-

ries discussed in this chapter universally across cultures? At this point we simply

don’t know. “It is likely that there are both some leader behaviors that are universally

accepted and effective, and some for which acceptance and effectiveness is culture-

specific, but little is known about such behaviors and their culture-specificity or uni-

versality at present” (House & Aditya, 1997, p. 455).

Nevertheless, research does suggest that differences across cultures regarding

leadership do exist. Even though in the United States the importance of leadership

is widely taken for granted, other cultures do not necessarily share this view. A huge

research project called GLOBE, conducted by a collaborative group of 170 schol-

ars worldwide, studied 62 cultures and 17,300 individuals in 951 organizations. It

revealed that status and influence accorded leaders vary widely among cultures (House, 2004). Americans, Arabs, Asians, the British, Eastern Europeans, the French,

Germans, Latin Americans, and Russians tend to idealize strong leaders, erecting

statues and naming streets and buildings after those thought to be extraordinary.

German-speaking parts of Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, however,

are generally skeptical of strong leaders and fear their abuse of power. In these coun-

tries, public commemoration of leaders is sparse. Leadership characterized as elitist,

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 185 26/10/11 12:26 AM

◀ 186 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 186 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

self-centered, and egotistical is perceived to be slightly effective in Albania, Taiwan,

Egypt, Iran, and Kuwait. All other countries in the GLOBE study, however, especially

Northern European countries, had a very negative opinion of such leadership.

The participative leadership style, typically accepted or even preferred in Western

cultures, is questionably effective in Eastern cultures (Dorfman, 2004). Directive

leadership is strongly favored more in Middle Eastern cultures (Scandura et al.,

1999). Listening carefully is also more preferred in the United States than it is in

Asian cultures such as China (Jones et al., 1990). This could have implications for

leader emergence because being a good listener correlates with assuming a leader role

in groups, at least in the United States, as previously noted.

There do seem to be some universals in the cross-cultural research on lead- ership. The GLOBE study revealed strong endorsement by all cultures examined of such leadership attributes as being trustworthy and honest; having foresight and

planning ahead; being positive, encouraging, dynamic, motivating, communicative,

and informed; and being a team builder. Conversely, being individualistic, status

conscious, and a risk taker were viewed as enhancing outstanding leadership in some

cultures but impeding outstanding leadership in other cultures (Dorfman et al.,

2004). Again, agreement on a certain set of traits perceived by individuals as consti-

tuting effective leadership (sometimes referred to as implicit leadership theory) is a

far cry from actually demonstrating that someone who possesses this set of attributes

will prove to be an outstanding or even credible leader in actual practice. In any case,

we still have much to learn about effective leadership and cultures.

With so many perspectives and viewpoints, what do we really know about lead-

ership in groups? The central, overriding point to make about leadership is that effective leaders adapt to changing situations. Leaders have to function within a system (leadership is a process not just a person), and change is unavoidable in any

system. The “one leadership style fits all” approach is doomed to fail much of the time.

Leadership and communication competence are inextricably bound. No specific set of traits, particular style, situational readiness, or set of functions or services will

produce effective leadership without the knowledge, skills, sensitivity, commitment,

and ethics of all group members participating in the leadership process together.

In summary, there are many roles to play in small groups. Competent commu-

nicators learn to play a variety of roles. Leaders emerge in a process of elimination.

There are different requirements, however, for gaining the leader role and retaining

it once the role has been secured. The key to effective leadership is the ability to adapt

to changing situations and to exhibit communication competence in the process.

I’ve discussed how groups develop and how to create a cooperative and support-

ive climate during that development, and I’ve explained the roles we play during the

life of a group and how to function effectively in those roles. In the next chapter, we’ll

look at how all these processes combine in the more specialized environment of team

building and teamwork.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 186 26/10/11 12:26 AM

leadeRship 187 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 187 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 5, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. When you experienced role fixation or observed it in other group members, how was it typically resolved?

2. Do Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Charles Manson qualify as leaders? Explain your answer. 3. If you worked in a culture that has difficulty accepting women as leaders, how should you address

this issue? 4. Are there any instances in which being a servant leader might prove to be ineffective, even coun-

terproductive for the group? Explain.

Dave (1993). Comedy; PG Kevin Kline plays a dual role as the president of the United States, who suffers a stroke, and as a look-alike character who runs a temp-work agency and is surreptitiously induced to play president for the stricken chief executive. Apply the traits, styles, situational, and functional leadership perspectives.

The American President (1995). Comedy-Drama; PG Michael Douglas plays the president of the United States as a noble character. Analyze his leadership as an influence process. What style of leadership does he exhibit? Does his lead- ership seem more managerial/transactional or charismatic?

Erin Brockovich (2000). Drama; R This is Julia Roberts’s Oscar-winning performance as the title character who stumbles into a leadership role. Examine this movie for leader emergence. Does the Roberts character follow the typical leader emergence pattern?

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 187 26/10/11 12:26 AM

◀ 188 Chapter 5: Roles and leadeRship in GRoups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 188 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Photo (p. 179): 4.

The Jane Austen Book Club (2008). Romance; PG-13 A group of women and one guy form a book club to read and discuss all six books by Jane Austen. Examine the roles that develop in the group. Identify who plays task, maintenance, and disruptive roles. Does leadership emerge? If so, does it follow the standard leader emergence pattern?

12 Angry Men (1957; 1997). Drama; PG-13 Either version of this taut drama that depicts a jury locked in animated argument because one juror votes “not guilty” in a capital murder case is wonderful entertain- ment. Which informal roles—task, maintenance, and disruptive—do each of the characters play? Are there any formal roles depicted? Explain the leadership emer- gence process.

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 188 26/10/11 12:26 AM

46850_ch05_ptg01_hr_146-189.indd 189 26/10/11 12:26 AM

◀ 190

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 190 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. How TeAms Differ from Groups 1. Level of Cooperation:

The Working Together Imperative

2. Diversity of Skills: Looking for Complementarity

3. Group Identity: Operating as a Unit

4. Time and Resources: Commitment to the Team

▶ B. TeAm memBers 1. Team Slayers: Members’ Bad

Attitudes and Bad Behavior

a. Egocentrism: Me-Deep in Omnipotence

b. Cynicism: Communicating a Can’t-Do Attitude

c. Verbal/Nonverbal Abuse: Bad Behavior Kills Teams

d. Team Member Removal: Purging the Rotten Egg

2. Team Builders: Choosing and Developing Team Members

6 Developing Effective Teams

a. Experience and Problem-Solving Abilities: Core Competencies

b. Cultural Diversity: Members with Different Perspectives

c. Communication Training: Developing Members’ Competence

▶ C. BuilDinG TeAmwork 1. Developing Team Goals:

The Four Cs

a. Clear Goals: Everyone on the Same Page

b. Cooperative Goals: Interdependent Challenges

c. Challenging Goals: Denting the Universe

d. Commitment to Goals: A Passion to Succeed

2. Developing a Team Identity: Unifying Members

a. Symbolic Convergence: Communicating Fantasy Themes

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 190 25/10/11 5:05 PM

191 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 191 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Pu re

st oc

k/ G

et ty

Im ag

b. Solidarity Symbols: Unifying Nonverbally

c. Team Talk: The Language of We

3. Designating Clear, Appropriate Roles: Room for One Quarterback

4. Structuring Team Empowerment: Enhancing Members’ Capabilities

a. Definition of Empowerment: Four Dimensions

b. Hierarchical Organizations: The Enemy of Empowerment

c. Quality Circles: Lame First Attempt

d. Self-Managing Work Teams: The IDEO Model

e. Impediments to Team Empowerment: No Buy-In

Closer Look: IDEO and Team Empowerment

5. Establishing Individual Accountability: Providing Feedback

▶ D. CompeTenT TeAm leADersHip 1. Fostering Participative Leadership:

Nurturing Empowerment

2. Insisting on a Cooperative Communication Climate: Jerks Need Not Apply

3. Decision Making and Problem Solving: Using a Plan

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 191 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 192 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 192 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

I n December 2001, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations issued its second alert in three years on surgical mistakes in U.S. hospitals (Altman, 2001). An alarming number of “wrong-site surgeries,” in which surgeons operated on

the wrong arm, leg, eye, or other body part, removed the wrong kidney, and some-

times even operated on the wrong patient, triggered the commission’s alert. In one

case, two surgeons at the Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn operated on the

wrong side of a patient’s brain. An additional commission concern involved surgical

instruments that were inadvertently left inside patients. The commission’s focus on

preventing such surgical errors centered on improving surgical teamwork. Unfortu-

nately, despite the Commission’s recommendations, protocols for improvement have

been largely ignored, and the wrong-site surgeries and medical errors have actually

gotten worse (Stahel et al., 2010).

On September 4, 2004, the De La Salle High School football team lost 39–20 to

Bellevue High School in Washington. Why is this noteworthy? This was De La Salle’s first

loss in nearly 13 years. Located in Concord, California, this all-boys Catholic high school

of about a thousand students that sends 98% of its graduates to college saw the most re-

markable win streak in U.S. organized sports history finally come to an end. De La Salle’s

151-game win streak dwarfs the men’s college record 88-game win streak of UCLA’s

basketball team during the John Wooden era of the 1970s and the 90-game win streak of

the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team that ended December 30, 2010,

when Stanford won 71–59. Paralleling Wooden’s philosophy, however, De La Salle coach

Bob Ladouceur never mentioned winning during the entire streak (Gomez, 2003).

What distinguishes successful from unsuccessful teams? Although there are cer-

tainly differences between surgical teams and football teams, one key to successful teams resides in the communication competence of members (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). There is a wide variety of teams, from sports, legal, classroom project, and

creative design, to mountain climbing, surgical, computer programming, and script-

writing teams. This wide variety makes team effectiveness a challenge. The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore how to build and sustain a wide variety of effective teams. Toward this end there are four chapter objectives:

1. To describe what is likely to make effective team members 2. To discuss ways to develop competent team relationships

◀ 192

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 192 25/10/11 5:06 PM

How teams Differ from groups 193 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 193 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

3. To explain what structures and functions should be established to build and sus- tain effective teams

4. To identify what constitutes effective team leadership

The need for effective teams increases as our society and world become ever more

complex. This is what Maxwell (2001) calls the law of Mount Everest: “As the chal-

lenge escalates, the need for teamwork elevates” (p. 52). This is especially true in

“high-pressure workplaces, such as nuclear plants, aircraft cockpits, or the military

[in which] teamwork is essential to survival” (Appleby & Davis, 2001, p. B2).

The wisdom of teams, however, is sometimes a tough sell in an individualistic cul-

ture such as the United States, where individual performance is extolled and personal

ego is celebrated (Acuff, 1997). The wisdom of teams, nevertheless, is an underlying

theme of this chapter and it will be explored further in subsequent chapters on deci-

sion making and problem solving.

How Teams Differ from Groups

All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams. Teams are specialized groups. In this section, we discuss four principal characteristics that identify differences be-

tween standard groups and teams.

▶ Level of Cooperation: The Working Together Imperative Teams typically manifest a higher level of cooperation than standard groups. Members of standard groups may actually oppose each other, not work together on

a common goal. Senate and House committees regularly battle over confirmation of

presidential appointees, issues of taxes and spending, the size of government, and the

like. Committee members act as adversaries, not team members.

The essence of all teams is collaborative interdependence (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Kelley & Littman, 2005). Team members generally must work together or they

will be unsuccessful in achieving their goals. When members work mostly for them-

selves, attempting to advance individual agendas (scoring more points than other

teammates), the essence of a team, collaborative interdependence, is missing. The

2004 U.S. men’s Olympic basketball team was a huge disappointment (some would

say embarrassment). Composed of NBA players such as Tim Duncan and Allen Iver-

son, American players displayed individual prowess at times, but little actual team-

work (Killion, 2004). Dismantled 92–73 in a preliminary round game by Puerto

Rico, a team with just one NBA player, the United States went on to lose three games

(equal to the total number of losses in all previous Olympics). Coach Larry Brown

remarked after the loss to Puerto Rico, “We have to become a team in a short pe-

riod of time. Throw your egos out the window” (quoted by Killion, 2004, p. 3D).

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 193 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 194 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 194 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Beginning to play more like a team in the medal bracket, the U.S. won the bronze

medal, much better than another group of NBA players who couldn’t do better than

sixth place for the United States in the 2002 World Games. When you don’t work

together, regardless of individual skill levels, you’re a team in name only.

In contrast, the 2008 U.S. Olympic basketball team concentrated on developing

teamwork and foregoing individual stardom. In its eight games, all victories, the U.S.

team had more assists than its opponents in every game, emphasizing the players’

willingness to pass and engage in team play. In the final against Spain, all five start-

ers scored in double figures, exhibiting a willingness to spread the scoring around,

not seek personal glory (“Olympic Basketball /2008 Olympics,” 2008). This “redeem

team” won the gold medal with teamwork.

▶ Diversity of Skills: Looking for Complementarity Teams usually consist of members with more diverse skills than those found in standard groups. In standard small groups, membership is usually a potluck. You may have lots of desserts but few main dishes. Project groups in my classes have often

been stymied because no member has sufficient technical skills to permit the group

to choose some of the project options. New members of the student senate are not

typically chosen for how well they might blend with and complement other senate

members. Often they are chosen because no one else wants the job.

Collaborative interdependence is the essence of teamwork. Each member of the Blue Angels must operate with exact precision in concert with other team members or disaster would strike.

C he

ck S

ix /G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 194 25/10/11 5:06 PM

How teams Differ from groups 195 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 195 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A team requires complementary, not identical, skills. When ABC’s Nightline with

Ted Koppel challenged the IDEO design firm to redesign the common grocery store

shopping cart to “see innovation happen,” a diverse team of individuals was assem-

bled for the five-day challenge captured on camera. Engineers and industrial design-

ers collaborated and brainstormed with team members whose backgrounds included

psychology, architecture, business administration, linguistics, and biology. Peter Skill-

man led the team because he “had proved an able facilitator under fire, great at leading

brainstorms and bringing disparate teams together” (Kelley & Littman, 2001, p. 9).

▶ Group Identity: Operating as a Unit Teams typically have a stronger group identity than standard groups. In a stan- dard small group, there are only superficial indicators of identity. I serve on the

bookstore committee on my campus, whose purpose has been to explore ways to

reduce the costs of textbooks for students. No one would recognize from mere ap-

pearances what group is meeting. Members certainly don’t wear uniforms, brandish

a team tattoo, sing a fight song, participate in team cheers (“Go e-books”?), or ex-

hibit anything that might identify the group to the casual observer. Members would

have to tell outsiders what group this is and what is our primary purpose. A small

group may not even have a specific name. Teams, however, are almost always easily

identified. Team names are important and often the subject of intense debate when

the team first forms. Team members have a sense of cohesiveness and oneness that

exceeds the typical, standard, small group.

▶ Time and Resources: Commitment to the Team Most small groups that we join require a limited time commitment and few re-

sources to function. A hiring committee normally requires a few meetings. Once the

decision has been made the committee disbands. Little or no money is necessary to

sustain the panel. Teams, however, often require substantial resources and long-term

time commitments. Sports teams play for a season and return the next year. Some

members may change, but the team remains intact. Team members may devote huge

time allotments to perfecting skills to help the team succeed. Teams in organizations

may require substantial financial resources, even if the team was formed to work on

a specific project, such as the Mars rover team at NASA.

Small groups can become teams, however, when they assume the four char- acteristics of teams. With these characteristics in mind, I define a team as a small number of people with complementary skills who act as an interdependent unit, are

equally committed to a common mission, subscribe to a cooperative approach to

accomplish that mission, and hold themselves accountable for team performance

(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

Given this definition, obviously not all small groups can become teams. Boards

of directors, student and faculty senates, class discussion groups, task forces, and

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 195 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 196 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 196 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

standing committees are not usually teams because members may simply represent

diverse factions at odds with each other. Such groups often lack cohesiveness and

cooperation, and group members are usually chosen for reasons other than comple-

mentary skills that they bring to the group. Members are expected to attend periodic

meetings in which discussion occurs and an occasional vote is taken, but members

do not have to work together to accomplish the group’s primary goals.

Similarly, not every group dubbed a team truly qualifies. Those small groups that

only half-heartedly exhibit the several criteria included in the above definition are

more pseudo-teams than actual teams. Pseudo-teams give the appearance of being teams and of engaging in teamwork without exhibiting the substance of teams. This

doesn’t mean that every team that fails to meet its goals is a pseudo-team. When

small groups truly incorporate all the elements of the definition of teams, yet fail,

they are still teams, just relatively ineffective ones for whatever reasons. Sometimes

the challenge is simply too great for any team to be successful.

Teams embody a central theme of this text—that cooperation in groups has distinct advantages that should be pursued. Although most material presented in other chapters applies to teams, the analysis and advice is sometimes too general to

be practical enough to make teams successful. This chapter offers more specific detail

to respond to the unique differences between teams and small groups.

Finally, all groups cannot be teams, but small groups usually benefit from acting

more teamlike. Ways that you build teams and induce teamwork are now addressed.

Team Members

Group members are the raw materials of any successful team. Assembling the opti- mum combination of individuals is the starting point for team building. “Among the top predictors of a team’s effectiveness are the qualities of the individuals who make

up the team: the skills and competencies they possess, the attitudes they display, the

behaviors they engage in” (LaFasto & Larson, 2001, pp. 2–3). Notice that personality

traits were not specifically included on this list. There is no solid evidence that any spe- cific personality trait such as conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and so forth likely contributes significantly to team success (Kichuk & Wiesner, 1998).

Focus Questions

1. What is the ideal team member?

2. Why is the attitude of team members at least as important as their aptitude for decision making and problem solving?

3. Should ineffective team members ever be removed from the group?

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 196 25/10/11 5:06 PM

team members 197 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 197 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Team Slayers: Members’ Bad Attitudes and Bad Behavior For teams to be effective, attitude is at least as important as aptitude. A member’s natural ability and potential can’t compensate for a bad attitude. “Good attitudes . . .

do not guarantee a team’s success, but bad attitudes guarantee its failure” (Maxwell,

2001, p. 106). Corresponding bad behavior that easily flows from bad attitudes

diminishes the team process even further.

Egocentrism: Me-Deep in Omnipotence Those who communicate egocentri- cally reveal the “Me-first” attitude that promotes team friction and weakens team

cohesiveness. Egocentrics may even ridicule the fundamental underpinnings of

teamwork, namely cooperation. As one T-shirt trumpeted, “My idea of a team is

a whole lot of people doing what I tell them to do.” Contrast this egocentrism with

soccer superstar Mia Hamm’s (1999) “there’s no me in Mia” We-orientation:

Soccer is not an individual sport. I don’t score all the goals, and the ones I do

score are usually the product of a team effort. I don’t keep the ball out of the

back of the net on the other end of the field. I don’t plan our game tactics.

I don’t wash our training gear (okay, sometimes I do), and I don’t make our

airline reservations. I am a member of a team, and I rely on the team. I defer

to it and sacrifice for it, because the team, not the individual, is the ultimate

champion. (pp. 5 – 6)

Egocentrism can be a significant problem. A 1999 Institute of Medicine report

estimated that hospital errors produce 98,000 deaths and 1 million injuries each year.

More recent research shows that this disturbing result has not improved (Grady,

2010). One of the problems that contributes to this startling situation is physicians

“steeped in a culture of quiet heroism and taught to exude a confident omnipotence”

(“Medical Mistakes,” 2003, 4C). Dr. Dennis O’Leary, president of the Joint Com-

mission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, which issued the wrong-site

surgery alert, comments: “Right now, we’re dealing with the problem of retraining

surgeons who were taught to believe they were the center of the universe, and they’re

not” (Altman, 2001). O’Leary notes that about 40% of orthopedic surgeons refuse

to mark the site of an operation because they are convinced that they could never

make a serious site error. Instead of doctors acting godlike, they need to set aside

their egos and become team members. As one physician observed in the study of

high- performance surgical teams, “The surgeon needs to be willing to allow himself

[herself] to become a partner (with the rest of the team) so he can accept input”

(“Teamwork,” 2002, p. 5). Bloated egos can destroy teams. They can foster defensive-

ness and perpetuate errors from egocentric control freaks who desire to protect their

image more than correct their mistakes.

Team members with a We-orientation have a very different effect on a team than

egocentric team members. We-oriented team members typically are more inclined

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 197 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 198 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 198 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

than egocentric members to improve their own performance and to enhance other

members’ performance (Driskell & Salas, 1992).

Cynicism: Communicating a Can’t-Do Attitude Teams are systems, so even a single member can demoralize an entire team. The attitude that most destroys teamwork and team effectiveness is cynicism. H. L. Mencken described a cynic as someone who “smells flowers [and] looks around for a coffin.” Cynics communicate negativity by predicting failure and looking for someone or something to criticize,

sapping the energy from the team with their negativity. “Cynicism, like a disease,

constantly spreads, seeking new receptive hosts. The attitude and the behavior as-

sociated with it are contagious” (LaFasto & Larson, 2001, p. 23).

Experience and talent are not contagious, but attitude is. What you want in a team member is the communication of an optimistic, can-do attitude, not a cyni- cal can’t-do attitude. An optimistic attitude nourishes a team’s spirit, braces it for coming challenges, and encourages aspirations to rise and motivation to increase.

For example, on April 29, 2007, an overturned gas tanker-truck burst into a fireball

and literally melted 165 feet of elevated freeway on the Interstate 80/I-580 connector

ramp in the San Francisco Bay area. Initially predicted to take many months and cre-

ate a gridlock traffic nightmare, the repair of this collapsed section of roadway was

completed in an astounding 18 days. Clinton C. Meyers, the contractor on the job,

explained how his crew managed to complete the monumental repair in so short a

time: “I’ve got a tremendous organization behind me of dedicated can-do people. . . .

This shows what you can accomplish when everyone works together as a team”

(quoted in May, 2007, p. 6B).

Verbal/Nonverbal Abuse: Bad Behavior Kills Teams The 2009 survey by American College of Physician Executives of 2,100 doctors and nurses discussed in

Chapter 5 found that 85% of respondents experienced degrading comments and in-

sults, 73% yelling, and 50% cursing (Johnson, 2009). Some nurses were groped by

doctors, and one physician reportedly became so enraged over some nurse’s per-

ceived inadequacy that he stuffed her head-first into a trashcan (“New Survey,” 2009).

These and other bad behaviors such as spreading malicious rumors, refusing to work

together, inappropriate joking, and throwing objects create a group climate that is

the antithesis of teamwork. Hospitals across the country, as a result of these survey

findings, are instituting zero-tolerance policies to stamp out such team-killing behav-

ior. Doctors, and some nurses, have been terminated for abusive behavior. No team

should permit such bad behavior. It creates defensiveness, when instead you want a

supportive, cooperative communication climate for your team to be successful.

Team Member Removal: Purging the Rotten Egg Because even a single mem- ber can destroy a system, the “weakest link” in the chain may have to be removed

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 198 25/10/11 5:06 PM

team members 199 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 199 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

if it prevents the team from being effective (Maxwell, 2001). This action, however,

should never be taken casually. Removal should be a last resort after efforts to correct

problem behavior have been undertaken (see Chapter 2).

The principal candidates for expulsion from a team should be those who per- sistently display incompetent communication, especially if they show no interest in improving, and those with egocentric and cynical attitudes that disrupt team relationships. Even knowledgeable and highly skilled team members who commu- nicate cynicism may need to be removed. Team members with only average skills

and knowledge but who have optimistic, contagious attitudes are far more valuable.

Bad attitudes are poison for a team. Those with skills and knowledge deficits can be

trained to become more effective team members. Those with poisonous attitudes

must either make an attitude adjustment or be expelled before they irreparably ruin

the team. Necessary steps to expel these disruptive team members were discussed in

detail in Chapter 2.

▶ Team Builders: Choosing and Developing Team Members Unlike standard groups, teams aren’t usually stuck with potluck when member com-

position is the focus. There are usually choices to be made. Who should become a

team member depends on what each potential member has to offer the team.

Experience and Problem-Solving Abilities: Core Competencies “Experi- ence and problem-solving ability are the core competencies that move a team toward

its objective” (LaFasto & Larson, 2001, p. 7; see also Ellis et al., 2005). We look for

experienced members when forming teams. No one wants a cardiac surgeon who

is performing his or her first operation. Who wants to fly with an inexperienced

pilot, copilot, or navigator handling the plane? You don’t want to mountain climb

with a bunch of inexperienced team members. In each case you may forfeit your

life. Experience counts because with experience comes knowledge and from knowl-

edge comes problem-solving ability. Experienced group members “have been here

before.” Those who have limited experience may compensate by demonstrating a

strong problem-solving aptitude.

Although the problem-solving potential of technical experience is necessary for team effectiveness, other elements are also required (Marks et al., 2002). In a study of high-performing and low-performing surgical teams, it was found that high-

performing teams had handpicked their team members. Members were chosen not on

the basis of surgical experience, because all members had such experience, but on the

basis of prior experience working together as a team and the demonstrated ability of

each member to work well in a group. Low-performing teams picked members mostly

on the basis of availability. As one nurse commented about her hospital’s method of

choosing surgical group members, “We don’t have any real teams here. It’s just who gets

assigned on any given day” (“Teamwork,” 2002, p. 5). Without appropriate teamwork

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 199 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 200 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 200 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

knowledge and skill development, members of action teams (surgical teams, military

units, expedition teams, and the like) “can be unprepared to work as an interdepen-

dent unit” (Ellis et al., 2005, p. 642; see also Hollenbeck et al., 2004).

Cultural Diversity: Members with Different Perspectives Increasingly, teams are composed of members from diverse cultures. This is especially true of virtual

teams. An extensive survey of 600 employees of multinational corporations who

were members of virtual teams, for example, found that in the majority of teams

nearly half of the members were located outside of the home country (Solomon,

2010). With member diversity comes a rich array of different, complementary skills

and knowledge with the potential for great decision-making and problem-solving

creativity (see Chapter 2 discussion).

Nevertheless, culturally diverse team membership poses significant challenges

(Adler, 2002; Barinaga, 2007). Americans, for instance, take pride in decisive deci-

sion making. In Japan and China, however, speed is not a high priority. Decision

making is a lengthy process of chewing over all possible options before choosing

(Adler, 2001).

There are several guidelines for managing membership diversity in teams (Adler, 2002). These closely parallel suggestions offered in Chapter 3 for addressing

the challenges of diverse membership in groups generally.

1. Accept diversity as an advantage, not a disadvantage, for the team. With greater challenge can come greater rewards.

2. Choose team members for their complementary skills and knowledge but also for their similarity of attitude. Regardless of cultural background, there is no place for

egocentrism or cynicism on teams.

3. Choose a superordinate, transcending goal to bridge differences (more on this in the section on team goals).

4. Be respectful of all team members and avoid cultural bias. The American way of doing things is not always the best way. Be experimental and try different

approaches.

5. Keep communication open. Solicit feedback on the decision-making process so that if problems arise, they can be addressed immediately.

Communication Training: Developing Members’ Competence Team members often lack necessary communication competence. A study (LaFasto & Larson, 2001) of

diverse teams from sports, law, law enforcement, science, education, health care, com-

puting, transportation, and telecommunications, among others, asked the question: “If

you could discuss one issue in an open way, involving the team in the discussion, what

would that issue be?” Overwhelmingly, team members responded, “the team’s com-

munication.” Team communication is critical to its effectiveness, and high-performing

team members typically exhibit superior communication skills (Curtis et al., 1988).

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 200 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 201 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 201 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Training, however, must be an integral part of the team equation for success (Ellis et al., 2005). A college course can provide useful communication training for

student team members, but workplace training is often of dubious quality and ef-

ficacy (Goleman, 1998). Often these training programs consist of little more than a

weekend “dog and pony show” by an outside consultant followed by “happy sheets”

that indicate participants’ degree of liking for the training. Liking, however, does not

equal learning, and popularity ratings favor slick, cleverly packaged training pro-

grams that provide fun and entertainment but are as worthwhile as a sugar donut

to a diabetic. Training programs that teach team members specific communication

knowledge and skills relevant to the team’s task (crews flying an airplane; design

teams solving problems) are effective in enhancing teamwork and team effectiveness

(Ellis et al., 2005; Stout et al., 1997).

One such program was piloted in 2007 at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia.

Called the Unit-Based Clinical Leadership (UBCL) program, this program sought

to established doctor–nurse partnerships. UBCL trained participants to improve

communication, collaborate, and share responsibility and ownership for patient

care, to become members of a team who functioned as a team. “The UBCL pilot not

only resulted in breakthrough improvements in quality and patient safety, but also

forged better physician–nurse collaboration and job satisfaction as well” (Buckley

et al., 2009). Another training program at Maine General Hospital essentially taught

the difference between defensive and supportive communication skills addressed in

Chapter 4. The results were nothing short of astounding: Team members were 167%

more likely to address directly anyone demonstrating poor teamwork behavior and

the same percentage were more likely to speak up when a doctor or nurse exhibited

disrespectful behavior (Grenny, 2009). Changing the communication changes the

system. Communication training works to build teams!

Building Teamwork

Does teamwork improve team performance? The evidence clearly shows that it does

(see Stout et al., 1997, for a review). Building teamwork, however, is a complicated

process that unfolds over time. In this section, key aspects of building teamwork are

discussed.

Focus Questions

1. What kinds of goals work best to build a team?

2. How is a team identity developed?

3. Should team roles be chosen by team members?

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 201 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 202 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 202 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Developing Team Goals: The Four Cs Setting specific goals is an important step in the team-building process (Klein et al.,

2009). “As Outward Bound and other team-building programs illustrate, specific

objectives have a leveling effect conducive to team behavior. When a small group

of people challenge themselves to get over a wall . . . their respective titles, perks,

and other stripes fade into the background” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 114).

Everyone becomes a team member, not a member of a power structure. Team goals

should be clear, cooperative, and challenging, and team members should be committed

to team goals.

Clear Goals: Everyone on the Same Page LaFasto and Larson’s (2001) study of 600 teams and 6,000 team members found that “With amazing consistency, team

members acknowledge the unease that comes with trying to achieve an ambiguous

goal” (p. 74). In another study by the same authors, all teams were effective that had

clear, identifiable goals that members thoroughly grasped (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).

Ambiguous goals, such as “do our best” or “make improvements,” offer no clear

direction. “Complete the study of parking problems on campus by the end of the

term,” “raise $350,000 in donations within two years for a campus child care center,”

or “institute a textbook loan program on campus by the start of spring term” are

clear, specific goals. For a group to become an effective team, clearly stated and un-

derstood goals are essential (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2003). This means that terms such

as “parking problems,” “campus child care center,” and “textbook loan program”

have to be defined clearly at the very start of a team’s effort. Definitional discussions

should identify what is and is not included in the team’s charge. The charge is the task of the team, such as to gather information, to analyze a problem and make rec-

ommendations, to make decisions and implement them, or to tackle a specific proj-

ect from inception to completion. A team can determine that a goal has been clearly

articulated when all members can identify how they will know when the charge has

been accomplished. For example, is an oral or written report required? Does the

team report to a higher authority with its results? Are there statistical measures that

indicate completion ($350,000 is raised for the child care center)?

In some cases the goals will be specified by the organization within which teams

operate. In other instances, the team will decide through discussion what goals they

wish to pursue. In either case, the number of goals should be limited to what can rea-

sonably be accomplished within the specified time period. Romig (1996) found one

departmental team in an organization that pursued 60 goals in a single year. None

of its goals were achieved, and the team actually threatened the future of the entire

organization by losing huge sums of money as it flailed aimlessly in all directions.

A few clear goals that each team member can recite from memory are preferable to goals that are too numerous for members to recall.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 202 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 203 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 203 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Cooperative Goals: Interdependent Challenges Cooperative goals require interdependent effort from all team members. It is in every member’s self-interest

to promote the team goal and help each other achieve team success. Members share

information, offer advice, share rewards, and apply their abilities to make every team

member optimally effective. Research clearly shows that cooperative goals en- hance team performance (Tjosvold & Yu, 2004).

A superordinate goal, a specific kind of cooperative goal that overrides differ- ences that members may have because it supersedes less important competitive goals,

This photo illustrates which of the necessary qualities of team goals? 1. Clear goal 2. Cooperative goal 3. Challenging goal 4. Commitment to goal

Answers are given at end of chapter

St ep

ha ni

e M

az e/

En cy

cl op

ed ia

/C O

R B

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 203 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 204 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 204 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

is particularly effective for developing teamwork (Sherif, 1966; Sherif et al., 1988).

When a group faces a common predicament that jeopardizes its very existence, for

example, survival becomes the superordinate goal that can galvanize members to

pull together in common cause.

The story of Fred Beasley illustrates a superordinate goal in action. Fred’s father

died when he was 12 years old, leaving a wife and nine children to survive on a paltry

Social Security income. The superordinate family goal following the loss of Fred’s

dad was to keep the family intact. No other goal was as important. Achieving this

goal was accomplished by sharing labor and resources. Alma Beasley, Fred’s mom,

got jobs cleaning houses. All nine kids found odd jobs. Whatever income was earned

from these jobs was pooled to cover family, not individual, needs. Four boys slept

in the same room. Dresser drawers were divided among the kids. Household chores

were everybody’s responsibility. Alma Beasley explains how the family remained to-

gether through difficult times: “It was tough on all of us. . . . I just did the best I could.

I think we all pulled together” (Judge, 1998, p. D8).

Sometimes groups choose a cooperative goal of simply doing the best they can

for all members of the team. The first women’s team to be invited to climb Mount

Kongur in China didn’t set as its target getting one team member on top of the

mountain. Instead, the team chose a cooperative goal to get as many team members

as high up the mountain as possible (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). With a cooperative

goal, success is determined by everyone pulling together to produce the best results

for every member—no winners or losers.

Challenging Goals: Denting the Universe Accomplishing the mundane mo- tivates no one. Teams need challenging goals to spark members’ best efforts. Mem- bers need to feel that they are embarking on a shared mission, with a common vision of how to translate the dream into a team achievement. The team that built the first successful Macintosh computer had this elevated sense of purpose. Randy

Wigginton, a team member, remembers: “We believed we were on a mission from

God” (Bennis & Biederman, 1997, p. 83). Steve Jobs, the team leader and coinven-

tor of the first Apple computer, promised team members that they were going to

develop a computer that would “put a dent in the universe” (p. 80).

Changing the world or setting records, of course, doesn’t have to be the team’s

dream. More down-to-earth visions can easily motivate team members. “Lowering

the cost of textbooks by 25%,” “doubling the number of effective tutoring programs

on campus,” or “making the campus safer by replacing old lighting systems with

brighter, energy-efficient systems” can be challenging goals for campus teams. My

own experience testifies to what students can accomplish when they form teams

whose members share a vision of what could be. One of the teams formed in my

group discussion class was instrumental in identifying student safety concerns due to

poor lighting on campus. The team’s effort provoked an audit of all campus lighting

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 204 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 205 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 205 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

by a consulting group and fostered a 50% improvement in the lighting of all campus

parking lots, walkways, and buildings, with the added bonus of a huge energy savings

for the college. Your team may not put a dent in the universe, but it may chip away

at a serious local problem.

Commitment to Goals: A Passion to Succeed In a massive study of 1.4 mil- lion workers in 66 countries for the Gallup Organization, one key finding was that

“trusting that one’s coworkers share a commitment to quality is a key to great team

performance” (Buckingham & Coffman, 2002). Commitment is a key element of

communication competence. It is also essential to team success. “Without it, groups

perform as individuals; with it, they become a powerful unit of collective perfor-

mance” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 112).

A primary reason for the unparalleled success of the De La Salle football team was

the commitment of its players. Erik Sandie, a senior lineman on the 2002 champi-

onship team, noted, “You better be ready to commit four years of your life to this

program, or you’re in the wrong school. That’s why we’re so good” (Emmons, 2002,

p. 14A). De La Salle players demonstrated synergy in action. Though the team each

year is usually not bigger or even more talented than other high school teams, team

members’ commitment to being the best team perpetuated the win streak. Mike Ot-

terstedt, the school’s director of guidance, observed, “Everyone thinks we feed the

football players raw meat, but if you were to see them walking between classes, you

wouldn’t be able to pick them out from the other students” (Emmons, 2002, p. 14A).

The starting offensive line usually averages about 6 feet, 220 pounds, which is ordi-

nary by today’s standards. The old-fashioned veer offense was employed by coach Bob

Ladouceur, partly to counteract bigger opponents. A committed group of individuals

all embracing a common mission and a shared vision of success can perform wonders.

One key way to create commitment is to have team members share in setting goals

for the team (Romig, 1996). Although not always possible, whenever participa- tory goal setting can be instituted it is advisable to do so. We typically respond better to goals that we have had a hand in creating than to those that are foisted upon

us by others.

▶ Developing a Team Identity: Unifying Members A group becomes a team when it establishes its own identity, both to team members

and to outsiders. Team identity is an important part of team building. There is no

single way to create a team identity; there are a number of possibilities. Certainly,

establishing a mission is a key element. Strategies for developing a team identity are

developing fantasy themes, creating solidarity symbols, and using team talk.

Symbolic Convergence: Communicating Fantasy Themes Ernest Bormann (1986) developed what he termed symbolic convergence theory. Moving beyond

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 205 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 206 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 206 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

an analysis of the individual, Bormann focused on how people communicating with

each other develop and share stories that create a “convergence,” a group identity

that is larger and more coherent than the isolated experiences of individual group

members. These stories, or fantasies, create a shared meaning for group mem-

bers. Bormann defines fantasies without the negative connotation of “delusions”

or “flights from reality.” Fantasies, he says, are the dramatic stories that provide a shared interpretation of events that bind group members and offer them a shared

identity. These fantasies will have heroes and villains, a plot, conflict—anything a

well-told story would have.

In my own Communication Studies department, composed of between 9 and

12 members over the years, a common fantasy theme—a consistent thread that runs through the stories told by departmental members—is the challenge to survive

and thrive among many much larger departments with far greater clout. I periodi-

cally tell the story of my early days at Cabrillo College when our department was un-

der attack from some members of the administration. I relate the drama over the

battle for full-time replacements of two retiring instructors, how this battle got me

kicked out of the president’s office, and how I waged our departmental campaign

before the college board, the faculty senate, and the faculty union. Each new member

of the department gets to hear a retelling of this story, embellished somewhat over

the years. The story serves to create our team identity as a small but determined, even

formidable, department.

More recently, after our department exhibited substantial growth in student de-

mand, I have offered the fantasy theme of empire building. Initially seen as a dubious

undertaking, the theme has more recently gained adherents. It permits departmental

members to imagine a time when our department will be regarded as a major player

on campus. The fantasy theme serves as a motivation to team members to strive for

goals that are not merely ordinary, but rather, extraordinary. Department members

share a common experience, and fantasies provide a shared interpretation of these

events. Each member of our department can relate additional stories that play on the

fantasy theme, creating fantasy chains—a string of connected stories that amplify the theme. In this way, a team creates its own identity.

Solidarity Symbols: Unifying Nonverbally Another way to develop team iden- tity is by creating “solidarity symbols” (Kelley & Littman, 2001). A team name or

logo can be a solidarity symbol. The presidential campaign team headed by James

Carville that guided Bill Clinton to victory in the 1992 election was dubbed the War

Room team. A uniform or style of dress can also serve as a solidarity symbol. The

Green Berets uniform or the jeans and T-shirt attire often found at IDEO are exam-

ples. In fact, T-shirts with individualized inscriptions or sayings—humorous, pro-

found, or just plain whimsical—help establish the loose team climate characteristic

of design teams. In other instances, an entire team may wear T-shirts with the same

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 206 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 207 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 207 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

inscription, such as a computer-programming team that wore T-shirts inscribed

“Talk Nerdy to Me.”

At Urban Prep, a Chicago charter high school started in 2006 by Tim King, the

accent is on academic achievement. An all-boys school, Urban Prep is swimming

against the tide of young black males dropping out of high school. In Chicago, the

drop-out rate is 60% among young African American males, but at Urban Prep,

where the focus is on team study groups and high expectations, all 110 seniors not

only graduated in 2010 but they all were accepted to colleges. All boys wear blazers

and ties and matching wristwatches (to make sure they arrive on time to classes).

When a senior receives a letter of acceptance to a college, that letter is posted on a

bulletin board as a solidarity symbol of pride. The standard red tie that is part of the

uniform, which according to student Israel Wilson “symbolizes that we’re here on

business,” is then traded for one with gold stripes as a symbol of business accom-

plished (Clark & Meadows, 2010).

Team Talk: The Language of We Team talk is another strategy for creating a team identity and cohesiveness. “A shared language bonds a team together and

serves as a visible sign of membership” (Bolman & Deal, 1992, p. 40). One software

team refers to unproductive discussions as ratholes; team members spending too

Which solidarity symbols useful for creating team identity are apparent in this photo?

D av

id M

ad is

on /C

ru sh

/C or

bi s

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 207 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 208 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 208 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

much time agreeing with each other are said to be piling on (Fisher, 2000, p. 300). At

Urban Prep, students recite a creed each day that includes the phrase “I am college

bound.” Teachers address students as “Mr. Smith” or “Mr. Johnson. “ As principal

King explains, “It’s a sign of respect that creates the idea they are special, they are go-

ing somewhere” (Clark & Meadows, 2010, p. 134).

Teams establish an identity, a oneness, when they speak in terms of “we” and

“our” and “us,” not “he/her/they” (Donnellon, 1996). Team talk emphasizes in-

terdependence and avoids terminology that emphasizes individuality. The language

of individual blame and criticism is avoided. Effective teams speak of collective

blame for failure and give collective praise for success. This is the language of team

accountability.

Team accountability means that the team, rather than individual members, as- sumes responsibility for success and failure. Team accountability cannot be coerced;

it flows naturally from collaborative interdependence that accrues from a shared

mission. In the first round of the 2003 NFL playoffs, the New York Giants mounted a

seemingly insurmountable 38 –14 lead by late in the third quarter. The San Francisco

49ers, however, came storming back from apparent defeat and took the lead

39–38 with one minute remaining in the game. The Giants, in a last-gasp effort to

salvage a win, drove to the 49ers’ 27-yard line and with six seconds remaining at-

tempted a game-winning field goal. Trey Junkin, the Giants’ long snapper, made an

erratic snap and the holder, Matt Allen, couldn’t set the ball in time for the kicker

so he tried to pass downfield for a touchdown. The pass fell incomplete. Junkin,

in bitter disappointment, tried assuming the entire blame for the Giants’ collapse,

“I cost this team a chance to go to the Super Bowl. This is the best team in the

NFC, and I screwed it up” (Emmons, 2003, p. 7D). Despite the crushing defeat and

controversy that ensued over a missed pass interference call by referees on the final

play that would have resulted in another field goal chance for the Giants (prompting

David Letterman to quip that this “denied the Giants another opportunity to blow

the game”), players nevertheless assumed responsibility for the loss as a team. Refus-

ing to blame a single team member, many Giants players insisted it was a team col-

lapse that allowed the 49ers to make the second greatest comeback in playoff history.

As Matt Allen explained, “I know he’s [Junkin is] upset. It’s awful for somebody to

bear all that weight. But he shouldn’t feel all the weight. We did give up 25 points in

the second half ” (Emmons, 2003, p. 7D).

Team failure is our failure. Team accountability isn’t the wistful logic of a feel- good philosophy. The Giants lost because of a team meltdown. The blown field goal

was merely the last in a series of mistakes by many team members. Foolish penalties,

a dropped pass in the end zone, an offense that transmogrified from fearsome scor-

ing machine into impotent ineptitude, and repeated defensive breakdowns through-

out the final 20 minutes of the game sealed the Giants’ defeat.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 208 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 209 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 209 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Team success is also a matter of collective responsibility, and team talk should reflect this. Rafael Aguayo (1990) taught team accountability for success, not indi- vidual glory, when he coached a Little League soccer team. Following each game, he

asked his players, “Who scored that first goal?” Typically at first, only the player who

kicked the ball into the net raised a hand. “No!” Aguayo cried. “We all scored that

goal. Every person on a team is responsible for scoring a goal.” Then he repeated

the question, “Now, who scored that goal?” All team members learned to raise their

hands. In four years of Little League soccer, Aguayo’s teams lost only a single game.

Language that exhibits power differences also should be avoided. “Think about

the difference between ‘the boss holds me accountable’ and ‘we hold ourselves ac-

countable’” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 116). “Powerful” and “powerless” lan-

guage is discussed in detail in Chapter 9.

▶ Designating Clear, Appropriate Roles: Room for One Quarterback

Unlike most informal small groups in which roles emerge from the transactions of members, teams usually require a formal designation of roles. You don’t want role ambiguity that produces confusion and duplication when team members are

unsure of the parts they are expected to play (Klein et al., 2009). A football team can’t

function effectively if individual team members decide which roles they plan to play.

You might end up with 15 quarterbacks and no cornerbacks. Remember that formal

roles identify a position (goalie, defensive end, project leader, chief surgeon), and a

description of the expected behavior is explicitly spelled out (orally or in writing by

a coach, supervisor, or team leader).

A team must have every group function covered by a qualified member play- ing a specific role so there is little or no duplication of effort. A surgical team has clearly designated roles for each member. Nurses aren’t supposed to step in and be-

gin performing heart surgery. Every function is critical to the success of the team. If

only some roles are played but others are ignored, several important team functions

will be sacrificed, sometimes with disastrous results.

In a huge Gallup study of 80,000 managers and 1 million employees (Buckingham &

Coffman, 1999), one manager named Michael who runs a highly successful restau-

rant in the Pacific Northwest was singled out. He was asked to tell about his best

restaurant team ever. He told of his waitstaff of four individuals: Brad, Gary, Emma,

and Susan. According to Michael’s description, Brad was a professional waiter

who ascribed to being the best waiter in town. He could anticipate what customers

wanted—more water or coffee, a dessert menu—without needing to be asked. Gary

always smiled and was cheerful. Everyone liked him, especially the customers. He

had an optimistic attitude. Emma was the unspoken team builder. She regularly as-

sembled the team and alerted the crew members to potential problems. Finally, there

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 209 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 210 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 210 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

was Susan, who was the greeter. She was lively, energetic, and pleasant. She kept track

of customers at lunch who typically needed quick service to return to work. She was

attentive. “These four were the backbone of my best team ever. I didn’t really need

to interfere. They ran the show themselves . . .For a good three years they were the

restaurant” (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 14).

Michael noted that each team member had his or her clearly defined role. “Brad

is a great waiter, but he would be a terrible manager . . .He respects the customers. He

is less respectful of some of the new employees” (p. 16). Qualities that made Susan a

great greeter wouldn’t necessarily translate into being an efficient waitperson. Emma

worked well with her team members, but she had a quiet personality not particularly

suitable for a greeter. Gary would have been a weak team builder. Michael actually

fired him, twice, but hired him back. His joking around went too far and he had to

be reined in before he created team friction. Finding the appropriate roles for each

team member can be a big challenge. It is vital, however, that each member plays the

role suited to his or her abilities. Finding the appropriate team member for each vital

role permits full utilization of the team’s resources.

The original reason that a person is asked to join a team may make role designa-

tion automatic. It is not unusual, however, to find that the roles originally contem-

plated for team members don’t work well and must be changed to make the team

more effective. One of the responsibilities of a team leader is to make determina- tions regarding role designations.

Teams usually require a formal designation of roles. Imagine this surgical team func- tioning effectively with every member vying for the chief surgeon role.

C hr

is R

ya n/

A la

m y

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 210 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 211 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 211 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Structuring Team Empowerment: Enhancing Members’ Capabilities

“Highly empowered teams are more effective than less empowered teams” (Jordan

et al., 2002). A key element of team building is structuring team empowerment.

Definition of Empowerment: Four Dimensions The concept of empower- ment is the process of enhancing the capabilities and influence of individuals and groups. There are four dimensions of empowerment: potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Group potency is the “shared belief among team members that they can be effective as a team” (Jordan et al., 2002,

p. 125). It’s a can-do group attitude. There is a strong relationship between group

potency and team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005). Those

teams whose members are confident that their team can perform effectively, not just

on a single task but across many different tasks, typically perform effectively, whereas

teams with low group potency do not perform as well (Jordan et al., 2002). Feeling

empowered to perform effectively as a team can contribute significantly to team suc-

cess (Kennedy et al., 2009; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

Meaningfulness is a team’s perception that its tasks are important, valuable, and worthwhile (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Team members collectively influence this

perception of meaningfulness by their communication. Cynicism expressed by some

team members can create a “why bother” attitude throughout the team. Optimism

expressed by team members can have the reverse effect, convincing members that

the team’s task is important and worth performing well. When team members view

a task as very meaningful, social loafing disappears and they work harder collectively

than they would individually (Karau & Elsaid, 2009).

Autonomy is “the degree to which team members experience substantial free- dom, independence, and discretion in their work” (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999, p. 59).

Choice empowers team members (Chua & Iyengar, 2006). Team autonomy means

that important decision making is a shared undertaking by all members. Because of

interconnectedness, no single team member entirely runs the show. Nevertheless,

autonomy doesn’t mean that teams have no supervision or guidance (Dubrin, 2010). Teams with a great deal of member autonomy and with limited supervision

(facilitation, coordination) are far more effective than teams with virtually unlimited

autonomy (Romig, 1996). IDEO has substantial member autonomy but some super-

vision by David Kelley and team leaders.

Impact is the degree of significance given by those outside of the team, typi- cally the team’s organization, to the work produced by the team (Kirkman & Rosen,

1999). Impact is often manifested by change outside of the team. If a team makes

proposals for change in an organization but those proposals are mostly ignored and

little change occurs, the message communicated is that the organization is indifferent

to the team’s suggestions.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 211 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 212 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 212 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Hierarchical Organizations: The Enemy of Empowerment Traditionally, or- ganizations have been hierarchical, meaning that members of the organization are

rank ordered in a kind of pyramid of power: CEOs, presidents, and vice-presidents

are at the top of the pyramid, upper management is next, followed by middle and

lower management, and finally the common workers are spread out at the base (see

Figure 6.1). Top-down decision making is the rule, with those at the top of the power

pyramid issuing edicts to managers, who in turn tell the worker bees what to do. Em-

ployees at the bottom of the pyramid mostly check their brains at the door because

they won’t be asked to participate in decision making and problem solving. Their

role is merely the “heavy lifting.”

Hierarchy in traditional organizations is the enemy of empowerment (Kelley & Littman, 2001). Although some degree of hierarchy provides necessary structure

for organizations, flattening traditional, rigid hierarchy somewhat is desirable.

Board

President

Vice Presidents

Area Deans

Middle Managers

Program Directors

Faculty

Support Staff

In traditional organizational hierarchies, decision-making power flows from top down to the bottom of the pyramid, and influence from those at the bottom on those at the top levels is difficult.

Hierarchy of traditional organizations (College)

Figure 6.1 Hierarchy in traditional organizations with its rigid rules and roles makes empowerment challenging.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 212 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 213 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 213 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Empowerment flattens the organizational hierarchy by sharing power. The organiza-

tional system becomes more open with information and communication flowing in

all directions, with few gatekeepers obstructing the flow, and with decision making

across the organizational spectrum encouraged.

Quality Circles: Lame First Attempt Motivated by the economic success of Japan in the early 1980s and its successful experience with teams, coupled with anemic eco-

nomic growth in America, organizations in the United States began attempts to flatten

the hierarchy. Initial attempts involved the establishment of quality circles—teams composed of employees who volunteered to work on a specific task and attempted

to solve a particular problem. Quality circles proved to be a half-hearted attempt to

empower workers. Typically, these teams had little autonomy to make final decisions

and implement the team’s wisdom. Mostly, recommendations were offered that could

be, and often were, easily ignored by the higher-ups in the organization. Change (im-

pact) rarely occurred so the meaningfulness of participation in quality circles became

an issue for team members. By the mid-1980s, quality circles had failed in more than

60% of the organizations that tried them because teams lacked real autonomy, and

the entire effort too often seemed like a meaningless charade (Hollander & Offerman,

1990; Marks, 1986). Many organizations abandoned quality circles as a failed experi-

ment within a year of initiating them (Dubrin et al., 1989).

Self-Managing Work Teams: The IDEO Model Self-regulating teams that com- plete an entire task are called self-managing work teams. This type of team emerged as a more effective alternative to quality circles. Self-managing work teams embrace em-

powerment (see Closer Look: “IDEO and Team Empowerment”). After sufficient train-

ing and education, team members share responsibility for planning, organizing, setting

goals, making decisions, and solving problems (Teubner, 2000). They have a great deal

of autonomy because they are self-managed, and since they control a great deal of their

own decision making and problem solving, team results seem meaningful to members

and have impact on organizations. As self-managing teams manifest success, group po-

tency increases, further reinforcing members’ desire to continue with the team.

Impediments to Team Empowerment: No Buy-In There are four primary im- pediments to team empowerment (Hollander & Offerman, 1990). First, organiza- tions can sabotage their own teams. David Kelley’s careful structuring of IDEO to foster team empowerment illustrates how important it is that the larger organization

doesn’t work at cross-purposes with teams working within the organization (LaFasto &

Larson, 2001). Teams functioning within organizations are subsystems operating

within a larger system. Their interconnectedness requires that every part of the or-

ganizational structure embrace empowerment for teams to be successful (Harris &

Beyerlein, 2003; Kennedy et al., 2009). IDEO’s corporate culture embraces and

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 213 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 214 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 214 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CLOSER LOOK

IDEO and Team Empowerment

IDEO, a design firm discussed briefly in Chapter 4, is a prime example of the empow-ered team approach. In fact, IDEO is consid- ered so effective at team empowerment that for the last several years it has served as a consul- tant for diverse organizations all over the world (Kelley & Littman, 2001; see also www.ideo .com). “IDEO has been on a mission not just to serve business, but to reform it” (Myerson, 2001, p. 8). This effort has been dubbed IDEO University.

IDEO has a flattened hierarchy characterized by few titles and no time clocks or specified va- cation schedules (Hyatt, 2010). Employees are free to transfer to overseas offices in London or Tokyo or to transcontinental offices in Chicago or New York, as long as someone from those of- fices agrees to swap jobs. A team of designers, not “the boss,” chooses new team members. At IDEO, employees are treated as equals who set their own schedules (typically 50- to 60-hour workweeks) while meeting demanding standards and strict deadlines. Designers can pick project teams and even occasionally specific projects to tackle. “Its flat multi-disciplinary ‘hot team’ struc- ture is democratic, engages the client directly in the work, and reflects the idea that ‘big ideas come from small teams’” (Myerson, 2001, p. 30).

The pyramid structure and the star system are replaced with team empowerment. Status at IDEO is based on talent, not seniority (Kelley & Littman, 2001). As one designer puts it, “The only way to enhance your reputation in the orga- nization is by earning the respect of your peers” (Myerson, 2001, p. 31). Each of IDEO’s studios, with between 25 and 30 designers apiece, has

maximum autonomy to shape its work environ- ment. Each studio reflects the personality of the design team residing in the space provided. One studio team hung a $4,000 DC3 airplane wing from the ceiling to create a “cool space.”

“Hierarchy is the enemy of cool space” (Kelley & Littman, 2001, p. 136). As founder David Kelley explains, “The general principle with work environments at IDEO is to try stuff and then ask forgiveness, rather than ask for permission first” (Myerson, 2001, p. 30). Tra- ditional organizations assign office space and create a pecking order for the high-status “cor- ner office with a window.” Rules forbidding per- sonal items such as family photos, wall posters, and the like are rigidly enforced. Office square footage traditionally is a status symbol in hier- archical organizations. IDEO’s director of busi- ness development, David Haygood, tells the story of one of his previous employers who as- signed workers to dismal, tiny cubicles if they were “grade 19” or lower, while workers given a grade 20 or above got hard-walled offices with an actual door. When reorganization occurred, grade 20 employees engaged in a competitive squabble to seize the offices with the most square footage. When Haygood moved to an- other company, he had the false ceiling of his office ripped out and overhead fixtures spray- painted black. His office was purposely the worst in the building. When some of his em- ployees complained to him about their inferior offices, Haygood offered to switch with them (Kelley & Littman, 2001). He got no takers. David Kelley’s office at IDEO is remarkably sim- ilar to the offices of his designers.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 214 25/10/11 5:06 PM

builDing teamwork 215 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 215 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

nurtures empowerment and teamwork. When organizations establish teams but fail

to provide sufficient structural support for team empowerment, the organization is

merely paying lip service to the concept of empowering teams. Not all organizations,

of course, are as dependent on teams as IDEO, nor should they be. In some organiza-

tions, ad hoc teams—teams that are assembled to solve an immediate problem, then dissolved once the solution has been implemented—are sufficient. Self-managing

teams may be too time consuming and irrelevant for simple tasks more easily and

efficiently tackled by one or two knowledgeable individuals.

Second, not everyone embraces empowered teams. Those accustomed to receiv- ing and following directives from supervisors may not adapt well to new respon-

sibilities and autonomy (Thoms et al., 2002). Some individuals’ attitudes may be

antagonistic to empowered teams. If so, they are unlikely to become effective, self-

managing team members. This can be true of individuals assigned to teams to act

as project leaders. If team leaders are held responsible for team failure when team

decisions may contradict the leader’s preference, it is not difficult to understand the

reluctance of the leader to embrace self-managing teams.

Third, when participation in decision making is a sham, empowerment is thwarted. Collaborative effort will disintegrate if group members feel that their par- ticipation merely rubber-stamps decisions already made by others with more power.

If the team is not trusted to make careful, deliberative decisions, and if the team’s

choices are not respected, then participative decision making will quickly be per-

ceived as a deceptive game that only creates the illusion of choice.

A review of 47 studies revealed that meaningful participation in decision making

increases worker productivity and job satisfaction (Miller & Monge, 1986). When

participative decision making fails, it typically fails because participation was mini-

mal, only some individuals were allowed to participate, the decisions teams were al-

lowed to make were relatively inconsequential, or the team’s choices were essentially

ignored by upper management (Kohn, 1993).

Finally, when rewards are distributed based on individual effort or ability, not team success, empowerment is impeded. “These rewards can often inhibit team

Questions for Thought 1. Do you think the IDEO-empowered team approach would work in every organization? What might prevent

it from translating well to some organizations?

2. Would an IDEO-type organization appeal to you? Explain. Would you have any reservations about working in an organization structured like IDEO?

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 215 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 216 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 216 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

members’ willingness to work together and help one another, even when the suc-

cess of the team depends on it” (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2007, p. 57). There are essen-

tially three ways rewards can be distributed in a group: winner-take-all based on

individual merit, equitable distribution (proportional), and equal distribution. An

equal distribution of rewards to all team members gives the best results for team

success; the competitive winner-take-all system gives the poorest results (Deutsch,

1985; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000). Equal distribution of rewards provides potential

motivation for all group members. It also enhances mutual self-esteem and respect,

team loyalty, and congenial personal relationships and communication within the

group (Deutsch, 1979). A merit system of rewards (winner-take-all) is intrinsically

competitive. Designating only some team members as meritorious implicitly brands

other members as deficient and unworthy of rewards for team success. Almost all

of the 3,000 studies conducted on merit pay show either no positive results or seri-

ous disadvantages, such as divisiveness, demoralization, and hostile communication

(Charnofsky et al., 1998).

There are also serious drawbacks to equitable reward distribution—proportional

reward based on individual effort and influence. “The quest for individual rewards

often leads to a great deal of tension when benefits are to be distributed. People dis-

agree if they do not receive as much as expected” (Brislin, 1993, p. 53).

SECOND LOOK

Typical Characteristics of Empowered Teams 1. Teams set their own goals and rules.

2. Team members often set their own work schedules.

3. Teams usually design their own work space.

4. Work space is divided relatively equally among members.

5. Members devise and embrace rules for appropriate member behavior.

6. Teams as a whole are accountable for team performance.

7. Teams determine their membership and remove members who are deemed

ineffective or disruptive.

8. Team members are trained to communicate collaboratively and supportively.

9. Decision making is typically democratic, and leadership is participative.

10. Team members don’t ask for permission from the team leader to take risks or

make changes, but negotiate with the team and strive for consensus.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 216 25/10/11 5:06 PM

Competent team leaDersHip 217 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 217 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Establishing Individual Accountability: Providing Feedback Team accountability diffuses the blame for failure and spreads the praise for success.

Team building, however, also requires individual accountability, which establishes a minimum standard of effort and performance for each team member to share the fruits of team success. Team effort is not truly cooperative if some members are slackers who let others do all the work. You must have a mechanism for individual

accountability to discourage social loafing (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2007; Salas et al.,

2005). A team needs to catch errors, lapses in judgment, and slip-ups. Establishing a

cooperative communication climate for the group is essential to productive individ-

ual accountability. Mutual performance monitoring in which all team members take

responsibility for catching errors provides descriptive feedback to team members

with the emphasis on improvement, not blaming or tearing down someone (see the

Chapter 4 discussion on defensive versus supportive communication).

Individual accountability standards should not be set so high that they assure fail-

ure. Opportunities for social loafers to redeem themselves should be available. The focus should be on raising all team members above the minimum standards— way above if possible—not on looking for ways to designate failures (Druskat & Wolff, 1999). Minimum standards agreed to in advance by the group might include

the following: no more than two missed meetings, no more than two tardies or early

exits from meetings, work turned in to the group on time, and work of satisfactory

quality as determined by peer appraisal.

Individual accountability is not the same as rank ordering of group members’

performances or distributing rewards based on merit. Individual accountability merely provides feedback that establishes a floor below which no one should drop, not a ceiling that only a very few can reach. A plan to deal with social loafing was discussed in Chapter 3. Implement it.

Competent Team Leadership

Team leadership is a core component of teamwork (Dubrin, 2010; Salas et al., 2005).

Teams require leadership even if they are self-managing. Remember that leadership

is not a person but a process. A team may have a designated leader (coach, manager,

project director), but leadership in teams is a shared responsibility. It is not what

some have termed “mushroom management”—that is, put the team in the dark,

feed it manure, and watch it grow (Bolman & Deal, 1992). Teams don’t require man-

agement from a supervisor, and they don’t need to be left leaderless. They do need

guidance and facilitation to ensure that goals are being met. In this section, commu-

nication strategies that produce competent team leadership are explored.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 217 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 218 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 218 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Focus Questions

1. Which style of leadership, directive or participative, is usually most effective with teams? In all situations?

2. How does fear diminish teamwork and team effectiveness?

3. What are supportive rules and how should they be established in a team?

▶ Fostering Participative Leadership: Nurturing Empowerment Team leaders don’t act like bosses or supervisors if they hope to be effective. Team

leaders are teachers and facilitators—skill builders. They are open to input from

team members. The head coach of a football team may make many final decisions,

but participative leadership requires consultation with assistant coaches in devising

game plans, utilizing personnel effectively, and dealing with the inevitable problems

that emerge during the course of a season. Coaches for offensive, defensive, and spe-

cial teams encourage input from players so that difficulties arising during the game

can be discovered, analyzed effectively, and solved before it’s too late. One person

cannot be expected to know everything, so participative leadership encourages the

sharing of knowledge and wisdom. Encouraging skill building, delegating mean-

ingful responsibility, and sharing decision making and problem solving empowers

members (Hollander & Offerman, 1990). Maximum utilization of team resources

requires all members, not just the leader, to think for themselves. That’s how group

potency is fostered. Remember, coaches can’t think for the players when they’re out

on the field playing the game.

As explained in Chapter 5, a situation (such as military combat) may require directive leadership, but the general leadership pattern for most teams should be participative (Pearce & Sims, 2002). A cardiac surgery team typically operates under directive leadership during the operation when swift, coordinated action by

the entire team is essential, but participative leadership is appropriate when the

surgical team considers new operating procedures, ways to improve coordination,

and strategies to improve the team’s communication. You want to involve team

members in decision making and problem solving. Directive leadership typically

operates from fear—fear of making a mistake, of looking foolish, and of being

criticized. Operating from fear “prevents people from thinking” (Aguayo, 1990,

p. 184). A team leader wants to drive away fear. One study by the Positive Employee

Practices Institute found that 70% of employees see a problem at work but won’t

tell anyone because they are afraid to tell management (cited in Romig, 1996). At

IDEO, there is a saying, “Fail often to succeed sooner.” Those who fear failure can

be paralyzed into a play-it-safe stasis. “Failure is the flip side of risk taking, and if

you don’t risk, odds are you won’t succeed” (Kelley & Littman, 2001, p. 232). Team

leaders should seek to kill the fear that closes a system and kills thinking, input,

innovation, and success.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 218 25/10/11 5:06 PM

Competent team leaDersHip 219 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 219 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Insisting on a Cooperative Communication Climate: Jerks Need Not Apply

An effective team leader is a competent communicator capable of using supportive communication and avoiding defensive communication patterns with team mem- bers. Effective team leaders create a climate in which making a mistake is an expected part of learning. When mistakes are made, members are encouraged to learn from the

errors. They aren’t criticized, ridiculed, or made to feel stupid, especially in front of

other team members. Berating members for making mistakes instills fear of failure.

Effective team leaders also suppress their egos to encourage a cooperative climate (Chemers, 2000). Egos create defensiveness and competitiveness. In 1984, Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity, approached former President

Jimmy Carter in hopes of getting his help. When Carter expressed an interest to

work with Habitat, Fuller drew up a list of 15 possible roles the former president of

the United States could play. Fuller expected Carter to agree to one or two roles, and

almost everything on the list was a high-profile, prestige activity (speaking through

the media, raising money, making a video). Carter agreed to all 15 roles, including

working on a building crew. Rather than merely working on a crew for one day, as

Fuller envisioned for him, Carter put together his own work crew, traveled by bus to

Brooklyn, New York, worked vigorously every day for a week on building a Habitat

house, and slept in a local church with the rest of his crew. Jimmy Carter has assem-

bled a building crew and served in similar fashion every year since (Mador, 2010).

Imagine the result if Carter had demanded special treatment, played prima donna and

swung a hammer on a building site only when cameras were rolling, and slept in expen-

sive hotels while crew members slept uncomfortably in a church. Imagine the grumbling

and disenchantment such egotism would have engendered. Who would have wanted to

work with him, follow his lead, and be inspired by his example? Instead, Carter didn’t ex-

pect special treatment, even though he was once the most powerful leader in the world.

He completely suppressed any ego needs and became just one of the crew. He led by ex-

ample, and in the process he gave Habitat a massive boost in visibility and participation.

Finally, effective team leaders work with team members to develop supportive rules. Please note: This does not mean that the leader concocts a set of rules and then imposes the rules on the team. It also does not mean that organizational policy rules

(“always wear a suit to work” or “file an absence report immediately upon your return to

work following an illness”) should be followed without question. Supportive rules refer

to communication behaviors that empower teams, not to policy rules in organizations.

Supportive rules should emerge from team discussion during the initial meet-

ing of the team. “When the team members set the rules, they follow them” (Romig,

1996, p. 161). All rules should help create a supportive environment and avoid a

defensive climate. Some possible rules that the team could embrace might be “no

personal attacks,” “listen fully and patiently to team members before responding,”

“treat every member equally,” “never bad-mouth a team member behind his or her

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 219 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 220 Chapter 6: Developing effeCtive teams

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 220 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

back,” and “always show up on time for meetings.” Team members should agree to

the rules, they should be posted, and there should be between 5 and 15 rules. Fewer

rules likely means something has been left out; more than 15 makes it too difficult

for team members to remember the rules (Romig, 1996).

▶ Decision Making and Problem Solving: Using a Plan Decision making and problem solving without a systematic structured procedure will

usually waste huge amounts of time in aimless and unfocused discussion while produc-

ing negligible results. Effective teams typically have a systematic, structured procedure

for decision making and problem solving; ineffective teams typically do not (LaFasto &

Larson, 2001). The point to note here is that team leaders play an important role in

assuring that systematic procedures are established for the team. This usually involves

keeping the team focused on using the Standard Agenda, consensus decision making,

and brainstorming procedures. A detailed discussion of these systematic procedures

is presented in Chapter 8, not here, because they require substantial explanation and

they apply to a much broader spectrum of small groups than just teams.

In summary, teams have a higher level of cooperation, team members have more

diverse skills, there is a stronger group identity in teams, and teams usually require

greater allocation of time and resources than what is found in most conventional

small groups. Developing effective teams begins with assembling effective team mem-

bers. The best team members eschew egotism, cynicism, and abusive communication

practices, and they are experienced and have strong problem-solving abilities, are

optimistic, and have received communication training. You build teamwork by devel-

oping team goals and team identity, designating clear and appropriate roles for each

member, structuring empowerment into the fabric of the team, and having compe-

tent leadership. Competent team leadership is a shared process. Team leaders should

foster participative leadership, insist on a cooperative team climate, and make sure

that team members are guided by a systematic decision-making and problem-solving

process. The next two chapters discuss defective and effective decision making and

problem solving, also vital considerations for teams as well as small groups in general.

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 6, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 220 25/10/11 5:06 PM

Competent team leaDersHip 221 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 221 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. Can you think of any teams that don’t require clear, challenging goals, a team identity, and desig- nated roles?

2. Can a team identity be established that doesn’t conform to the team leader’s preference? 3. How much say do you think a team member should have when roles are designated? Should this

be the exclusive choice of the team leader?

Gung Ho (1985). Comedy/Drama An automobile plant in a small town is rescued by Japanese ownership and an imported management team. Analyze this for teamwork and team building in the context of cultural differences. How do individualism and collectivism relate to problems of team building?

Glory Road (2006). Drama; PG Above-average depiction of a true story. Coach Don Haskins molded a winning team at Texas Western University in the early 1960s, eventually qualifying for the finals of the NCAA basketball tournament. He fielded an all-black starting five against an all-white Kentucky team when racial tensions were heightened nationally. Examine the major elements of team building and teamwork depicted. What specifically did Coach Haskins do to empower his players? How did he develop a team identity?

Invictus (2009). Drama; PG-13 Inspiring account of Nelson Mandela’s quest to unify South Africa following the disman- tling of apartheid by winning the 1995 World Rugby Cup. Examine the elements of team building and teamwork depicted in the film.

The War Room (1993). Documentary; PG This documentary about Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign received an Oscar nomi- nation for best documentary. Analyze the film for team building and teamwork. What type of leadership style was used?

We Are Marshall (2008). Feel-Good Drama; PG A plane crash wiped out most of Marshall University’s football team. New coach Jack Lengyel (Matthew McConaughey) rallies surviving players and a grief-stricken community in this somewhat formulaic but poignant depiction of a true story. How does Lengyel build a team from the ashes of disaster?

VIDEO Case Studies

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Photo (p. 203): 1, 2, 3, 4.

46850_ch06_ptg01_hr_190-221.indd 221 25/10/11 5:06 PM

◀ 222

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 222 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. InformAtIon overloAd: too much Input 1. Scope of the Problem: The

Information Avalanche

2. Consequences: The Downside of Information

a. Impairs Critical Thinking: Separating Wheat from Chaff

b. Indecisiveness: Conclusion Irresolution

c. Information Bulimia: Binging and Purging

d. Group Attention Deficit Disorder: Difficulty Concentrating

Closer Look: Technology and the Bias of Speed

3. Coping with Information Overload: Wrestling the Beast

a. Screening Information: Separating the Useful from the Useless

b. Shutting Off Technology: Hitting the Off Switch

Group Discussion: Defective Group Decision Making and Problem Solving

c. Specializing: Knowing More and More about Less and Less

d. Becoming Selective: On a Need- to-Know Basis

e. Limiting the Search: When Enough Is Enough

f. Narrowing the Search: Databases and Patterns

▶ B. InformAtIon underloAd: poor ShArIng

▶ c. mIndSetS: crItIcAl thInkIng frozen SolId

1. Confirmation Bias: One-Sided Information Searches

a. The Problem: Poor Decisions and Solutions

b. Combating Confirmation Bias: A Plan

2. False Dichotomies: Either–Or Thinking

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 222 25/10/11 4:30 PM

223 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 223 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Z oo

m /J

up ite

r Im

ag es

▶ d. collectIve InferentIAl error: uncrItIcAl thInkIng

1. Prevalence of the Problem: It’s a Group Thing

2. Specific Sources of Inferential Errors

a. Unrepresentativeness: Distorting the Facts

b. Correlation Inferred as Causation: Covariation

3. Error Correction: Practicing Critical Thinking

▶ e. group polArIzAtIon: extremely uncrItIcAl thInkIng

1. Polarization: From Gambling to Guarded

2. Why Groups Polarize: Social Comparison and Persuasive Arguments

3. Combating Group Polarization: Necessary Steps

▶ f. groupthInk: crItIcAl thInkIng In SuSpended AnImAtIon

1. General Conditions: Excessive Cohesiveness and Concurrence Seeking

2. Identification of Groupthink: Main Symptoms

a. Overestimation of the Group’s Power and Morality: Arrogance

b. Closed-Mindedness: Clinging to Assumptions

c. Pressures toward Uniformity: Presenting a United Front

3. Preventing Groupthink: Promoting Vigilance

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 223 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 224 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 224 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

I rving Janis (1982) relates the story of a tragedy that occurred years ago in the mining town of Pitcher, Oklahoma. The local mining engineer warned the inhabitants that due to an error, the town was in danger of imminent cave-in from undermining. Residents

were advised to evacuate immediately. The warnings went unheeded. At a meeting of

the local Lion’s Club, leading citizens of the town joked about the doom-and-gloom

forecast. One club member evoked raucous laughter from the membership when he

entered the meeting wearing a parachute on his back in mock preparation for the

predicted disaster. Within a few days, several of the club members and their families

died when parts of the town caved in, swallowing some of those who spoofed the

warnings.

Why would people ignore the threat? We read and hear stories every year of simi-

lar collective misjudgments and disasters. On my own campus, for example, how

do clear glass windows in a men’s restroom get installed to replace opaque windows,

when the new windows leave men who stand at the urinals plainly visible to pass-

ersby? What gives rise to poor decision making in groups? How can group fiascos be

averted? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this chapter.

The terms decision making and problem solving are sometimes used synonymously.

The terms are interconnected but not identical. A decision requires a choice between

two or more alternatives. Groups make decisions in the process of finding solutions

to problems (e.g., where to meet, what process to use in making choices, what is the

best solution to the problem, how to implement the solution). Problem solving neces-

sitates decision making, but not all decision making involves a problem to be solved.

The principal purpose of this chapter is to explore sources of defective group decision making and problem solving. There are five chapter objectives:

1. To analyze the adverse effects of excessive or insufficient information quantity on group decision making and problem solving

2. To explain the role of mindsets in defective decision making/problem solving 3. To explore the contribution of collective inferential error to defective decision

making/problem solving

4. To discuss the troublesome decision-making problem of group polarization 5. To describe and analyze groupthink as an ineffective group decision-making

process.

◀ 224

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 224 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 225 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

inforMation overloaD: too MuCh input 225 ▶

Put succinctly, this chapter explores ways in which small groups manifest de- fective critical thinking, a major cause of bad decision making and problem solv- ing. Critical thinking requires group members to analyze and evaluate ideas and information in order to reach sound judgments and conclusions. Critical thinking,

therefore, is central to any discussion of small group decision making and problem

solving.

One note of caution, however. Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky once remarked

that “everything seems stupid when it fails.” Determining degrees of decision-

making and problem-solving effectiveness simply on the basis of outcomes would

be misleading and inaccurate. Although suggestive, bad outcomes do not automati-

cally signal defective decision making and problem solving. Bad luck, sabotage, poor

implementation by those outside the group, or misinformation may have caused the

undesirable result.

Information Overload: Too Much Input

Information is the raw material of group decision making and problem solving. Adequate, credible information is essential to effective group decision making and

problem solving. With the advent of rapidly proliferating electronic technologies,

however, information overload has become the problem of the new century. Infor- mation overload occurs when the rate of information flow into a system and/or the complexity of that information exceed the system’s processing capacity (Farace

et al., 1977). This section will examine the scope and consequences of information

overload and ways in which decision-making and problem-solving groups can cope

with it.

Focus Questions

1. What problems are created by information overload?

2. What means do groups have of coping with information overload?

▶ Scope of the Problem: The Information Avalanche Jeff Davidson (1996) put the problem succinctly almost two decades ago: “This gen-

eration is more besieged by information than any that preceded it, and perhaps more

so than all previous generations combined” (p. 495). More recently, the research

firm IDC calculated that the total global digital data available in 2010 was 1.2 million

petabytes, an increase of 62% from 2009 (Gantz & Reinsel, 2010). A petabyte is a

million gigabytes. So, 1.2 million petabytes is roughly equivalent to “the digital out-

put from a century’s worth of constant tweeting by all of Earth’s inhabitants” (Wray,

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 225 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 226 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 226 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

2010), a scary thought indeed! The amount of information available digitally by

2020, however, is estimated to be 44 times greater than 2009 (Gantz & Reinsel, 2010).

The word staggering doesn’t seem quite sufficient to capture the size of the challenge

we face in coming years with information overload.

Consider some prominent examples of exponential growth in digital media.

Facebook grew from a few thousand subscribers in 2004 to more than 700 million

worldwide by the middle of 2011 (Delevett, 2011). Twitter, which started in

March 2006, grew to about 200 million users worldwide by the end of 2010 (Murphy,

2010). These social networking sites, considered “critical” by one-fifth of professional

employees to their overall success and productivity at work (“Plantronics Study,”

2010), produce massive quantities of information, much of it relatively useless. One

text analysis of 2,000 randomly selected Twitter tweets, for example, concluded that

41% were “pointless babble” of the “I am eating a sandwich now” variety (Kelly,

2010). Nevertheless, both useless and useful information are expanding at breakneck

speed, making the task of separating the two, so groups can engage in effective deci-

sion making and problem solving, ever more challenging.

Consider also the vastness of global e-mail. An estimated 90 trillion e-mail mes-

sages are sent yearly, regularly swamping workers’ in-boxes (“Internet 2009 in Num-

bers,” 2010). In fact, the use of e-mail by professional workers has increased by 78%

from 2005 to 2010 (“Plantronics Study,” 2010). This e-mail avalanche will likely con-

tinue. A study of 1,700 white-collar employees in five countries commissioned by

LexisNexis showed that e-mail was vastly preferred to cell phones, text messaging,

or even in-person conversation for the sharing of important information at work

(“International Workplace Productivity Survey,” 2010). Another study of more than

1,800 employees in six countries found similar results (“Plantronics Study,” 2010).

The problem of information overload continues to grow annually. According to

the same LexisNexis study, white-collar professionals spend about half of their work-

ing hours “receiving and managing information,” not using the information pro-

ductively. This was a workload increase of 9% between 2008 and 2010. Almost half

of the information received each day is viewed as “not important to getting the job

done.” More than half of these professionals say that the quality of their work suf-

fers because they cannot sort through the flood of information fast enough to keep

up. Also, about the same number of workers (51%) anticipate reaching “a breaking

point” where they cannot handle any more information (“International Workplace

Productivity Survey,” 2010). Clearly, information overload will not diminish in im-

portance but will likely increase in years to come.

▶ Consequences: The Downside of Information Information overload is not inconsequential (Bodard, 2008). Aside from group members

feeling overwhelmed by the avalanche of information, there are four main consequences

of information overload relevant to group decision making and problem solving.

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 226 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 227 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

inforMation overloaD: too MuCh input 227 ▶

Impairs Critical Thinking: Separating Wheat from Chaff Information over- load impairs critical thinking (Shenk, 1997). A glut of information makes it very

difficult to distinguish useless from useful information (Bodard, 2008). In fact,

gathering vast quantities of information can increase a group’s confidence in its decisions but may actually decrease the accuracy of those decisions (Hall et al., 2007). It’s not the quantity of information, but the quality and relevance of the in-

formation that are most important. Critical thinking and effective decision making

are hampered because group members have trouble digging through the garbage

heap of useless information to discover the treasured nugget. Consider a riddle that

illustrates this point:

Suppose you are a bus driver. On the first stop you pick up six men and two

women. At the second stop two men leave and one woman boards the bus.

At the third stop one man leaves and two women enter the bus. At the fourth

stop three men get on and three women get off. At the fifth stop two men get

off, three men get on, one woman gets off, and two women get on. What is

the bus driver’s name? (Halpern, 1984, p. 201)

Don’t reread the riddle! Have you figured it out? The answer, of course, is your

name since the riddle begins, “Suppose you are a bus driver.” All the information

about the passengers is irrelevant and merely diverts your attention from the obvi-

ous and correct answer. Nicholas Carr (2010), in his book The Shallows: What the

Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, claims that immersing ourselves in the vast reservoir

of information and snatching bits and pieces here and there impedes comprehen-

sion and “deep reading” and prevents quiet contemplation and critical analysis of

all this information. We have little time to think when information is threatening to

drown us in a digital data dump. Students working on group projects recognize the

problem of information overload and its disruptive quality. When surrounded by a

Mount Everest-size pile of books and articles or a stack of printouts from the Inter-

net related to a group project, you lose sight of the larger picture. How does all this

information fit together into a coherent package? Simply sorting through the giga-

heaps of information on a subject leaves little time for group members to examine

the information critically.

Indecisiveness: Conclusion Irresolution Information overload promotes in- decisiveness (Shenk, 1997). Paradoxically, the technologies that have ushered in the

information age speed up almost everything enormously, but a group’s ability to

make decisions is slowed (see Closer Look: “Technology and the Bias of Speed”).

“The psychological reaction to such an overabundance of information . . . is to sim-

ply avoid coming to conclusions” (Shenk, 1997, p. 93). We become overly concerned

that some new, instantly available fact or statistic that would invalidate a group deci-

sion will be overlooked, making the group appear foolish.

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 227 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 228 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 228 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

CLOSER LOOK

Technology and the Bias of Speed

“Much time is lost by slow-moving pas-sengers who make no effort to hurry,” claimed the president of Otis in a 1953 sales pitch for automated elevators. “They know the attendant will wait for them. . . . But the im- personal operatorless elevator starts closing the door after permitting you a reasonable time to enter or leave.” He noted, “People soon learn to move promptly” (Gleick, 1999, p. 29).

Our technology makes “faster” possible, even necessary. As soon as faster becomes possible, it becomes our expectation. We perceive a “need for speed” whether or not it is required (Bodard, 2008). Thus, computer printers of 20 years ago seem painfully slow by today’s standard, even though they were viewed as almost miraculously swift in their day. Waiting even a few seconds to log on to our computers produces agitation for many users. When the push-button phone was invented, the rotary dial seemed interminably slow and clunky by comparison, but then came the speed-dial button to shorten the process by a couple of seconds. Federal Express ushered in overnight mail service. Suddenly, regular mail service seemed annoyingly slow. The advent of e-mail initiated speed-of-light transmission of messages. Now regular mail service is “snail mail.” Everything compared to e-mail seems like the pace of a slug on tranquilizers, but then comes instant messaging and texting to quicken the pace of information access even further. Teenagers especially see e-mail as too slow com- pared to texting and social networking. As Scott Campbell, co-author of Pew Research report on teen media use, observes, “Email doesn’t sup- port real-time, flexible contact with others. You have to log in and also be online” (quoted in Murphy, 2010).

Modern computers are constantly in a race to provide faster service and quicker access to Internet applications, databases, and websites. In 2011, for example, Intel touted its new genera- tion of computer chips, which included features such as “Quick Think Video.” Intel’s chief mar- keting officer, Deborah Conrad, in touting the product, noted, “We think the new norm is this constant visual experience. You are not waiting for things to happen and getting that pinwheel on a Mac or hourglass on the PC” (quoted in Vance, 2011, p. C3). “Faster is better” has be- come the modern maxim.

Faster, however, may seem better because we supposedly “save time,” yet all these technolo- gies that accelerate the pace of our lives don’t actually provide most of us with free time to make careful, deliberate decisions. We now have to “multitask” to keep pace (Gleick, 1999). Harvard economist Juliet Schor explains, “Tech- nology reduces the amount of time it takes to do any one task, but also leads to the expansion of tasks people are expected to do” (quoted in Shenk, 1997, p. 56). Where once a group might be given a month to finish a report, it now might be expected to finish a professional-looking re- port in only a few days. Little time is available to reflect, think, analyze, evaluate, or decide. We can become paralyzed into indecisiveness or forced to make rash decisions by the unrelenting pressure to act swiftly.

Group discussion can seem interminably long in a fast-track society. Allowing every group member to express his or her point of view seems like “wasted time.” The pressure is to act, not deliberate. We become impatient with searching for creative solutions to com- plex problems. We feel a need to move quickly

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 228 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 229 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

inforMation overloaD: too MuCh input 229 ▶

to the next problem, not linger on an “old” one. Crises and emergencies proliferate because everything becomes “last minute.” Half of American respondents to the LexisNexis survey felt “demoralized” when they couldn’t manage all of the information that comes their way at work (“International Workplace Productivity Survey,” 2010). The pace of trying to keep up

is exhausting. “This is the Information Age, which does not always mean information in our brains. We sometimes feel that it means infor- mation whistling by our ears at light speed, too fast to be absorbed” (Gleick, 1999, p. 87). Tech- nology is rapidly eliminating the pauses in our lives, and group decision making is probably not the better for it.

Questions for Thought 1. Have you experienced the difficulties associated with group decision making when faster is perceived to be

better? How do you cope with it?

2. Should we try to slow the pace? How could this be done? 3. Is ever-increasing pace an inevitable product of technology or do some technologies slow the pace?

Information Bulimia: Binging and Purging Information overload encourages “information bulimia” (Wurman, 1989). Information bulimia is a binge-and-purge cycle of information processing. For example, students cram facts into their heads,

regurgitate them for a test or group presentation, then quickly purge them from their

minds forever (sound vaguely familiar?). We become so focused on the quantity of

information that we hardly notice if the quality is substandard (Bodard, 2008). Little

information is retained. No meaningful decisions have been made in the process; no

vital answers to problems have been discovered.

Group Attention Deficit Disorder: Difficulty Concentrating Information overload produces a kind of group attention deficit disorder (ADD). People with

ADD, a brain syndrome, find that it is extraordinarily difficult to concentrate on any

one thing for more than a fleeting moment. Similarly (though not literally), the mega-

mountains of information competing for group members’ attention makes focusing

on any one idea, concept, or problem extremely difficult. As Carr (2010) observes,

“We willingly accept the loss of concentration and focus, the division of our attention

and the fragmentation of our thoughts, in return for the wealth of compelling or at

least diverting information we receive” (p. 134). As Shenk (1997) further notes, our

“electronic leashes”—cell phones, smartphones, computer tablets, PDAs—either

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 229 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 230 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 230 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

distract our attention or make us wary that an interruption is imminent. Almost

60% of respondents in the LexisNexis survey agreed that these electronic leashes are

distracting and can hinder job performance (“International Workplace Productiv-

ity Survey,” 2010). For example, when cell phones go off repeatedly during group

meetings, classes, and the like, everyone is distracted and attention is diverted from

decision making and problem solving.

▶ Coping with Information Overload: Wrestling the Beast Coping with information overload can’t be accomplished by turning back the clock.

Brian Lamb, C-SPAN’s founder and chairman, explains:

You can’t stop the process. It’s the American way. Which part of the library

or the Internet do you want to shut down? Let me tell you something: If we

can’t survive all the information that we’re going to develop, then we’re in

real trouble. No one is going to stop writing books. No one is going to stop

creating information. (quoted in Shenk, 1997, p. 22)

You can cope with information overload in several ways.

Screening Information: Separating the Useful from the Useless Screen- ing information, much like you do phone calls, by simply choosing to ignore much

of the information is one effective method of coping with information overload. If

you find 200 e-mail messages waiting for your attention when you return from a

vacation, how do you cope? One way is to use a software program that automatically

screens e-mail messages from designated senders. The RADAR project also uses a

software-based personal assistant that analyzes message text received in e-mails and

determines what is task relevant information (Freed et al., 2008). In addition, there

are spam filters that automatically screen unsolicited and unwanted messages from

strangers and business interests. E-mails from virtual group members may be given

highest priority. E-mails advertising rental housing may be deleted. A more low-tech

screening method is merely to delete unread messages based on the title and author

of the message. Scanning message content is also a means of screening information.

In the LexisNexis study, 91% of respondents answered that they scan information

regularly at work to cope with information overload (“International Workplace Pro-

ductivity Survey,” 2010). Often a quick glance at message content can determine

whether the information is relevant to your needs.

Shutting Off Technology: Hitting the Off Switch A closely related method to screening is shutting off the technology. Information overload is largely a problem of

too much openness in a system. Access to information needs to be closed off some.

Cell phones and smartphones are common sources of information transmission.

A standard rule for most group meetings should be that all such devices will be shut

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 230 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 231 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

inforMation overloaD: too MuCh input 231 ▶

off to prevent interruptions. Computers can also be turned off, although this may

require some individual discipline. Don’t check e-mails and text messages until group meetings have ended, and do not text message during a meeting. Some companies have established quiet times when workers stay away from computers

altogether and half days in which communication by e-mail is prohibited to give

employees time to think and problem solve, to meet in groups and deliberate not just

gather ever larger quantities of information (“International Workplace Productivity

Survey,” 2010).

Specializing: Knowing More and More about Less and Less When you specialize you can manage to know a lot about a little. Some specialization is un-

doubtedly necessary to cope with information overload. No individual or group

can possibly manage information sufficiently so that experts on vital subjects will

never be required. Increasing specialization within groups, however, will probably

not improve decision making, and may worsen it. When a group’s knowledge is

limited in scope, it becomes more dependent on experts, more vulnerable to their

characterizations and perceptions of reality, and more prone to let the experts do

the thinking for the group. If group members know little or nothing about the law,

for instance, they may be forced to trust the advice of a lawyer counseling the group

on some legal issue.

Becoming Selective: On a Need-to-Know Basis Another method of coping with information overload is selectivity (Klapp, 1978). Since group members can’t

attend to all information bombarding them, they should choose selectively on the

basis of group priorities and goals. Setting group priorities helps members select

which information requires their urgent attention and which can be delayed or ig-

nored entirely. Setting priorities distinguishes what we need to know from what there

is to know. Selecting the specific information that is required avoids burial by the

information dump truck.

Limiting the Search: When Enough Is Enough The search for information must stop at some point to allow time to reflect and evaluate information. There

is a time for searching and a time for thinking and deciding. Setting deadlines for

group decisions is critical. Deadlines force a group to bring a search for information

to a halt. This means, however, that the search for information should begin early,

instead of being postponed until the last minute. Otherwise, with time constraints,

the search for relevant information may be far too limited to be effective.

Narrowing the Search: Databases and Patterns Searching the Internet by merely typing a topic into the keyword search window will likely prove to be unpro-

ductive. For example, the most recent time that I typed information overload into

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 231 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 232 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 232 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

the Google search window, I got a staggering 7.6 million hits. The search clearly has

to be narrowed. One way to do this is to access high-quality databases. Many aca-

demic disciplines provide their own specialized databases that provide credible in-

formation, not general information from sources both credible and not so credible.

Pattern recognition is another means of narrowing the search. Discerning pat- terns is a group’s best defense against information overload. “Once a pattern is

Too much information can produce group attention deficit disorder.

0 0

0 J

ef f

St ah

le r/

C ol

um bu

s D

is pa

tc h

D is

t. B

y U

N IV

ER SA

L U

C LI

C K

. R ep

ri nt

ed w

ith

pe rm

is si

on . A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

SECOND LOOK

Coping with Information Overload Screening Information—limit exposure to information

Shutting Off Technology—turn off cell phones, pagers, and so on

Specializing—know a lot about a little

Becoming Selective—attend to information that relates directly to group goals

and priorities

Limiting the Search—set time for searching and time for deciding

Narrowing the Search—use credible databases; find patterns

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 232 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 233 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

inforMation unDerloaD: poor sharinG 233 ▶

perceived, 90% of information becomes irrelevant” (Klapp, 1978, p. 13). Football

teams preparing for a game against an opponent could not possibly perform ef-

fectively without a specific game plan (pattern). Only a small number of plays are

chosen. The players are instructed by the coaches to concentrate on a few key strate-

gies: establish the running game, contain the opponent’s quarterback, double-team

the wide receivers. No player can concentrate on more than a few crucial strategies.

The plan simplifies the team’s approach to the game. It establishes recognizable

patterns for players.

Information Underload: Poor Sharing

Although information overload is a far more prevalent and significant problem,

information underload can also present problems for groups. Information under- load refers to an insufficient amount of information (inadequate input) available to a group for decision-making purposes. This information underload often occurs in

groups because an individual member sits on critical information and doesn’t share

it with the group (Greitemeyer et al., 2006).

Many studies show that unshared information in groups leads to poor-quality

decision making (Galinsky & Kray, 2004; Schittekatte & Van Hiel, 1996; Stasser

et al., 2000). The problem of unshared information may even lead to disaster.

A study of cockpit crews flying large commercial planes revealed that crews who

shared little information did not perform as well as crews who shared a greater

quantity of information (Foushee & Manos, 1981). Seventy percent of all civil avia-

tion accidents and near-misses during a five-year period reported by the NASA

Safety Reporting System were caused by either improper transmission of informa-

tion from one crew member to another or by failure to transmit vital information

at all (Burrows, 1982). One study of pilot-air traffic controller communication

revealed that pilots all too commonly fail to provide necessary information to air-

traffic controllers (Howard, 2008). Fewer errors related to mishandling of the en-

gines, hydraulic systems, fuel systems, misreading instruments, and failing to use

ice protection were found when sufficient information was communicated to all

crew members.

Information underload is usually a problem of too much closedness in a system. The general solution to this problem is greater openness in the lines of communication. All members of the group must have access to the relevant in-

formation in order to make quality decisions. Finding the balance between too

little and too much information, however, requires critical thinking skills. The

competent communicator must acquire sufficient knowledge to recognize within

a specific context what information is directly relevant to the task and what is

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 233 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 234 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 234 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

irrelevant or marginal. Increasing the quantity of irrelevant or minimally useful

information will confuse rather than assist the group in making effective deci-

sions and solving problems.

Mindsets: Critical Thinking Frozen Solid

Perceptual mindsets are psychological and cognitive predispositions to see the world in a particular way. They interfere with effective group decision making and problem

solving. Cognitively, we are prepared to receive only certain messages and ignore

others. We are conditioned to view the world narrowly.

Try this demonstration of a mindset on your unsuspecting friends. Have them

spell the word shop out loud. Now ask them to respond immediately to the question,

“What do you do when you come to a green light?” The vast majority will unthink-

ingly reply “stop.” Why? Because spelling the word shop narrows our focus to rhym-

ing words even though the correct answer does not rhyme. Our minds are set to view

the world in a particular way even if this is inappropriate.

You may be surprised by the power of mindsets. Follow the “shop–stop” demon-

stration with this version of the same illustration: Spell joke out loud. “What do you

call the white of an egg?” Most people will be victimized a second time by answering

“yolk.”

Focus Questions

1. Why does confirmation bias lead to defective decision making/problem solving?

2. Why is dichotomous (either–or) thinking usually false?

▶ Confirmation Bias: One-Sided Information Searches Confirmation bias is our strong tendency to seek information that confirms our beliefs and attitudes and to ignore information that contradicts our currently held

beliefs and attitudes. A 2008 Pew Research Center study showed that 80% of listeners

who tuned in to conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh are conservative,

7% are moderate, and only 10% are liberal. The audience for the more liberal The

Daily Show with Jon Stewart, conversely, is comprised of only 22% conservatives but

24% moderates and 45% liberals (“News Audiences,” 2008). We tend to listen to and

watch those who reinforce our preexisting opinions and beliefs. Results of a study

conducted by psychologist Drew Westen, presented to the 2006 Conference of the

Society for Personality and Social Psychology, showed that Democrats consistently

ignored contradictions by John Kerry and Republicans did the same when watching

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 234 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 235 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

MinDsets: CritiCal thinkinG frozen soliD 235 ▶

George W. Bush during a 2004 presidential campaign debate, but both partisan

groups were keenly aware and strongly critical of contradictions from the opposing

candidate (“Political Bias,” 2006).

The Problem: Poor Decisions and Solutions Confirmation bias is a prime example of a mindset that can produce defective decision making and problem solv-

ing. “If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human rea-

soning that deserves attention above all others, confirmation bias would have to be

among the candidates for consideration” (Nickerson, 1998, p. 175).

Confirmation bias is alive and well in small groups (Nickerson, 1998; Tschan

et al., 2009). The consequences of confirmation bias to group decision making and

problem solving are serious. Looking for the potential weaknesses and disconfirm-

ing evidence regarding decisions and solutions is a significant element of effective

group decision making and problem solving (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001). Assessing

positive qualities or consequences is not nearly as important. Thus, groups that resist

confirmation bias and actively search for possible flaws in decisions and solutions

usually make better choices than groups that don’t.

In one study, confirmation bias was shown to be a key factor in medical misdi-

agnoses by diagnostic teams (Tschan et al., 2009). In another study, three-member

groups evaluated résumés of three candidates who applied for a marketing manager

position. The positive and negative attributes of the candidates were skewed so that

one candidate best met the criteria for the job. Each member of a group was given a

different part of the information on the résumés, so information (positive and nega-

tive) had to be shared to get a complete picture of each candidate. Confirmation

bias was common. Positive information about a candidate that each subject initially

favored was readily shared and discussed with group members; negative information

was not. Negative information was shared about disfavored candidates, but positive

information was not. Although groups meeting face to face exhibited confirmation

bias, online groups reviewing the résumés were more than twice as likely to engage in

confirmation bias. Almost none of the groups chose the best candidate for the posi-

tion (Hightower & Sayeed, 1995).

So what happens when disconfirming information is unavoidable and seems in-

disputable? Groups may still engage in rationalization of disconfirmation—the invention of superficial, even glib alternative explanations for information that con-

tradicts a belief. The Heaven’s Gate group in San Diego, California, that committed

mass suicide in 1997 exhibited rationalization of disconfirmation. Members pur-

chased a high-powered telescope so a clearer view of the Hale-Bopp comet and the

spaceship they steadfastly believed was traveling in its wake—a spacecraft that was

to transport Heaven’s Gaters to a new cosmic life—could be discerned. The telescope

was returned, however, and the owner of the store was politely asked for a refund.

When the owner asked what was wrong with the telescope, he was informed, “We

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 235 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 236 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 236 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

found the comet, but we can’t find anything following it” (quoted in Aronson, 1999,

p. 3). The Heaven’s Gaters thought the telescope must be defective, not the original

belief of a spaceship trailing the comet.

The perpetuation of unwarranted beliefs is the result of confirmation bias and its ally, rationalization of disconfirmation (Nickerson, 1998). False beliefs that pollute the decision-making and problem-solving group process won’t be corrected

when we aren’t open to information that questions our beliefs.

Combating Confirmation Bias: A Plan The competent communicator combats the problem of confirmation bias by taking the following steps:

1. Seek disconfirming information and evidence. Since most group members will be predisposed to seek confirming evidence, someone will have to perform an error- correction function for the group. Consider it your personal responsibility to find the disconfirming information and share it. If, after a concerted effort, you find little disconfirming evidence of note, then your decision or solution has an excel- lent chance of turning out well.

2. Vigorously present disconfirming evidence to the group. Be persistent. Members will usually ignore information that disconfirms a strongly held belief unless you as-

sert yourself. Messengers with bad news aren’t always killed. Sometimes they’re

received as heroes when they prevent the group from making an embarrassing

error.

3. Play devil’s advocate. Develop the habit of challenging the assumptions and claims of those defending a decision or solution in your group. Do it in the spirit of

problem orientation—testing group decisions before they are implemented to

produce the best group decisions. Clearly indicate your intention to play devil’s

advocate to avoid any misunderstanding (“Let me play devil’s advocate here”).

Anyone may play devil’s advocate in a group. If groups establish a norm of devil’s

advocacy, the responsibility won’t fall on only one member’s shoulders.

4. Gather allies to help challenge confirmation bias. Women and ethnic minorities especially profit from developing support with those members of a group who are respected and open-minded.

▶ False Dichotomies: Either–Or Thinking A false dichotomy is the tendency to view the world in terms of only two opposing possibilities when other possibilities are available, and to describe this dichotomy

in the language of extremes. Describing objects, events, and people in such extreme

polarities as moral–immoral, good–bad, rich–poor, corrupt–honest, intelligent–

stupid locks us into a mindset of narrow vision. Most of us don’t qualify as either tall

or short, fat or skinny, rich or poor; we’re someplace in between these dichotomies.

Most objects, events, and people are more accurately described in shades of gray,

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 236 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 237 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ColleCtive inferential error: unCritiCal thinkinG 237 ▶

not black or white (pregnancy being a rare exception since it is difficult to be “sort

of pregnant”). For instance, when does success turn into failure? When does a small

group become a large group, and vice versa? Dichotomous descriptions of events

and objects are usually false because most of reality consists of more-to-less, not

either–or.

False dichotomies contribute to defective group decision making and problem

solving. When group members are predisposed to see problems and solutions only

in extremes, the vast middle ground goes largely unexplored. City councils, faced

with reduced revenues during a recession, see only layoffs and reductions in public

services when they think dichotomously (i.e., tax revenues up—fund services and

jobs; tax revenues down—cut services and jobs). They may fail to explore other

avenues for raising revenues besides taxes.

Dichotomous thinking can lead to a friends–enemies duality when controversy

brews. Group members may then shrink from making hard decisions or be provoked

into making decisions from less-than-pure motives. Even the decision to make a deci-

sion can be a product of dichotomous thinking. Groups locked into the mindset that

a decision has to be made may never consider a third alternative besides voting for or

against some proposal. Postponing the decision until adequate study of the problem

can take place and potential solutions can emerge may be a more viable option.

The competent communicator combats the problem of false dichotomies in small

groups as follows:

1. Be suspicious of absolutes. When group members argue only two extreme possi- bilities (e.g., a solution is either all good or all bad), look for a third or even fourth possibility.

2. Employ the language of provisionalism. When engaged in group discussion, speak in terms of degrees (i.e., to what extent an argument is true). You’ll be using terms such as sometimes, rarely, occasionally, mostly, usually, unlikely, and moderately. Avoid terms such as always, never, or impossible.

Collective Inferential Error: Uncritical Thinking

Two American women—a matronly grandmother and her attractive granddaughter—

are seated in a railroad compartment with a Romanian officer and a Nazi officer

during World War II. As the train passes through a dark tunnel, the sound of a loud

kiss and an audible slap shatters the silence. As the train emerges from the tunnel,

no words are spoken but a noticeable welt forming on the face of the Nazi officer

is observed by all. The grandmother muses to herself, “What a fine granddaughter

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 237 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 238 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 238 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

I have raised. I have no need to worry. She can take care of herself.” The grand-

daughter thinks to herself, “Grandmother packs a powerful wallop for a woman of

her years. She sure has spunk.” The Nazi officer, none too pleased by the course of

events, ruminates to himself, “This Romanian is clever. He steals a kiss and gets me

slapped in the process.” The Romanian officer chuckles to himself, “Not a bad ploy.

I kissed my hand and slapped a Nazi.”

This story illustrates the problem of inferential error. Inferences are conclusions about the unknown based on what is known. They are guesses varying by degrees

from educated to uneducated (depending on the quantity and quality of information

on which the inferences are based). We draw inferences from previous experiences,

factual data, and predispositions. The facts of the story are that the sounds of a kiss

followed by a slap are heard by all members of the group. Based on what is known,

the three individuals who do not know for sure what happened all draw distinctly

different and erroneous inferences.

Making inferences is not a problem in itself. The human thinking process is inferential. Our minds “go beyond the information given” (Nisbett & Ross, 1980).

We could not function on a daily basis without making inferences. You can’t know

for certain that the grocery store is open. It may have burned down or closed due

to a power outage. You draw the conclusion that it is open on the basis of what is

known. If the store has always been open 24 hours, 7 days a week, then you infer it

will be open now, which is a relatively safe inference. Inferences that rely on a quality

information base in plentiful supply are educated guesses—not always correct, but

nevertheless probable. Inferences that are drawn from a limited and faulty infor- mation base, however, are uneducated guesses—likely to produce inferential er- rors (Gouran, 1986).

Inferential errors can pose serious problems for group decision making. If we

don’t exercise our critical thinking abilities by closely examining important infer-

ences central to decision making in groups, bad decisions are highly likely to result.

Focus Questions

1. What are the primary, general sources of collective, inferential errors?

2. Should we avoid making inferences?

3. Why are most correlations noncausal?

▶ Prevalence of the Problem: It’s a Group Thing The centrality of inferences to decision making and problem solving in groups is

made apparent by Gouran (1982b) when he explains:

In virtually every phase of discussion, inferences come into play. Whether

you are assessing facts, testing opinions, examining the merits of competing

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 238 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 239 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ColleCtive inferential error:unCritiCal thinkinG 239 ▶

arguments, or exploring which of several alternatives best satisfies a set of

decisional criteria, you will have occasion to draw inferences suggested by

the information you are examining. How well you reason, therefore, can

have as much to do with the effectiveness of a decision-making discussion

as any other factor that enters the process. (pp. 96 –97)

Individuals are inclined to make inferential errors (see Box 7.1). The problem can be magnified in groups. Gouran calls this collective inferential error. President

Bush and his group of advisors made a serious, collective inferential error when,

based on limited and ultimately faulty information, they drew the conclusion that

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction. This erro-

neous inference served as the primary justification for invading Iraq in 2003. When

no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, world opinion and relations

with most U.S. allies turned embarrassingly sour.

Studies have established the prevalence of inferential errors in groups (Gouran, 1981, 1982, 1983). As many as half of a group’s discussion statements may be infer-

ences. Groups often accept these inferences uncritically. One study (Gouran, 1983)

examined student group discussions in which 80 inferences were made regarding

questions of policy. Only one inference was challenged. The rest were reinforced or

extended, or new inferences were added. Why is this significant? Because ineffective

decision-making groups that arrived at faulty decisions displayed more inferential

errors in their discussions than did effective groups (Hirokawa & Pace, 1983).

▶ Specific Sources of Inferential Errors There are several specific sources of inferential errors. Two that are most significant

are unrepresentativeness and correlation inferred as causation.

Unrepresentativeness: Distorting the Facts When we make a judgment, we assess the resemblance or accuracy of an object or event presumed to belong to a

general category. Is a specific example representative of a general category? If the

answer is yes, then the inference drawn from the representative example is on solid

footing. If the example is unrepresentative, however, inferences drawn from it are

likely to be erroneous. One study illustrates inferential error among college students

resulting from unrepresentativeness. College students indicated their belief that if

one member of a group made a particular decision, then all members of the group

would make the same decision. This was especially true if the students were observ-

ing the decisions of students from other colleges (Quattrone & Jones, 1980). In other

words, we stereotype an entire group on the basis of a single individual who may or

may not be representative of the group as a whole.

If the unrepresentative example is vivid, then the potential for inferential er- ror is magnified. The grim, grisly, graphic dramatic event draws our attention and

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 239 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 240 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 240 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

Box 7.1

The Uncritical Inference Test

SELF-ASSESSMENT TEST Individuals are prone to make inferential errors (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). See if you have such a ten- dency. Read the following story. For each statement about the story, circle “T” if it can be determined without a doubt from the information provided in the story that the statement is completely true, “F” if the statement directly contradicts information in the story, and “?” if you cannot determine from the information provided in the story whether the state- ment is either true or false. Read the story once.

The Story

Dr. Chris Cross, who works at St. Luke’s Hospital, hurried into room #314 where Yoshi Yamamoto was lying in bed. Pat Sinclair, a registered nurse, was busy fluffing bed pillows when Dr. Cross entered. Dr. Cross said to the nurse in charge, “This bed should have been straightened out long ago.” A look of anger came across Nurse Sinclair’s face. Dr. Cross promptly turned around and hurried out the door.

1. Chris Cross is a medical doctor who works at St. Luke’s Hospital. T F ?

2. Dr. Cross is a man in a hurry. T F ? 3. Yoshi Yamamoto, who is Japanese, was ly-

ing in bed. T F ? 4. Pat Sinclair was in room #314 when

Dr. Cross entered and found her fluffing bed pillows. T F ?

5. Dr. Cross was irritated with Nurse Sinclair be- cause the bed was not straightened out. T F ?

6. Yoshi Yamamoto is a patient at St. Luke’s Hospital. T F ?

7. Nurse Sinclair’s face reddened because Dr. Cross was stern with her. T F ?

8. When Dr. Cross entered he became the third person in room #314. T F ?

9. This story takes place at St. Luke’s Hospi- tal. T F ?

10. This story concerns a series of events in which only three persons are referred to: Dr. Cross, Nurse Sinclair, and Yoshi Yamamoto. T F ?

I created this version of what Haney (1967) originally devised and called “The Uncritical In- ference Test.” “?” is the correct answer for all of the statements. Without exception, these state- ments are based on guesses regarding what is likely but not verifiably true from the information provided. The reasons these statements are un- certain are as follows:

1. Chris Cross is a doctor of some sort but not necessarily a medical doctor (Dr. Cross may be a Ph.D., chiropractor, dentist, etc.).

2. Dr. Cross is not necessarily a man. 3. Yoshi Yamamoto has a Japanese name,

but isn’t necessarily Japanese (married name, assumed name, adoptive name).

4. Pat Sinclair may be a male, not a “her.” 5. This requires an inference that Dr. Cross is

irritated and that Nurse Sinclair and “the nurse in charge” are one and the same person, which cannot be ascertained from the information provided.

6. Yoshi Yamamoto may be an orderly taking a break or a visitor resting, not a patient.

7. This requires an inference that a “look of anger” automatically produces a “red- dened face.” Again, Nurse Sinclair may be male.

8. There may have been four people in room #314 if Nurse Sinclair and the nurse in charge are not the same person.

9. Dr. Cross works at St. Luke’s. Nowhere does it say this story occurred there.

10. Again, four people may be in the story: Dr. Cross, Nurse Sinclair, the nurse in charge, and Yoshi Yamamoto.

If we don’t even recognize that we’ve made an inference, then we’re not likely to notice when the inference is a bad one. If individually you do poorly on recognizing and critically evaluating inferences, imagine the quality of decision making in a group when most or all of the members are inclined to make inferential errors.

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 240 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 241 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ColleCtive inferential error:unCritiCal thinkinG 241 ▶

becomes standard fare served up by the mass media hungry to draw viewers. As pro-

ducer Gary David Goldberg once pointedly observed, “Left to their own devices,

the networks would televise live executions. Except Fox—they’d televise live naked

executions” (“TV or not TV,” 1993, p. 5E). The dramatic event, however, can distort

our perception (Sunstein & Zeckhauser, 2009). A single airline disaster can make

millions fear boarding a jetliner and induce them to choose driving their automobile

instead. Yet the odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million, whereas the odds of

dying in a car crash are 1 in 5 thousand (Ropeik, 2008).

The potential of a single dramatic example sticking in our minds, prompting us to

overvalue such an event and undervalue statistical probabilities of such an event oc-

curring, is called the vividness effect. Barry Glasner (1999), in his book The Culture of Fear, identifies numerous vivid examples that are unrepresentative and distorting.

For example, he notes, “In 1994 medical authorities attempted to cut short the brou-

haha over flesh-eating bacteria by publicizing the fact that an American is 55 times

more likely to be struck by lightning than die of the suddenly celebrated microbe.

Yet TV journalists brushed this aside with . . . stomach-turning videos of disfigured

patients” (p. xxii). The potency of the vividness effect is so real that Stanovich (1992)

concludes that it “threatens to undermine the usefulness of any knowledge generated

by any of the behavioral sciences” (p. 141).

Correlation Inferred as Causation: Covariation Humans are predisposed to look for causes of events that remain unexplained. When Congresswoman

Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people including a 9-year-old girl were shot by Jared

Lee Loughner in a Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011, the

question that came to mind is “What caused this individual to perform such a das-

tardly act?” We want explanations. We seek causes of human behavior.

Consider another example. Why do some people reach 100 years old, and others

die at a much younger age? We want to know the causes of longevity. Scientists, jour-

nalists, and health seekers have sought answers by traveling to Vilcabamba, Ecuador,

to discover the secrets of its inhabitants’ longevity. Manuel Picoita, 102 years old,

thinks getting along with his neighbors explains his centenarian status. “There is

tranquility and solidarity among us” (Fraul, 2006, p. 16A). Josefa Ocampa, age 104,

posits the cause of her long life to every morning drinking a glass of goat’s milk with

a bit of her own urine added. Aurora Maza, a mere 96 years, points to working in

the fields her entire life. Everyone seems to have a different explanation for long life.

Legendary comedian George Burns liked to attribute his reaching 100 years old to

smoking a cigar and drinking martinis every day. Henry Allingham, who died as the

world’s oldest man at 113 on July 18, 2009, pointed to “cigarettes, whiskey, and wild,

wild women” as the reasons for his long life (quoted in Kirka, 2009, p. B8). Pinning

down exact causes of phenomena can oftentimes be illusive but it doesn’t dissuade us

from making potentially erroneous inferences.

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 241 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 242 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 242 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

One such erroneous inference is our tendency to draw causation (x causes y) from

mere correlation (x occurs and y also occurs either sequentially or simultaneously).

A correlation is a consistent relationship between two or more variables. There are two kinds of correlations: positive and negative. A positive correlation occurs when

X increases and Y also increases (e.g., as you grow older your ears grow larger—

nature’s practical joke on the elderly; as you increase in height your weight also

increases). A negative correlation occurs when X increases and Y decreases (e.g., as

adults increase in age their capacity to run long distances decreases; as cars increase

in age they decrease in value). Verbal incivility during our national debates on hot-

button issues of the day escalated dramatically just prior to the massacre in Tucson,

leading many to claim that this was the cause of Loughner’s killing spree. This is a

positive correlation, but is it causation?

Most correlations are not perfect; a perfect correlation has no exceptions. Not ev-

eryone who grows taller increases in weight, especially if a teenager aggressively diets

to slim down as he or she grows. Not every automobile loses value as it ages, espe-

cially if it is an antique classic car. The main problem with correlations is the strong

inclination people have for inferring causation (x causes y) from a correlation, espe-

cially when the correlation is nearly perfect. A large research team collected data in

Taiwan to determine which variables best predicted use of contraceptive methods for

birth control (Li, 1975). Of all the variables, use of birth control was most strongly

correlated with the number of electric appliances (i.e., toasters, ovens, blenders, etc.)

found in the home. Birth control usage increased as the number of electric appli-

ances increased (GE doesn’t bring good things to life?). So does it make sense to

you that a free microwave oven or electric blender for every teenager in high school

would decrease teen pregnancy rates? I’m confident that you can see the absurdity of

such a suggestion.

The birth control– electric appliances correlation is an obvious case where a

correlation, even though a very strong one, is not a causation. The number of

electric appliances more than likely is a reflection of socioeconomic status and

education levels, which undoubtedly have more to do with the rates of birth

control usage than do the number of electric irons and toasters found in the

home. The inference that uncivil debate prior to the massacre in Tucson caused

Loughner to kill or injure all those innocent people is not a proven causation (he

was found mentally incompetent to stand trial in May 2011). Verbal incivility

should be discouraged, and it may have been a factor in this sad episode, but we’ll

probably never know for sure. Stephen Jay Gould (1981) noted that “the vast ma-

jority of correlations in our world are, without doubt, noncausal” (p. 242). Yet,

as Gould further notes, “The invalid assumption that correlation implies cause

is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human

reasoning” (p. 242).

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 242 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 243 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ColleCtive inferential error:unCritiCal thinkinG 243 ▶

I have witnessed the correlation-as-causation inferential error in my own classes.

Consider the following discussion that took place in a small group in one of my

classes:

J: I think we should choose capital punishment for our topic. I just did a paper on it. We can show that capital punishment works. In a lot of states that have it,

murder rates have decreased.

A: Yeah, did you ever see that video where they show executions? Really gross. You know most criminals would think twice about killing someone if they made

capital punishment really painful.

B: Well, I heard that when they execute a guy, the murder rate goes up right after. I don’t think capital punishment is a very effective solution to murder.

In this brief conversation, group members managed to allege the truth of an as-

serted causation based only on a correlation, affirm the validity of the inferential

error with a little common-sense reasoning, then refute the effectiveness of capital

punishment by introducing yet another correlation assumed to be a causation. Cor-

relations are not causations.

▶ Error Correction: Practicing Critical Thinking For the error-correction function of group discussion to kick in, competent commu-

nicators must recognize the sources of inferential errors just discussed. Assertively

focusing the group’s attention on sources of inferential error can help prevent faulty

decision making from occurring. In other words, group members must put their

critical thinking abilities into practice if effective decision making is to take place.

Group discussion promotes higher-quality decision making when the following con-

ditions occur:

1. The validity of inferences is carefully examined. 2. Inferences are grounded in valid and plentiful information. 3. At least one member of the group exerts influence to guide the group toward

higher-quality decisions (Hirokawa & Pace, 1983).

Notice the last point. A single individual can prevent or minimize inferential error in group decision making because one person can affect the entire system. Communication competence can be contagious. Collective inferential error, the

manifestation of defective critical thinking by a group, is the product of the com-

municative efforts of individual members. Note that “an individual can prevent the

occurrence of errors by influencing the group to accept correct information and

conclusions” (Hirokawa & Scheerhorn, 1986, p. 78). Learning how to evaluate in-

formation to prevent inferential error will be discussed in the next chapter. If one

person can create problems for a group, one person can also help a group perform

effectively.

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 243 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 244 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 244 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

Group Polarization: Extremely Uncritical Thinking

Researchers of small group decision making used to believe that group members

inevitably influence each other to take greater collective risks than members’ initial

preferences. This was called the risky shift phenomenon, often seen when teenagers

goad each other to engage in goofy and dangerous group actions. For example, teens

in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, exhibit this risky shift when they “surf ” as a group on the

tops of high-speed trains, standing with arms outstretched. Even though 150 teens,

on average, die each year and another 400 are injured when they fall off the trains

or they hit the 3,000-volt electric train cables, the teens continue to take the risk

at the prompting of peer group members (Arnett, 1995). The National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health released

results of a study of teen drivers in 2005 (Bock & Miller, 2005). The study’s director,

Duane Alexander, noted: “The findings indicate that teen risky driving increases in

the presence of teen passengers, particularly male teen passengers.” We show off for

our peers by taking risks.

I previously discussed the power of groups to encourage high-risk binge drinking

by college students (see Chapter 3). The frequency of talking about drinking within

groups is a particularly important influencing factor (Dorsey et al., 1999). After hun-

dreds of studies, however, there is ample evidence that groups sometimes have a conservative shift rather than a risky shift (Levine & Moreland, 1990). Thus, group decisions tend to polarize.

Focus Questions

1. What negative consequences to group decision making emerge from group polarization?

2. What produces group polarization?

▶ Polarization: From Gambling to Guarded Group polarization is the group tendency to make a decision after discussion that is more extreme, either riskier or more cautious, than the initial preferences of group

members. (Group polarization does not mean that disagreement among group

members becomes more pronounced.) Groups tend to polarize decision mak- ing if there is a clear majority leaning one way (risk) or the other (caution). For example, in one study 60 participants were assembled into 10 groups, each consisting

of 5 to 7 members. Half the groups were from “liberal” Boulder, Colorado, and half

were from “conservative” Colorado Springs, Colorado. All groups were instructed

to deliberate on three controversial issues: affirmative action, civil unions for gays,

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 244 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 245 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Group polarization: extreMely unCritiCal thinkinG 245 ▶

and global warming. Groups that initially tended toward liberal positions on these

issues took more extreme liberal positions after deliberations; conservative groups

became more conservative. Discussion made civil unions, affirmative action, and a

global warming treaty more appealing for liberal group members, less appealing for

conservative group members (Hastie et al., 2006). This group polarization effect has

been shown in hundreds of studies across many cultures (see Sunstein, 2006, for a

lengthy discussion).

If most members of a group lean slightly toward risk-taking initially, the group

will become more prone to take even greater risks than any individual member

might have initially preferred, and if most members of a group lean slightly toward

playing it safe, the group will likely become even more cautious than it was initially.

It is unlikely that a group will polarize when group members are about evenly split

between risk-taking and playing it safe. This is where compromise, or depolarization,

may result.

Group polarization won’t always produce erroneous decision making (Sunstein,

2006), but moving to the extreme can be problematic. Consequences associated with

“moving to the fringe,” as Myers and Bishop (1970) termed it, can be seen especially

on the Internet (Spears et al., 1990). Clay Shirky (1995), author of Voices of the Net,

explains:

The greatest loss in public discourse on the Net is the loss of moderate

voices. In many public political forums, it is almost impossible to develop

The running of the bulls at Pamplona, Spain, reminds us that groups often encourage risk-taking, sometimes to dangerous excess.

PA B

LO S

A N

C H

EZ /R

eu te

rs /C

or bi

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 245 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 246 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 246 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

and refine ideas of real political complexity because there is a spate of con-

stant challenges from the extremes. For instance, people who want to re-

form welfare have a difficult time talking without being attacked by those

wanting to abolish it altogether.

Factors that produce group polarization “are present in abundance on the Inter-

net, so we should hardly be surprised when we run into discussion groups whose

regular members firmly hold some weird or extreme viewpoints” (Wallace, 1999,

p. 80). Many of these extreme viewpoints encourage high-risk, even reckless political

positions (e.g., use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; killing politicians).

Group polarization and bad decision making, of course, exist outside the Internet.

The 9/11 terrorists were the product of the polarizing influence of mostly in-person

deliberations and interactions among the like-minded (Smelser & Mitchell, 2002).

Suicide bombers are egged on to commit mass murder by other true believers in

their polarized group (Zajonc, 2000).

▶ Why Groups Polarize: Social Comparison and Persuasive Arguments

There are two primary explanations for group polarization (BarNir, 1998). The first is social comparison (normative influence). The assumption here is that an individ- ual uses the group norm regarding risk-taking or caution as a point of reference. The

individual is inclined to shift after group discussion, to conform more closely to the

perceived expectations of the group in this regard. The individual member compares

his or her position on risk or caution to that of the group as a whole. If most group

members initially tend toward riskiness, cautious members are inclined to move in

the direction of the majority. If most members initially favor caution, all members

feel pushed to be cautious.

A second primary explanation for the group polarization effect is persuasive argumentation (informational influence). Individuals in a group will move toward either greater risk or caution when exposed to arguments and information that

were not available to members when they made their initial decision. In general, the

greater the number of arguments advanced during discussion that support the initial

majority group opinion, the more cogent, reasonable, and persuasive they seem to

be. Also, the more original or nonredundant the arguments are, the greater will be

the group polarization (Smith, 1982). As these arguments get repeated during dis-

cussions, they validate the risk-taking or caution predominant in the group (Brauer

et al., 1995). Naturally, if the majority is predisposed toward risk-taking (or caution),

the number of arguments advanced will usually favor that predisposition.

In addition to social comparison and persuasive arguments explanations for

group polarization, research reveals several lesser conditions that can influence risk-

taking or caution in groups. Group decisions will likely shift toward risk-taking when

groups are large, when members do not know each other well, and when members

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 246 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 247 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Groupthink: CritiCal thinkinG in suspenDeD aniMation 247 ▶

are knowledgeable and well-informed about the problem. Groups will likely shift

toward more cautious decision making when the decision is steeped in uncertainty,

when the results could be severe, and when the probability of successful risk-taking

is questionable (BarNir, 1998). The direction of the group polarization also appears

strongly influenced by the preference of the group’s informal leader (Pescosolido,

2001). Culture also plays a role. For instance, U.S. groups are more likely to polarize

in the direction of risk, whereas Chinese groups are more likely to polarize in the

direction of caution (Hong, 1978). Risk could produce disharmony, especially if it

turns out badly.

▶ Combating Group Polarization: Necessary Steps There are a number of steps that can be taken to address the problem of group po-

larization (see especially Fishkin, 1997; Sunstein, 2000). First, encourage a wide range of views on issues to be discussed in the group. Group polarization thrives on uniformity of opinion and the squashing of dissent. Second, if that diversity of

viewpoints is not represented by any group member, provide well-reasoned and researched material in written or oral form to group members for serious discus- sion and consideration. This may be the responsibility of a committee chair or des- ignated leader, but any group member can provide such material. Third, a facilitator

during group discussions, either appointed or emerging, should strongly encourage

group members to consider opposing viewpoints on issues. Acting as a devil’s advo- cate can improve chances that damaging polarization won’t occur. Finally, when possible, discuss issues openly before taking a firm position. Juries, for example, are often counseled by judges to avoid taking an initial poll on guilt or innocence

of a defendant before discussing evidence thoroughly. Once a position is publicly

declared, it is difficult to back away from it. When a strong majority expresses a clear

point of view initially, polarization can occur.

Groupthink: Critical Thinking in Suspended Animation

What are we to make of the monumental blunder at Pearl Harbor? How could this

country have been caught so flat-footed that infamous morning of December 7,

1941? There were ample warnings that Japan was preparing for a massive military

operation. On November 27, 1941, Admiral Harold R. Stark in Washington, D.C.,

sent Pearl Harbor a “war warning” predicting an attack from the Japanese some-

where “within the next few days” (Janis, 1982, p. 75). Since Pearl Harbor was not

specifically cited as a likely target for the Japanese attack, however, the warning was

discounted. No special reconnaissance was ordered to provide a sufficient alert that

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 247 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 248 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 248 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

Japanese aircraft carriers were steaming toward Pearl Harbor. Two army privates

spotted large, unidentified aircraft on a radar screen heading toward Pearl Harbor an

hour before the actual attack. They reported this to the Army’s radar center. Again,

the information was discounted. Patrols encountered hostile submarines in advance

of the bombings. No action was taken.

As Vice Admiral William S. Pye testified after the disaster, with even 10 minutes’

warning, the Japanese airplanes could have been shot down before inflicting much

damage on our vulnerable fleet. Incredibly, no alert was even sounded until the

bombs were actually exploding. Eight battleships, three cruisers, and four other ships

were sunk or damaged. More than 2,000 men were killed and at least as many were

wounded or missing. Pearl Harbor was our worst military disaster. How could it have

happened?

Focus Questions

1. What causes groupthink?

2. Do groups have to display all the symptoms of groupthink to exhibit poor- quality decisions like those that accompany full-blown groupthink?

▶ General Conditions: Excessive Cohesiveness and Concurrence Seeking

Sociologist Irving Janis (1982), who has extensively analyzed decision-making de-

bacles, argues that Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Watergate, the escalation

of the Vietnam War, and other blunders from U.S. history sprang from a defec-

tive decision-making process he calls groupthink. More recently, the report of the

Columbia Accident Investigation Board attributed groupthink as one cause of the

February 1, 2003, Columbia space shuttle disaster in which an entire crew was lost

when the shuttle exploded on re-entry (Wilson, 2003). Also, the report of the Senate

Select Committee on Intelligence (2004) directly accused the Central Intelligence

Agency of groupthink, making it chiefly responsible, with the assistance of the Bush

administration, for the dubious U.S. preemptive war in Iraq. Janis defines group- think as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their

motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (p. 9).

Cohesiveness and its companion, concurrence-seeking, are the two general conditions necessary for groupthink to occur. Janis does not argue that all groups that are cohesive and seek agreement among their members exhibit groupthink.

These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for groupthink to occur (Mullen

et al., 1994). Obviously, a noncohesive group can spend most of its time and energy

on social upheaval, diverted from task accomplishment. Also, cohesiveness in a group

can be a very positive factor (Miranda, 1994). Groupthink is rooted in excessive

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 248 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 249 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Groupthink: CritiCal thinkinG in suspenDeD aniMation 249 ▶

cohesiveness and a resulting pressure to present a united front to those outside of the group. The more cohesive a group is, the greater is the danger of groupthink (Rovio et al., 2009). This is especially true as the size of the group increases (Mullen

et al., 1994). Critical thinking and effective decision making are sacrificed when

members are overly concerned with reaching agreement, avoiding conflict, and pre-

serving friendly relations in the group.

No group member has to squash dissent openly. The concurrence-seeking norm

is so firmly established in the group system that critical faculties are often paralyzed

seemingly without notice. Frequently, members fail to see issues that should be chal-

lenged, positions that should be questioned, and alternatives that should be explored.

Even if they do recognize such problems, they choose to go along in order to get along.

Groupthink is not the cause of every decision-making fiasco. Information over-

load or underload, mindsets, collective inferential error, group polarization, and

sometimes the plain stupidity of decision makers may be primarily responsible for

blunders. As Janis (1982) argues, however, groupthink often is a contributing cause,

and sometimes it is a primary cause. In this next section, some of the evidence that

supports the Janis groupthink explanation for abominably bad group decision mak-

ing is summarized.

▶ Identification of Groupthink: Main Symptoms How do you recognize groupthink? Janis lists eight specific symptoms of groupthink,

which he then divides into three types. The eight symptoms are discussed within the

context of these three types.

Overestimation of the Group’s Power and Morality: Arrogance Repeatedly, the main decision makers associated with the Pearl Harbor debacle communicated

a sense of invulnerability. Pearl Harbor was thought to be impregnable. The U.S.

command in Pearl Harbor ridiculed the idea of a Japanese attack. Torpedo planes

were discounted because U.S. torpedoes required a water depth of at least 60 feet to

function and Pearl Harbor had a 30-foot depth. Little consideration was given to the

possibility that the Japanese had developed a torpedo capable of striking a target in

shallow water. The illusion of invulnerability exhibited by the fleet command at Pearl

Harbor exploded with nightmarish rapidity.

The illusion of invulnerability is a common precursor to major accidents. Edward J.

Smith, captain of the Titanic, said, “I cannot imagine any condition which would

cause a ship to founder. . . . Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that” (Bennett,

1961, p. 144). The owners of this ill-fated luxury liner were so certain that the Titanic

was invulnerable to sinking that they equipped the ship with an insufficient supply

of lifeboats. More than 1,500 people died. A year prior to the meltdown at the Cher-

nobyl nuclear power plant, a deputy minister of the Soviet power industry declared

that engineers were certain no serious accident would occur for at least 100,000 years

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 249 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 250 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 250 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

(Rampton & Stauber, 2001). The disaster at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant

in Pennsylvania exhibited this same illusion of invulnerability. “The people in charge

of Three Mile Island had bought into the myth that such an accident could never

happen. When it did, they were as clueless and helpless as the rest of us” (Cass, 2001,

p. 3C). The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is yet another example of the

denial of any possible imminent problem just prior to a disaster. Reportedly, when

a BP operator told a superior on the oil platform that a handful of rubber material

seemed to indicate that the rubber seal down in the well had been damaged, the op-

erator’s concern was dismissed by his superior with the comment, “No, that can’t be”

(quoted in Mackin, 2010).

In addition to an inflated sense of power, groups sometimes overestimate their

morality. The U.S. sense of higher moral purpose contributed to the Bay of Pigs in-

vasion. The purpose, after all, was to upend a communist dictator (Castro) and free

the Cubans. The Iran-Contra affair was partially the result of an excess of moral

righteousness. The Reagan administration was trying to secure the release of hos-

tages. Sometimes you have to engage in unsavory dealings (so went the logic), such as

trading arms for hostages, when your purpose is righteous. This unquestioned belief

in the inherent morality of the group is symptomatic of groupthink.

A titanic instance of groupthink. Captain Edward Smith sailed the doomed ocean- liner full-speed into an iceberg despite four warning messages. “God himself could not sink this ship,” he proclaimed before the Titanic was launched on its maiden voyage. Two space shuttle disasters, the Iraq war, and the 2010 Gulf oil spill are other, more recent instances of bad group decision making attributed to groupthink.

dp a/

La nd

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 250 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 251 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Groupthink: CritiCal thinkinG in suspenDeD aniMation 251 ▶

Closed-Mindedness: Clinging to Assumptions Closed-mindedness is mani- fested by rationalizations that discount warnings or negative information that might

cause the group to rethink its basic assumptions. The space shuttle Columbia dis-

integrated on its return to Earth because a chunk of foam knocked a hole in the

shuttle’s wing on takeoff. NASA knew that previous shuttle flights had been hit by

foam debris, but shuttle engineers’ weak efforts to sound a warning about possible

catastrophic consequences from the debris went unheeded by NASA officials (Oberg,

2003; Wald & Schwartz, 2003). The operating assumption was that foam debris did

not pose a serious problem to the safety of the shuttle mission.

Another aspect of closed-mindedness leading to groupthink is negative stereo-

typed views of the enemy as weak, stupid, puny, or evil. This characterization helps

justify the recklessness of the group. The Japanese were characterized as a “midget

nation” by the command at Pearl Harbor. Lyndon Johnson reputedly characterized

the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War in this racist fashion: “Without air

power, we’d be at the mercy of every yellow dwarf with a pocket knife” (Lewallen,

1972, p. 37). President Kennedy’s advisors considered Castro and his military force

to be a joke. The real joke was the invasion plan that sent 1,400 Cuban exiles up

against Castro’s military force of 200,000. Simple arithmetic should have shot down

that idea. The Bush administration also vastly underestimated the difficulty of paci-

fying Iraq once the military invasion succeeded in 2003.

Pressures toward Uniformity: Presenting a United Front The last type of symptom of groupthink is the pressure to maintain uniformity of opinion and be-

havior among group members. Sometimes this pressure is indirect and in other cases

it is very direct. An indirect form is manifested when group members engage in self-

censorship, assuming an apparent consensus exists in the group. The importance of

doubts and counterarguments is minimized as a result of the perceived uniformity of

opinion. Silence is considered assent, which can lead to what some have called “plu-

ralistic ignorance.” Other group members have their doubts, but everyone assumes

agreement exists and no one wants to rock the boat, so no one questions or raises an

objection. Thus, an illusion of unanimity is fostered.

The film adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s bestseller The Bonfire of the Vanities was a

$50 million box-office bomb. Many people involved in making the movie, which

starred Tom Hanks and Melanie Griffith, had doubts about the casting choices and

changes in the storyline, but they never voiced these doubts to the director, Brian De

Palma (Stern, 1992). Apparently, De Palma also had some reservations, but because

no dissent was voiced, he convinced himself that he had made the correct decisions.

The illusion of unanimity led to a disastrous motion picture.

To maintain the uniformity of the group, direct pressure on deviants is ap-

plied. David Stockman became the center of a cyclone when he was quoted in

an Atlantic Monthly article by Bill Greider characterizing the tax cut portion of

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 251 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 252 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 252 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

Reaganomics—the Reagan administration’s policy of minimalist government—as

a Trojan horse: a most unflattering metaphor. Here was President Reagan’s budget

director seeming to expose the fantasy of achieving a balanced budget, vigorous

economic growth, and minimal inflation in part by lowering taxes. The winds of

controversy swirled around the White House following the Stockman admission.

Reagan’s group of advisors was furious with Stockman for his apparent treason.

The president’s chief of staff, Jim Baker, called Stockman into his office and coldly

issued the following directive:

“My friend,” he started, “I want you to listen up good. Your ass is in a sling.

All of the rest of them want you . . . canned right now. Immediately. This

afternoon. If it weren’t for me,” he continued, “you’d be a goner already. But

I got you one last chance to save yourself. So you’re going to do it precisely

and exactly like I tell you. Otherwise you’re finished around here. . . . You’re

going to have lunch with the president. The menu is humble pie. . . . When

you go through the Oval Office door, I want to see that sorry ass of yours

dragging on the carpet.” (Stockman, 1986, p. 5)

Stockman was thrashed back into line with the group. Intellectually, he was con-

vinced that a tax cut was economic folly. To remain a member of Reagan’s inner

circle, however, he was coerced into an act of public humiliation—a confession of

his supposed rhetorical excesses.

Finally, uniformity is maintained by information control. Self-appointed mind-

guards protect the group from adverse information that might contradict shared

illusions. The system closes off to negative influences, protecting uniformity.

Once John F. Kennedy had decided to proceed with the ill-fated Bay of Pigs inva-

sion, his brother Robert dissuaded anyone from disturbing the president with any

misgivings about the mission. According to George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary

Paul O’Neill, Vice President Dick Cheney and his allies created “a praetorian

guard that encircled the president” to prevent dissenting views on the Iraq inva-

sion (Levine, 2004).

Dissent of group members is often suppressed or ignored. One study found that

in almost 75% of the cases, the one person in a six-member group who knew the

correct answer to a problem was unable to convince the group because the group

suppressed the divergent point of view (Laughlin & Adamopoulos, 1980).

A group does not have to display all the symptoms to experience the poor-quality

decisions that accompany full-blown groupthink. As Janis (1982) explains, “Even

when some symptoms are absent, the others may be so pronounced that we can ex-

pect all the unfortunate consequences of groupthink” (p. 175). He argues that “the

more frequently a group displays the symptoms, the worse will be the quality of its

decisions, on the average” (p. 175). Nevertheless, the higher the number of symp-

toms, the worse the group’s performance is likely to be (Herek et al., 1987).

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 252 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 253 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Groupthink: CritiCal thinkinG in suspenDeD aniMation 253 ▶

▶ Preventing Groupthink: Promoting Vigilance To prevent groupthink, groups must become vigilant decision makers (Tasa &

Whyte, 2005). Vigilant decision making requires that several steps be taken (Janis,

1982; Wood et al., 1986). First, and most obvious, members must recognize the problem of groupthink as it begins to manifest itself. Knowledge is required of the competent communicator. If even a single member recognizes groupthink develop-

ing and points this out energetically to the group, the problem can be avoided.

Second, the group must minimize status differences. High-status members ex- ert a disproportionate influence on lower-status group members. High-status leaders

who use strongly directive leadership styles are particularly problematic (Street, 1997).

The resulting communication pattern is one of deference to the more powerful person

(Milgram, 1974). Such deference can produce ludicrous, even disastrous, consequences.

Michael Cohen and Neil Davis (1981), Temple University pharmacy professors and

authors of Medication Errors: Causes and Prevention, argue that the accuracy of a doc-

tor’s prescription is rarely questioned, even when a prescribed treatment makes no

sense. Nurses, for example, are used to being told what to do by doctors (directive

leadership). They cite one comical instance of blind deference to high-status authority.

A physician ordered application of eardrops to a patient’s right ear to treat an infec-

tion. The physician abbreviated the prescribed treatment to read, “Place in R ear.” The

duty nurse read the prescription and promptly administered the eardrops where they

presumably would do the most good to “cure” the patient’s “rectal earache.” Neither

the nurse nor the patient questioned the doctor’s rather unconventional treatment.

On a more serious level, in one study, crews were subjected to flight simulations

under conditions of severe weather and poor visibility. Unknown to the crew mem-

bers, the captains feigned incapacitation, making serious errors that would lead to

certain disaster. Airline officials were stunned to learn that 25% of the flights would

have crashed because no crew member took corrective action to override the captain’s

faulty judgment. Weick (1990) claims that this deference to authority contributed to

the Tenerife air disaster in 1977, the worst commercial aviation accident in history.

Thus, status differences in groups can encourage groupthink, especially when

these status differences are magnified by a directive style of leadership (Mullen,

1994). Of particular concern is the form of directive leadership manifested when

the leader promotes one idea initially instead of seeking many ideas from members

(Flippen, 1999). President Kennedy, anxious to avoid another blunder like the Bay of

Pigs, instituted several new procedures for top-level decision making. One of these

procedures was leaderless group discussions. On occasion, primarily during the ini-

tial stages of discussion where alternatives were being generated, Kennedy would ab-

sent himself from the proceedings. Robert Kennedy, the president’s brother and close

advisor, commented, “I felt there was less true give and take with the president in the

room. There was the danger that by indicating his own view and leanings, he would

cause others just to fall in line” (Janis, 1982, p. 142).

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 253 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 254 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 254 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

The group leader, as high-status member, has the primary responsibility to mini-

mize the influence of status differences. The leader could withhold his or her point of

view from the group until everyone has had an opportunity to express an opinion. As

management training consultant Michael Woodruff, speaking of potential employee

disagreement with a supervisor, explains, “If I present an idea as something that I am

excited about, then my staff has to go against me [if they disagree]. But if I present it

neutrally, they will be more likely to speak out if they think it is wrong. Staffers will

seldom criticize what the boss has endorsed” (Stern, 1992, p. 104). The high-status

group member could also indicate ambivalence on an issue, thereby encouraging the

open expression of a variety of viewpoints.

Seeking information that challenges an emerging concurrence is a third way to prevent groupthink. Assessing the negative consequences of choices is a mark of an

effective decision-making group (Hirokawa, 1985). Closely related to this, develop- ing a norm in the group that legitimizes disagreement during discussion sessions is a final way to prevent groupthink. Minority dissent stimulates divergent thought

in groups and acts to prevent groupthink and improve decision making (Brodbeck

et al., 2002; Greitemeyer & Schultz-Hardt, 2003; Schultz-Hardt et al., 2006). This

disagreement norm may have to be structured into the group process. Groupthink

is more likely to occur when there is no structured method in place for evaluating

alternative ideas during group discussion (Street, 1997).

There are several ways to accomplish these last two ways of preventing group-

think. First, assign one or two group members to play devil’s advocate. The pri- mary group presents its proposals and arguments and the devil’s advocates critique

it. This process can proceed through several rounds of proposals and critiques un-

til the group, including devil’s advocates, is satisfied that the best decision has been

made. It is a very effective method of overcoming the excessive concurrence-seeking

characteristic of groupthink (Stasser & Titus, 1987). However, as Stanford professor

Jeffrey Pfeffer (2010) observes, “Unfortunately, devil’s advocacy is not practiced very

much or institutionalized in many corporate decision-making processes, which may

be why so many poor decisions are made.”

Second, institute a dialectical inquiry (Sims, 1992). This procedure is very similar to devil’s advocacy, except that in dialectical inquiry a subgroup develops a counterproposal

and defends it side by side with the group’s initial proposal. Thus, a debate takes place

on two differing proposals. One or the other may be chosen by the group, both may be

rejected in favor of further exploration and inquiry before a final decision is made, or a

compromise between the two proposals may be hammered out. Both devil’s advocacy

and dialectical inquiry are effective antidotes to groupthink (Pavitt & Curtis, 1994).

Third, assign a group member to play the reminder role (Schultz et al., 1995). This is a formally designated role. The reminder raises questions in a nonaggressive

manner regarding collective inferential error, confirmation bias, false dichotomies,

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 254 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 255 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Groupthink: CritiCal thinkinG in suspenDeD aniMation 255 ▶

and any of the myriad symptoms of groupthink that may arise. The reminder role

is an effective method of combating groupthink tendencies (Schultz et al., 1995).

Groupthink can be a primary source of poor decision making in groups (Hensley &

Griffin, 1986; Herek et al., 1987; Leana, 1985; Moorhead & Montanari, 1986). Rec-

ognizing the symptoms of groupthink and taking steps to prevent it from occurring

play an important role in any effort to improve the quality of group decisions.

In summary, group members must exercise their critical-thinking abilities. The

quality of decision making and problem solving in groups is significantly affected by

problems of information quantity, mindsets, inferential errors, group polarization,

and groupthink. If groups learn to cope with information overload and underload,

recognize and counteract mindsets, avoid or correct collective inferential errors, rec-

ognize and respond to group polarization, and avoid groupthink, then decision mak-

ing and problem solving will be of higher quality.

SECOND LOOK

Primary Symptoms Overestimation of Group’s Power and Morality

Illusion of invulnerability

Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group

Closed-Mindedness

Rationalization

Negative stereotyped views of the enemy

Pressures toward Uniformity

Self-censorship of contradictory opinion

Illusion of unanimity

Direct pressure applied to deviants

Self-appointed mindguards

Preventing Groupthink

Recognize groupthink when it first begins

Minimize status differences

Develop norm that legitimizes disagreement

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 255 25/10/11 4:30 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 256 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 256 Chapter 7: DefeCtive Group DeCision MakinG anD probleM solvinG

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 7, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. Why is information overload such a problem when we have labor-saving technologies such as personal computers to process huge quantities of data?

2. Why are collective inferential errors more likely when issues are emotionally charged? 3. If cohesiveness is a positive small group attribute, why can it lead to groupthink?

No End in Sight (2007). Documentary This is a documentary on the U.S. entry into the Iraq war and its ensuing difficulties. Exam- ine this film’s depiction of the war for illustrations of confirmation bias, inferential error, and groupthink.

Thirteen Days (2000). Drama; PG-13 Semi-accurate depiction of the harrowing 13 days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Kennedy administration avoided the groupthink mistakes that it made during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Examine what prevented groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970). Drama; G Still the best dramatic depiction of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, providing both sides’ perspectives on the worst naval disaster in the United States. Examine events lead- ing up to the attack from the standpoint of groupthink.

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 256 25/10/11 4:30 PM

46850_ch07_ptg01_hr_222-257.indd 257 25/10/11 4:30 PM

◀ 258

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 258 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. Discussion ProceDures 1. Phases and Functions: General

Considerations

a. Multiple Sequence Model: Phases of Decision Making

b. Functional Perspective: Being Systematic

2. The Standard Agenda: Structuring Group Discussion

a. Problem Identification: What’s the Question?

b. Problem Analysis: Causes and Effects

Closer Look: Different Criteria Produce Different Outcomes

c. Solution Criteria: Setting Standards

d. Solution Suggestions: Generating Alternatives

e. Solution Evaluation and Selection: Deciding by Criteria

f. Solution Implementation: Follow-through

Group Discussion: Effective Decision Making and Problem Solving

Closer Look: Murphy’s Law

3. Group Decision-Making Rules: Majority, Minority, Unanimity

a. Majority Rule: Tyrannical or Practical

b. Minority Rule: Several Types

c. Unanimity Rule: Consensus

▶ B. PArticiPAtion 1. Cultural Diversity and

Participation: Is Silence Golden?

2. Increasing Constructive Participation: Jump-Starting Low-Participators

▶ c. conDucting effective Meetings 1. Group Meetings: The Good, the

Bad, and the Ugly

2. Chair’s and Members’ Responsibilities: Controlling the Meeting Monster

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 258 25/10/11 4:24 PM

259 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 259 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

C or

bi s/

Ju pi

te r

Im ag

▶ D. criticAl thinking AnD effective Deci- sion MAking

1. Gathering Information: Accumulating Input

2. Evaluating Information: Applying Criteria

a. Credibility: Is It Believable?

b. Currency: Is It Up to Date?

c. Relevance: Looking for Logical Connections

d. Representativeness: Reflecting the Facts

e. Sufficiency: When Enough Really Is Enough

Closer Look: The Internet: Resource for Information and Misinformation

▶ e. creAtive ProBleM solving 1. General Overview

2. Specific Creative Techniques

a. Brainstorming and Nominal Group Techniques: Generating Lots of Ideas

b. Framing/Reframing: It’s All in the Wording

c. Integrative Problem Solving: Satisfying Everyone

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 259 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 260 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 260 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

◀ 260

T here are approximately 15,000 students who attend Cabrillo College in Santa Cruz County, California, every semester. It is a huge challenge to streamline the registration process to accom- modate this many students each term. In 2005, Cabrillo’s new

president came to the faculty senate, among other campus bodies, and presented his

proposal for a “one-stop” registration process. It was his initial assessment, following

a few months of “walking the campus,” that the registration process was too diffuse,

requiring students, many new to the campus, to visit several buildings to complete

registration. His suggestion was to consolidate in one building all processes related

to registration. He suggested the cafeteria might be appropriate. There was an imme-

diate and vociferous uproar from students, faculty, and staff. When quizzed on the

cost of such consolidation, the initial estimate was $550,000. Many student services

would have to be relocated, creating significant disruption. The campus was in the

middle of a $200 million facelift. Adding yet another renovation project seemed un-

necessary to many on campus.

At the faculty senate meeting on the president’s proposal, he was repeatedly chal-

lenged to show that a real problem existed. Construction plans had already been

approved for consolidating all on-campus registration procedures to a single loca-

tion within five years, and 96% of students at that time registered by phone or on-

line anyway. Few students needed to come onto campus to register. The president

backed away from his cafeteria renovation idea, but steadfastly clung to the vision of

a hastened one-stop, on-campus registration. He offered the administration build-

ing as an alternative location for consolidation at no reduced cost. This meant that

human resources and financial services would have to be relocated at great incon-

venience to all involved. Again, members of both the faculty and student senates

challenged the president to show an actual, significant problem that necessitated

immediate action. No data were provided, but the president pressed on with his

idea and the administration building became the temporary home for all registration

processes.

This was a solution in search of a problem. There is little doubt that had the presi-

dent established a campus committee to investigate the need for such a project, the

conclusion would have been to wait until the planned consolidation at the later date.

It would have saved significant money and avoided unnecessary, substantial disrup-

tion on campus.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 260 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 261 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 261 ▶

The Cabrillo College one-stop project is testament to the importance of imple-

menting effective procedures for group decision making and problem solving. The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore the process of effective group deci- sion making/problem solving. Toward this end there are five chapter objectives:

1. To explain procedures for conducting productive group discussions that will re- sult in effective decisions and solutions to problems,

2. To explore ways to encourage productive participation from group members, 3. To describe ways to conduct effective decision-making group meetings, 4. To discuss ways to gather and evaluate information necessary for effective decision

making and problem solving,

5. To explain several techniques of creative group problem solving.

Discussion Procedures

In this section, guidelines and procedures for conducting effective group discussion

are presented. The importance of using a systematic approach during group discus-

sion cannot be underestimated. Special emphasis is given to the Standard Agenda.

▶ Phases and Functions: General Considerations All decision-making and problem-solving groups exhibit recognizable phases. They

follow certain paths to decisions and solutions.

Focus Questions

1. How does the Standard Agenda relate to the functional perspective on effective group discussion procedures?

2. What constitutes a true consensus?

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of various decision-making rules?

Multiple Sequence Model: Phases of Decision Making The most widely ac- cepted phasic model of group decision making is Poole’s (1983) multiple sequence model of decision emergence. The multiple sequence model pictures groups mov- ing along three activity tracks: task, relational, and topic. Groups do not necessarily

proceed along these three tracks at the same rate or according to the same pattern.

Some groups may devote a significant amount of time to the relational (social) activi-

ties of groups before proceeding to a task discussion; other groups may start right in

on the task. Groups may also be sidetracked during discussions on task by relational

conflicts that need to be addressed.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 261 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 262 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 262 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

Groups take three principal paths in reaching decisions (Poole & Roth, 1989a,

1989b). The first path is called the unitary sequence. Groups on the unitary sequence

path proceed in the same step-by-step fashion toward a decision. The second path

is called complex cyclic. These groups engage in repeated cycles of focusing on the

problem, then the solution, and back again to the problem, and so forth. Finally, the

third principal path to decision making is solution oriented. Here the group launches

into discussion of solutions with little focus on an analysis of the problem. Groups

most often choose the complex cyclic path, less often the solution-oriented path, and

infrequently the unitary sequence path.

Poole’s multiple sequence model of decision development emphasizes that group

discussion does not necessarily proceed along a single predictable path. There are

several ways that decisions occur in groups. The multiple sequence model mostly

describes these principal paths that groups often take. The functional perspective,

however, prescribes procedures for effective decision making and problem solving

for groups in general.

Functional Perspective: Being Systematic Discussions that follow some systematic procedure tend to be more productive and result in better decisions than relatively unstructured discussions (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Structuration theory posits that rules permit group members to understand how the system of de-

cision making works. The drawbacks to unstructured, free-floating group discussion

with no clear rules of procedure include: aimless deliberations that are time con-

suming and inefficient; premature focus on solutions (the solution-oriented path);

inclination to accept the first plausible solution, which may not be the best option;

discussion tangents and topic-hopping; domination by the most vociferous group

member; and failure to address group conflict (Sunwolf & Seibold, 1999; Sunwolf &

Frey, 2005).

There is no single, systematic discussion procedure that guarantees effective deci-

sion making and problem solving. “What happens at each stage and how well necessary

functions are executed are the real determinants of success” (Gouran, 1982, p. 30).

Rigidly following a set of prescribed steps, such as the unitary sequence path, can

stifle natural discussion and seem robotic. Nevertheless, student and faculty senate

meetings, for example, run according to rules of parliamentary procedure and guided

by specific detailed agendas, can result in efficient if somewhat stilted meetings.

Steps in any systematic discussion procedure should be looked at as guide- lines, not commandments. Some allowance should be made for cycling back to steps previously addressed as group members discuss problems and solutions. The

more complex the task being discussed the more likely the complex-cyclic path will

emerge. Flashes of insight don’t necessarily follow a preordained sequence of dis-

cussion steps. The group may need to backtrack occasionally and address already

discussed issues.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 262 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 263 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 263 ▶

Whatever path group decision making and problem solving takes, variations in the quality of decisions by groups can be accounted for by the relative abil- ity of members to perform systematically five critical decision-making functions (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001). These five functions are problem analysis, establishment

of evaluation criteria, generation of alternative solutions, evaluation of positive con-

sequences of solutions, and evaluation of negative consequences of solutions. This

functional perspective is reflected in the Standard Agenda discussion procedures.

▶ The Standard Agenda: Structuring Group Discussion John Dewey (1910) described a process of rational problem solving and decision

making that he called reflective thinking—a set of logical steps that incorporate the scientific method of defining, analyzing, and solving problems. The Standard

Agenda is a direct outgrowth of Dewey’s reflective thinking process. It is a highly

effective, structured method for decision making and problem solving in groups.

The Standard Agenda places the emphasis on the problem initially to counteract pre-

mature consideration of solutions (the solution-oriented path), an emphasis that was

missing from the Cabrillo College one-stop proposal. The Standard Agenda has six

steps. This section explains the procedure by using smoking on the Cabrillo College

campus as the problem. Note that, unlike the one-stop proposal, this was a problem

handled effectively through systematic group discussion.

Problem Identification: What’s the Question? The problem should be formu- lated into an open-ended question identifying what type of problem the group must

This cartoon illustrates a 1. Systematic group decision-making process 2. Premature consideration of solutions 3. Problem analysis 4. First step in the Standard Agenda

Answers are given at end of chapter.

D IL

B ER

T: ©

1 99

6 Sc

ot t A

da m

s. D

is t.

B y

U N

IV ER

SA L

U C

LI C

K . R

ep ri

nt ed

w ith

rm is

si on

. A ll

ri gh

ts r

es er

ve d.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 263 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 264 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 264 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

consider. Questions may be phrased as fact, value, or policy. The choice will identify

the nature of the problem. A question of fact asks whether something is true and to what extent. Objective evidence can be used to determine an answer to the question.

“Are there dangers to nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, and, if so, what are these

dangers?” is a question of fact. A question of value asks for an evaluation of the de- sirability of an object, idea, event, or person. “Does permitting smoking on campus

raise any quality-of-life concerns?” is a question of value. Objective evidence does not

lead to any clear answers on questions of values. Quality of life, for example, can’t be

determined scientifically or statistically. It is a perception based on subjective views of

the world. Smokers might find the smell of smoke pleasant, even stimulating, whereas

nonsmokers may find it grossly unpleasant. A question of policy asks whether a spe- cific course of action should be undertaken to solve a problem. “What changes, if

any, should be made regarding the smoking policy on campus?” is a policy question.

Once the problem is phrased as a question of fact, value, or policy, any am- biguous terms should be defined. “Quality of life” would require some further de- scription (no strong odors, freedom from pollutants that might trigger respiratory

difficulties, etc.). “Smoking policy on campus” would need to be explained so the

group knows exactly what policy is currently in place.

Problem Analysis: Causes and Effects The group researches and gathers information on the problem defined, tries to determine how serious the problem is, what harm or effect the problem produces, and what causes the problem. Smoking on campus was a contentious issue at Cabrillo College for many years.

Nonsmoking students complained repeatedly to their student senators about the

problem. In an open hearing instituted by the student senate to gather information

and help determine the extent of the problem, tempers flared. One student, defend-

ing the “rights of smokers,” told nonsmokers to “quit school if you don’t like our

smoking.” A student defending nonsmokers’ rights vehemently retorted, “Pollut-

ers have no rights.” Another nonsmoker facetiously suggested “public floggings as a

penalty for smoking.” The conclusion of the student senate, after much research and

debate, was that the smoking policy was too permissive and this was causing numer-

ous hazards and significant unpleasantness for students. One note of caution here:

Although analyzing the problem is important and should be undertaken before exploring potential solutions, analysis paralysis, or bogging down by analyzing the problem too much, can also thwart effective decision making. It prevents a group from ever getting on with business and making a decision.

Solution Criteria: Setting Standards Standards by which decisions and solu- tions to problems can be evaluated are called criteria (see Closer Look: “Differ- ent Criteria Produce Different Outcomes”). In the summer of 2007, the American

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 264 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 265 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 265 ▶

CLOSER LOOK

Different Criteria Produce Different Outcomes

Developing appropriate criteria is a critical group function for making effective decisions and solving problems. If you are a member of an interviewing panel whose task is to hire someone for an important job, determining the criteria for hiring helps separate numerous ap- plicants into those that clearly don’t qualify (they don’t meet even the minimum standards), those who deserve a second look, and those that leap off the page and shout “Look at Me!”

Check the Internet and you will find doz- ens of rankings from “best and worse jobs” (best=mathematician; worst=lumberjack) to cities with the least and most courteous drivers (least=New York; most=Portland, Oregon) to the most literate cities in the United States (Seattle, Washington is the top choice) (Boog, 2009; Needleman, 2009; Tutor, 2009). Each list uses criteria to determine rankings. Choose different criteria for each and different rankings appear.

A dramatic example of how using different criteria can produce wildly different results came to my attention when I accessed two separate lists of “America’s best colleges,” the first by U.S. News & World Report magazine and the second by Forbes magazine. One compara- tive ranking really caught my attention. On the U.S. News list, the University of Wisconsin– Madison was ranked 9th in the nation, but on the Forbes list the same university was ranked 415th (“America’s Best Colleges,” 2009; “Best Colleges,” 2009). The explanation for the wide difference in rankings lies in the criteria se- lected by the two magazines. The main criteria for the U.S. News list were assessment by ad- ministrators at peer institutions, student reten- tion rates, faculty resources, student selectivity, general financial resources, quantity of alumni donations, and graduation rates. The main

criteria for the Forbes list were student satisfac- tion, postgraduate success, student debt, grad- uation rates within four years, and competitive student awards. Although there is some over- lap of criteria, there are big differences. In fact, an examination of college rankings by six differ- ent publications (U.S. News, Forbes, Washing- ton Monthly, Kiplinger, Times Higher Education, and Academic Ranking of World Universities) revealed a total of 30 separate criteria. None of the 30 was used by all six publications and a whopping 22 criteria were used variously by only one of the six publications (Hawley, 2010). Not surprisingly, the rankings of colleges by these six publications differed widely. Thus, choosing appropriate criteria can markedly af- fect group assessments.

Any list that ranks best colleges or best jobs or best films and the like can change every year, especially when those who formulate the rank- ings change the criteria for selection. The “Most Literate Cities” list used six criteria: newspa- per circulation, number of bookstores, library resources, periodical publishing resources, educational attainment of city population, and Internet resources. Given the trend in declin- ing newspaper circulation and periodical sales nationally and large increases in e-book sales, would the rankings be the same if the first two criteria were deleted as less relevant and total e- book sales was added as a criterion? We can only speculate short of doing the actual research, but when Forbes changed its criteria for college rankings, the University of Wisconsin–Madison vaulted from 415th place in 2009 to 212th place in 2010 (“America’s Best Colleges,” 2010).

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 265 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 266 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 266 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

Make sure that your group chooses criteria wisely. Discuss carefully what the group agrees are the most important criteria for producing de- sirable results. If you’re hiring a college instructor, do you want the very best teacher or do you want a good teacher who will also likely produce excel- lent nationally recognized research and publica- tions that bring prestige to the college? There are no perfect criteria fit for all groups. Criteria are debatable issues. Decide what is your primary group goal (e.g., hire the best teacher possible) and then develop criteria that will likely achieve that goal best from your group’s perspective.

Once your group has chosen criteria, deter- mine appropriate measures for each criterion. The Forbes criterion of student satisfaction used to rank colleges is measured in three ways: by average student evaluation scores for all faculty members at each college included on

ratemyprofessors.com, by freshman-to-sopho- more retention rates, and by student evaluations from MyPlan.com. Student debt is measured by determining student loan default rates and four-year debt load for a typical student bor- rower. Choosing appropriate means of mea- suring each criterion is important, and may produce animated debate among group mem- bers. For example, using ratemyprofessors.com to measure student evaluations of professors is dubious at best because the sample size is usu- ally very small and the sample is self-selected not random and thus unrepresentative because those students with the strongest feelings either positive or negative are most likely to access the site to provide evaluations of faculty. Vigorous group discussion can usually resolve these is- sues of appropriate criteria and adequate mea- sures for each criterion.

Questions for Thought 1. What criteria might your student senate use to decide how best to spend funds accumulated by assessing

student fees? Which criteria might be most controversial?

2. What criteria do you think are most appropriate for ranking colleges and universities in the United States? Why?

Film Institute released its list of “100 Best American Movies.” Citizen Kane topped

the list, repeating its previous top spot from a similar 1997 list concocted by AFI

(“Citizen Kane,” 2007). For most college students of today, this must seem a per-

plexing choice. Citizen Kane, released in 1941, is a black-and-white film, has no real

body count, the action is plodding by today’s frenetic standards, and the special

effects probably seem goofy compared to the blockbuster movies of today. Without

knowing the criteria used by the Film Institute to judge the quality of movies, it is

very difficult to understand many of the choices that made the 100 Best list and the

rankings. Knowing that “influence on future American filmmaking” is a primary

criterion helps you understand better why Citizen Kane ranked as the top all-time

American film. If “entertainment value” were a prime criterion, the top choice may

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 266 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 267 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 267 ▶

not have fared so well. Even if you knew the criteria used, you may still disagree

with the decisions made, but at least you would have a basis for discussion. Crite-

ria help groups determine whether their decisions make sense and are likely to be

effective.

The group should establish criteria for evaluating solutions before solutions are suggested. This may necessitate a vigorous discussion of possible criteria. In some cases the criteria are already dictated by others (e.g., a judge’s instructions to a

jury to use the legal criterion of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a murder case). Not

all criteria, however, are created equal. The group must consider the relevance and

appropriateness of each criterion. Ranking films based on criteria such as “buckets of

blood spilled” or “number of sex scenes” would be dubious at best except perhaps for

those with extremely narrow (some would say questionable) interests.

Some relevant and appropriate criteria on the smoking question devised by an ad

hoc campus committee included: protect the health of nonsmokers, be simple to un-

derstand and enforce, avoid alienating either group (smokers or nonsmokers), cost

less than $5,000, and maintain a comfortable environment. The criteria should be ranked in order of priority. The committee prioritized the criteria on the smoking policy in the order just listed.

Solution Suggestions: Generating Alternatives The group brainstorms pos- sible solutions (see later in this chapter for proper brainstorming technique). Some possibilities on the smoking issue that emerged from the committee deliberations in-

cluded mandating a total ban on smoking across the campus, designating certain lo-

cations outside for smoking, building outside shelters in designated locations around

the campus to protect smokers from weather, permitting smoking only in automo-

biles, and allowing smoking only in parking lots both in cars and outside.

Once a list of ideas has been generated, the group should clarify any ambiguous or confusing ideas. Ideas that overlap should be consolidated into a single idea.

Solution Evaluation and Selection: Deciding by Criteria The story of a mili- tary briefing officer asked to devise a method for raising enemy submarines off the

ocean floor illustrates the importance of this step. The briefing officer’s solution?

Heat the ocean to the boiling point. When bewildered Pentagon officials asked him

how this could be done, he replied, “I don’t know. I decided on the solution; you work

out the details.” The devil is in the details. Explore both the merits and demerits (avoid confirmation bias) of suggested solutions. Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry (see Chapter 7) are useful techniques for accomplishing this aspect of the

Standard Agenda.

Consider each solution in terms of the criteria established earlier. For instance, protecting the health of faculty, staff, and students was a prime concern of those ad-

dressing the smoking policy. Of all the solution suggestions, a total ban on smoking

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 267 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 268 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 268 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

met this criterion best. It didn’t avoid alienating smokers on campus, however. Con-

cern was raised that a total ban might alienate student smokers to such an extent

that significant enrollment declines would result, costing a great loss of money to

the college. Smoking in designated areas seemed to be a promising solution, and was

tried on a temporary basis, but smokers had difficulty determining where the des-

ignated smoking areas were on campus despite posted maps indicating them. This

solution proved to be too complicated and difficult to enforce. Complaints also arose

that there weren’t shelters in all designated areas so smokers were exposed to some

nasty weather. This violated the “maintain a comfortable environment” criterion.

Building shelters for smokers to address this complaint proved to be too costly, far

exceeding the criterion that set a $5,000 limit on expenses. Relegating smokers to

their automobiles proved to be impractical because this would ban smoking for those

who chose mass transit or bicycled to campus. Finally, the suggestion that smoking

be relegated to parking lots protected the health of nonsmokers; was a simple, easily

understood policy; cost less than $5,000 (some concrete ashtrays were distributed in

all parking lots at minimal expense); and mostly avoided alienating smokers because

smoking was still permitted, though restricted, on campus. Only the maintaining-

a-comfortable-environment criterion was not met completely because smokers were

still not totally sheltered from the elements. They could, however, smoke in their cars

or smoke in the two massive parking structures on campus that provide some shelter,

especially from rain.

There are three decision-making methods that are used to make solution choices: majority rule, minority rule, or consensus. A thorough discussion of the merits and demerits of each method appears in the next section of this chapter. The

ad hoc campus committee used consensus (unanimity rule); the faculty and student

senates and the board of trustees used majority rule. Permitting smoking only in

parking lots was the eventual policy adopted by the board of trustees with support

from the faculty and student senates. It made Cabrillo College one of the very first

colleges in the nation to restrict smoking to this extent, and the policy has worked

well since it was first implemented.

Solution Implementation: Follow-through A common failing of decision- making groups is that once they arrive at a decision there is no follow-through.

Making the decision is one thing; implementing it is another. One study found that

only 30% of strategic initiatives in businesses are successfully implemented (Davis

et al., 2010). Force field analysis, suggested by the work of Kurt Lewin (1947), is one method for planning implementation of a group solution or decision. Using

force field analysis, groups brainstorm a list of driving forces—those that encourage

change—and restraining forces—those that resist change. Driving forces that encour-

aged implementation of the new smoking policy at Cabrillo College included multi-

ple complaints from students, stated concerns about the health risks to nonsmokers,

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 268 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 269 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 269 ▶

and a fear that nonsmokers would stop enrolling at the college. Restraining forces

working against implementation of the new smoking policy mostly involve a more

general resistance to change itself. Social philosopher Eric Hoffer titled one of his

books The Ordeal of Change. Change does not come easily to most of us. A study

by EquaTerra, an independent business and information technology advisory firm,

found that the number one barrier to change in business environments is “resistance

to change,” noted by 82% of respondents (“Survey of CEOs,” 2007).

There are five ways to reduce resistance to change and consequent restraining

forces impeding solution implementation (Tubbs, 1984). They are:

1. As noted previously, people are more likely to accept change when they have had a part in the planning and decision making. Imposing change produces psychological reactance (see Chapter 4) and therefore increases resistance to change.

2. Changes are more likely to be accepted if they do not threaten group mem- bers. The larger concern on the smoking issue was whether students would drop out of Cabrillo College because the policy was too permissive, even though some

concern was expressed that the more restrictive policy would threaten enrollment

declines among smokers.

3. Changes are more likely to be accepted when the need for change affects indi- viduals directly. The great majority of students at Cabrillo College are nonsmok- ers directly affected by a permissive smoking policy.

4. There will be less resistance to change when the change is open to revision and modification. The smoking policy revision was presented as a temporary fix, subject to further revision if necessary.

5. The three factors (degree, rate, and desirability) affecting a group’s ability to adapt to change in a system should be considered. The smoking policy at Cabrillo College addressed excessive degree of change by not banning smoking entirely, addressed too rapid a rate of change by phasing in the policy (designated areas were tried first), and addressed desirability by conducting open hearings on the issue.

A helpful decision-making method that stipulates systematically how to imple-

ment small group decisions once resistance to change has been addressed is called

PERT (Program Evaluation Review Technique). The steps in the PERT method are:

1. Determine what the final step should look like (e.g., restrict smoking to parking lots only).

2. Specify any events that must occur before the final goal is realized (e.g., obtain endorsement from the board of trustees).

3. Put the events in chronological order (e.g., the committee must secure the sup- port of the student and faculty senates, then the college president, before going to

the board for endorsement).

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 269 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 270 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 270 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

4. If necessary, construct a diagram of the process to trace the progress of imple- mentation (useful only if there are numerous steps).

5. Generate a list of activities, resources, and materials that are required between events (e.g., hold a strategy session before making presentations to the student and faculty senates, and again before seeking the president’s endorsement).

6. Develop a time line for implementation. Estimate how long each step will take. 7. Match the total time estimate for implementation of the solution with any

deadlines (e.g., end of school year approaching). Modify your plan of action as needed (e.g., take any appointment time available with the president that will

move the process along).

8. Specify which group members will have which responsibilities.

CLOSER LOOK

Murphy’s Law

In October 1999, the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter flew too deep into the Martian atmo-sphere and disintegrated. A simple math er- ror was responsible for navigating the spacecraft into a disastrously low orbit. Navigators failed to convert calculations from feet and inches (used by the contractor Lockheed Martin) into meters and millimeters (used by NASA). “That is so dumb,” stated John Logsdon, director of George Washington University’s space-policy in- stitute. “There seems to have emerged over the past couple of years a systematic problem in the space community of insufficient attention to de- tail” (Hotz, 1999, p. 1A).

On September 30, 1999, a nuclear process- ing plant at Tokaimura, 75 miles northeast of To- kyo, released radiation levels that were 20,000 times the normal rate (Watson et al., 1999). Three workers were severely injured and 69 other people, mostly workers, were exposed to significant doses of radiation (“Uranium crew,” 1999). Potentially catastrophic effects were

avoided only because the amount of fissionable material was small and radioactive particles were not released into the air, only radioactive isotopes with a short half-life (Efron, 1999). The Japanese government and nuclear experts were slow to respond to this nuclear accident that occurred just hours prior to the Mars Or- biter mishap. Taisuke Sasanuma, a graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, relates a conversation he had with a Kennedy School classmate who works for J apan’s Sci- ence and Technology Agency, which oversees nuclear power plants in Japan, “When I asked about safety training, he told me it was totally meaningless and a waste of time to discuss it. ‘It is obvious that Japanese power plant systems are safe,’ he told me. ‘We never had a problem, so why think about it?’” (Zielenziger & Lubman, 1999, p. 20A). An unidentified chief executive of Tokyo Electric Power added this, “If you as- sume that one [an accident] might happen, that will only make people scared. So we try not to

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 270 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 271 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 271 ▶

generate people’s fear. Accidents can’t happen” (p. 20A).

This attitude certainly didn’t help when the next, more serious nuclear disaster hit Japan on March 11, 2011. A 9.0 earthquake off the coast of northeastern Japan produced a gigantic tsunami that swamped the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and released significant amounts of radiation into the atmosphere requiring a mas- sive evacuation of citizens. On April 1, ABC News reported that plant operators were “woefully un- prepared for the scale of the disaster” (Mark & Willacy, 2011). A team of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a re- port at the end of May 2011. The report clearly charged that Japan underestimated the danger of tsunamis and did not prepare adequately for such an event (Fackler, 2011).

Murphy’s law states that anything that can go wrong likely will go wrong—somewhere, sometime. A common mistake made by groups is failure to plan for Murphy’s law to minimize the chance of error or mishap. Human error or simply bad luck must be considered. The more complex the system, the more likely serious er- rors can and will occur. The 2010 BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is testament to this. Deep water drilling is enormously complex and full of risks. Those responsible for the di- sastrous spill were not sufficiently concerned about Murphy’s law. As the January 11, 2011, final

report from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drill- ing (2011) concluded, “The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again.” Failure to plan for errors or un- usual occurrences can be catastrophic. The BP oil disaster killed 11 rig workers and released an estimated 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico (Cappiello, 2011).

The enormously successful Mars rover So- journer, mentioned in Chapter 4, was extensively tested prior to its launch. David Gruel, an en- gineer assigned the task of creating any con- ceivable problems Sojourner might encounter, tested the rover in a “sandbox” that simulated the surface of Mars. The Sojourner team needed to know in advance whether the rover could meet any difficulty it might face. Gruel and his team took into account Murphy’s law. Sojourner passed every test in the sandbox and was a huge success on Mars (Shirley, 1997).

During the solution evaluation and selection phase of discussion, groups should address pos- sible mishaps and mistakes. Backup plans and emergency procedures should be developed. By doing so, likelihood of success, while not guar- anteed, is certainly markedly improved. At— worst, the consequences of actual mishaps are minimized.

Questions for Thought 1. Can you provide examples of group decision-making errors that could have been avoided or minimized had

the group accounted for Murphy’s law?

2. Is planning for what might go wrong with a decision or plan the group wants to implement always a good idea? Is this the same as cynicism, the great killer of teamwork?

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 271 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 272 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 272 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

▶ Group Decision-Making Rules: Majority, Minority, Unanimity As stated earlier, rules help groups achieve their goals. They foster stability and re-

duce variability in a system. Majority, minority, and unanimity are the three primary

decision-making rules. Any of these decision-making rules can be applied to the

Standard Agenda format.

Majority Rule: Tyrannical or Practical No one should be surprised that majority rule is a popular method of decision making in the United States. It has determined

winners on American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Survivor, and other media-manu-

factured contests. The U.S. democratic political system relies on it. Majority rule in

groups, however, is not exactly the same as majority rule in our political system. Mi-

norities are protected by the Bill of Rights. Congress is guided by the realization that

legislation must not violate constitutional guarantees of individual liberties. Most

small groups provide no similar protection for minorities. The quality of the group’s

decision is a particularly troublesome problem with majority rule. Majorities can

sometimes take ludicrous, even dangerous positions. Mob rule is a manifestation of

the tyranny of the majority. Racism, sexism, and other bigotry in the United States

have been the products of majority rule.

Studies comparing juries using the unanimous decision rule and majority rule

(Oregon requires a 10 –2 majority and Louisiana a 9–3 split for felony convic-

tions) found several deficiencies in majority rule applicable to most small groups

(Abramson, 1994; Hastie et al., 1983). First, deliberations are significantly shorter and less conscientious. Deliberations typically end once a requisite majority is reached. Consequently, less error correction takes place, sometimes resulting in

faulty decisions (Lee & Paradowski, 2007). Second, minority factions participate less frequently and are less influential, thereby underutilizing the group’s re- sources. Third, jurors’ overall satisfaction with the group is lower. Minorities feel that their point of view is ignored and the style of deliberation is typically more com-

bative, forceful, and bullying.

Despite the disadvantages of majority rule, there are some advantages (Hastie &

Kameda, 2005). When issues are not very important, when decisions must be made relatively quickly, and when commitment of all members to the final de- cision is unimportant, majority rule can be useful. Majority rule is efficient and provides quick closure on relatively unimportant issues without necessarily sacrific-

ing decision accuracy. As groups become larger, majority rule may be necessary for

democratic decision making to take place because consensus becomes increasingly

difficult the larger the group becomes.

Minority Rule: Several Types Majorities don’t always make the decisions. Minority rule as a group decision-making method occurs in several forms. First,

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 272 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 273 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 273 ▶

the group designates one of its members as an expert to make the decision. This method

relieves group members from devoting time and energy to solving problems. Deci-

sion by designated expert, however, is mostly ineffective. Trying to determine who is

the clear expert in the group is often difficult, even impossible. Lack of group input

also fails to capitalize on synergy.

Second, a designated authority (usually from outside the immediate group)

makes the decision for the group, either after hearing discussion from group mem-

bers or without their consultation. Decision by designated authority is popular in

business organizations because it reinforces hierarchical power structures, and it

is efficient. The Cabrillo College one-stop proposal was instituted primarily by

the president, despite opposition from student and faculty senates. Sometimes the

group acts in an advisory capacity to the designated authority and sometimes not.

Since the group has no ultimate authority, this method of decision making has

drawbacks. The quality of the designated authority’s decision will depend a great

deal on how good a listener he or she is. If the group discussion is merely a formal-

ity, then none of the benefits of collective deliberations will accrue. Since power is

unevenly distributed, group members are likely to vie competitively for attention

and seek to impress the authority (Johnson & Johnson, 1988). Members will be

tempted to report to the authority what he or she wants to hear, not what should

be said. If the authority encourages genuine disagreement and in no way penalizes

members for their honesty, he or she can benefit enormously from a dialectical

clash of ideas.

Third, in some instances, executive committees must be delegated responsibility

for making certain decisions because the workload for the group as a whole is over-

whelming or the time constraints are prohibitive. The challenge here is to persuade

the group to get behind the decision.

Finally, minority rule can take the form of a forceful faction making a decision for

the group by dominating less forceful members. On rare occasions this may be advis-

able when the minority faction consists of the most informed, committed members.

Too often, however, dominant group members who flex their muscles focus on per-

sonal gain more than on what’s good for the group (Murnighan, 1978).

Unanimity Rule: Consensus The unanimity rule governs some groups. Juries are the most obvious example. Persuading all members of a group to agree on anything

can be daunting. Group consensus is based on the unanimity rule. Consensus is “a state of mutual agreement among members of a group where all legitimate con-

cerns of individuals have been addressed to the satisfaction of the group” (Saint &

Lawson, 1997). Not all unanimous decisions can be considered a true consensus.

True consensus requires agreement, commitment, and satisfaction (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1988). All members must agree with the group’s final

decision, but consensus does not require adoption of every member’s personal

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 273 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 274 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 274 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

preference. Consensus usually requires some give-and-take. If all members can agree on an acceptable alternative, even if this alternative is not each member’s first

choice, then you have come close to achieving a true consensus. Once unanimous

agreement has been reached, members must be willing to defend the decision to

outsiders, not undermine it by agreeing in the group but disagreeing outside of the

group. This shows commitment. Finally, we rarely commit to a group decision when

we have little part in formulating it. True consensus requires the opportunity to in-

fluence group discussion and choice. Thus, group members must feel satisfied with

the decision-making process. Satisfaction is not derived from bullying members into

conformity. Satisfaction comes from a cooperative group climate and reasonable

opportunities for all members to participate meaningfully in the decision making

(Gastil et al., 2007).

Groups that use a consensus approach tend to produce better decisions than groups using other decision rules because full discussion of issues is required, ev- ery group member must be convinced that the decision is a good one, and minority

members are heard (Lee & Paradowski, 2007). Members feel more confident about

the correctness of their decisions with consensus, and they are more satisfied with the

group as a whole (Abramson, 1994; Miller, 1989). Group consensus decision mak-

ing is especially effective when group members have extensive experience using this

method (Watson et al., 1991).

Nevertheless, there are two principal limitations to consensus decision making.

First, achieving unanimous agreement from group members is very difficult, es- pecially when the issues are emotionally charged and time for decision making is limited. Discussions can become contentious and time consuming. Members who resist siding with the majority lengthen the deliberations and increase the frustration

level among those looking for a quick decision. Second, consensus is increasingly unlikely as groups grow larger. Groups of 15 or 20 rarely achieve a consensus on much of anything. Seeking a consensus, however, even if one is never quite achieved,

can produce most of the benefits of true consensus.

Several guidelines can help a group achieve a consensus (Hall & Watson, 1970;

Saint & Lawson, 1997):

1. Follow the Standard Agenda. Structured group discussion, not aimless conversa- tion, improves the chances of achieving consensus.

2. Establish a cooperative group climate. Supportive patterns of communication en- courage consensus; defensive patterns discourage consensus.

3. Identify the pluses and minuses of potential decisions under consideration. Write these positives and negatives on a chalkboard, whiteboard, large tablet, or type

them onto a computer screen projected for all to see. (Avoid confirmation bias.)

4. Discuss all concerns of group members and attempt to resolve every one. Try to find alternatives that will satisfy members’ concerns. (Avoid groupthink.)

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 274 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 275 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

DisCussion ProCEDurEs 275 ▶

5. Avoid adversarial, win–lose arguments. Don’t stubbornly argue for a position to achieve a personal victory. Seek ways to break a stalemate. (Avoid “enemy–friend”

competitive false dichotomy.)

6. Request a “stand aside.” A stand aside means a team member continues to have reservations about the group decision but, when confronted, does not wish to

block the group choice. (Avoid the blocker role.)

7. Avoid conflict-suppressing techniques such as coin flipping and swapping (“I’ll sup- port your position this time if you support mine next time”). The primary ob-

jective is to make a high-quality decision, not avoid conflict. Seek differences of

opinion. Conflict-suppressing techniques also will not usually produce commit-

ment to the group decision. (Resist groupthink.)

8. If consensus is impossible despite these guidelines, seek a supermajority (a minimum two-thirds agreement). A supermajority at least captures the spirit of consensus by requiring substantial, if not total, agreement. Supermajorities, of course, can still

SECOND LOOK

Group Decision-Making Rules Rules Pros Cons

Majority Rule Quick Efficient Minorities vulnerable to tyranny

of majority

Expedient in large

groups

Quality of decision questionable

Usually alienates minority

Underutilization of resources

Minority Rule

Designated Expert Saves time Expertise hard to determine

No group input

Designated Authority Clear Members vie for attention

Efficient Members vie to impress

authority

Executive Committee Divides labor Weak commitment to decision

Forceful Faction Faction may be

informed/committed

Likely Me-, not We-,

oriented

Unanimity Rule

(Consensus)

Quality decisions

Commitment

Time-consuming

Difficult

Satisfaction Tension-producing

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 275 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 276 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 276 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

lead to stalemate when a small faction steadfastly thwarts the will of the robust majority, as seen especially in politics with budget stalemates in states such as California that require a two-thirds supermajority to pass a state budget. Califor- nia voters in 2010, apparently fed up with recurrent budget stalemates, rescinded the supermajority requirement to pass a state budget. Consensus, or something approaching it, is not always achievable, especially when politics intrude.

Participation

The Standard Agenda and decision-making rules used by groups are likely to be

effective only if group members are active, effective participants in the process. As

important as participation of group members is to group synergy, no one wants to

encourage participation from members who are obnoxious or bent on sharing mis-

information. Nevertheless, low participation from group members, especially those

who are merely shy or reticent to contribute for a variety of reasons, can severely im-

pact group effectiveness. In this section, the challenge of cultural diversity and rates

of participation is discussed. Ways to encourage low-participators to become more

actively engaged in group discussions are also offered.

Focus Questions

1. Should nonminority Americans value silence as much as some ethnic minorities do?

2. Should Americans deemphasize speaking ability?

3. Should you expect ethnic minority group members to become more assertive and outspoken participators in small groups, even though this is not highly valued in their communities?

▶ Cultural Diversity and Participation: Is Silence Golden? 2009 marked the beginning of Japan’s first jury system since World War II. The idea

of participating in jury deliberations and deciding court cases does not immediately

appeal to Japanese citizens. There is a deep cultural reticence to expressing opinions

in public discourse, to arguing different points of view, and to questioning authority

(Tabuchi & McDonald, 2009; Onishi, 2007). In keeping with the respect for author-

ity, three-judge panels decide court cases. The new system combines three trained

judges and six citizens picked by lottery to make decisions (Tabuchi & McDonald,

2009). Hundreds of mock trials were held prior to the official start of jury trials in

Japan, but despite the training, polls revealed that about 80% of Japanese dread serv-

ing on juries (Onishi, 2007). During the mock trial exercises, jurors remained mostly

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 276 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 277 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

PartiCiPation 277 ▶

silent, failing to participate in deliberations despite prodding from judges conduct-

ing the mock trials. Absence of a jury system is not unusual in Asian countries. South

Korea, for example, didn’t institute a jury system until 2008 (Young, 2008).

One of the significant challenges facing teachers in an increasingly multicultural

educational environment is how to increase the participation level in class of some

ethnic minority students. Contributions to group decision making by ethnic minori-

ties are consistently lower than those by nonminorities (Kirchmeyer, 1993). In 76%

of the small groups in one study, the member who contributed the least was Asian

(Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992).

Why is there this difference in verbal participation in small group decision mak-

ing? First, the value of verbal participation in decision making is perceived differ- ently from culture to culture. As already noted, silent individuals are not seriously considered for the role of leader in American culture. Speaking is highly valued

in the United States. Talking in an individualist culture is a way of showing one’s

uniqueness (Samovar & Porter, 2004). In collectivist cultures and subcultures, by

contrast, speaking is not highly prized. Students from collectivist cultural tradi-

tions typically see speaking too much in class as a sign of conceit and superficiality

(Samovar & Porter, 2004). Among the Cambodians, Chinese, Japanese, Thais, and

Vietnamese, emphasis is given to minimal vocal participation. The Chinese have a

proverb that states “Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know”

(Lewis, 1996). For the Japanese, “silence is considered a virtue as well as a sign of re-

spectability and trustworthiness” (McDaniel, 1993, p. 19). In business negotiations,

Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans are more at ease with long pauses and silences than

are Americans. As Andersen (1985) explains, “Cultures reflecting Buddhist tradition

hold that knowledge, truth, and wisdom come to those whose quiet silence allows the

spirit to enter” (p. 162).

Second, a relative disadvantage in ability to communicate effectively in groups limits verbal participation of ethnic minorities. Minorities report considerably less facility for communicating with others in a college setting (Kirchmeyer, 1993).

Not only are ethnic minorities at a distinct disadvantage if English is their second

language, but they are at a disadvantage during group discussions dominated by

members who are more aggressive and less concerned about other group members’

feelings (Kirchmeyer, 1993).

Third, lackluster participation from ethnic minorities in decision making may result from weak commitment to the group. Weak commitment may result from group members’ failure to indicate that participation from minorities is valued, or

cultural differences with members of the dominant culture may make minorities feel

less like they belong in the group (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992).

If tapping the resources of cultural diversity is an important group goal, and

this would seem to be significant given the synergistic potential inherent in diver-

sity (Gastil et al., 2007; McLeod et al., 1996), then finding ways to boost the verbal

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 277 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 278 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 278 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

participation rates of ethnic minorities in an American culture that values speech

is a worthy undertaking. The methods outlined in the next section for encourag-

ing constructive participation from low-contributors in general apply well to ethnic

minorities.

▶ Increasing Constructive Participation: Jump-Starting Low-Participators

There are several steps that can be taken to promote constructive participation from

group members. First, encourage contributions from low-participators. This is especially important for involving those ethnic minorities whose cultural values dis-

courage assertiveness (Tang & Kirkbride, 1986). Solicit input from reticent members

by asking open-ended questions of the group (e.g., “What does everyone think?”).

When low-participators offer contributions, indicate that their participation is val-

ued by actively listening to what that person has to say, and perhaps thank them for

their contribution.

Second, make issues and problems for discussion relevant to the interests of low-participators. When groups work on interesting, involving, or challenging tasks, member contributions increase (Forsyth, 1990).

Third, give low-participators responsibility for certain tasks. When individu- als are designated as responsible for certain important tasks, they are less likely to

sit back and wait for someone else to assume the responsibility. If low-participators

believe that their efforts have an impact on the group’s final decision or product, they

are less likely to remain uninvolved (Kerr & Bruun, 1983).

Fourth, establish a cooperative group climate. This is particularly important for ethnic minorities from collectivist cultures, who are likely to feel more comfortable

and committed in such an atmosphere.

Fifth, encourage devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry. These two methods of combating groupthink also encourage constructive participation from all group

members. With their emphasis on stimulating a variety of ideas and opinions, fully

sharing information, openly addressing differences of opinion, and carefully evalu-

ating alternatives, devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry substantially increase the

participation of ethnic minorities (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992).

Conducting Effective Meetings

Avid baseball fan and conservative columnist George Will, commenting on what

he dislikes about football, remarks, “Football combines the two worst features of

American life. It is violence punctuated by committee meetings” (Fitzhenry, 1993,

p. 426). Humorist Dave Barry (1991), comparing meetings to funerals, seems to

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 278 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 279 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ConDuCting EffECtivE MEEtings 279 ▶

prefer funerals. He claims, “The major difference is that most funerals have a definite

purpose. Also, nothing is ever really buried in a meeting” (p. 311). Along this same

line, there is this bumper sticker: “Meetings—The practical alternative to work.”

Paralleling these negative views of meetings is a survey that shows 85% of corporate

executives are dissatisfied with the efficiency and effectiveness of company meetings

(Mankin, 2004). Despite bad reviews, meetings are an indispensable part of group

decision making and problem solving (Blenko et al., 2010; Luong & Rogelberg,

2005). This section discusses ways to master the meeting monster.

▶ Group Meetings: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Meetings can actually save time and increase productivity of groups. Cecilia Sharpe,

who was managing an audit team of six accountants at the time, decided to calcu-

late the effects of eliminating the team’s weekly meeting with the understanding that

group members would maintain direct communication with each other to coordi-

nate their efforts (Shaffner, 1999). When a proposal to revise work schedules for

her auditing team emerged, she discovered that this one decision in the absence of a

weekly meeting resulted in a net loss of 18 person-hours in productivity. There were

102 disruptions of team members with phone calls to discuss the proposal, compared

to only seven disruptions of any kind during team meetings. The decision was two

days late and no team member was happy with the final decision. Meetings permit

face-to-face participation on issues of mutual concern where each member’s ideas

and arguments can be heard and evaluated simultaneously by all group members.

Group meetings don’t have to be a common source of grouphate, but they of-

ten are viewed as a hassle and an interruption (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005). Busi-

ness consultant Mitchell Nash lists six common complaints associated with group meetings: there is an unclear purpose for the meeting, participants are unprepared, key individuals are absent or late, discussion drifts into irrelevant conversation on

unrelated topics, some participants dominate the conversation and stifle discussion,

and decisions made at meetings are not implemented (Dressler, 1995). Effectively

addressing these complaints can make meetings highly productive time-savers.

▶ Chair’s and Members’ Responsibilities: Controlling the Meeting Monster

Whoever chairs a small group meeting has specific responsibilities. Using parliamen-

tary procedure, however, isn’t necessarily one of them. Parliamentary procedure is a set of hundreds of rules for conducting meetings (see Robert’s Rules of Order at

www.robertsrules.com). Parliamentary procedure is appropriate for large, formal groups (the U.S. Senate) and even a few smaller groups with formal responsibili- ties (boards of directors), but for most small groups the rules are too rigid and ar- tificial (Sunwolf & Frey, 2005). They can stifle productive discussion and squash the creative process. Imagine saying “point of order” or “call the question” when meeting

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 279 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 280 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 280 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

with a project team that is trying to generate creative ideas on a task. Saying “I rise to

a point of privilege” or “I move to table the motion” among a small group of close

colleagues or friends would likely trigger consternation, even guffaws, from group

members. Using an abbreviated version of parliamentary procedure such as skipping

the technical terminology but making clearly stated and concise motions, adopting

formal votes, and requiring recognition from the chair before speaking is advisable

for some small group meetings, especially when the issues discussed are controversial.

Efficient, effective meetings neutralize negative attitudes group members often have

about meetings (Rogelberg et al., 2006). As the chair, there are several ways that you

can structure meetings to make them efficient and effective decision-making arenas.

1. Don’t call a meeting unless there is no good alternative. Don’t hold a meeting if your only justification is disseminating information, meeting because you are sched- uled to do so every Tuesday afternoon, using the meeting as an opportunity to recruit help in researching a topic, or hoping to try out new ideas on colleagues. If these objectives can be accomplished without meeting in a group, then don’t meet. One of life’s little pleasures is the surprise notification, “Meeting has been can- celed.” Hold a meeting if an immediate response is required, group participation is essential, participants are prepared to discuss relevant issues, and key players can be present.

2. Contact every participant. Indicate in a memo or e-mail what the specific purpose of the meeting is (“to make our final decision on the smoking policy”); where,

when, and how long it will be held; and what materials, if any, each participant

should bring to the meeting. In the LexisNexis survey of professional workers,

25% noted that they missed a meeting at least once a week because of “schedul-

ing miscommunication” (“International Workplace Productivity Survey,” 2010).

Schedule meetings clearly so everyone is well informed.

3. Prepare a clear agenda and distribute it to all participants a few days in advance of the meeting. Absence of an agenda is a primary cause of failed meetings (Drew,

1994). The agenda should list the topics of discussion (see Box 8.1). If reading

materials must accompany the agenda, make certain that they are concise and es-

sential to the discussion.

4. Move the agenda forward. Provide accurate information on all issues, clarify com- plex issues, correct misconceptions, and especially keep the discussion on track

and on point. Aimless discussions suck the life out of meetings and force cap-

tive listeners to endure tedious, brain-killing, sleep-inducing chatter. As Ronald

Reagan once quipped, “I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of na-

tional emergency, even if I’m in a cabinet meeting.” Do not allow any participant

to be a stagehog and dominate the discussion. “Let’s hear from other members”

and “Does anyone have a different point of view?” are ways of limiting talkahol-

ics from dominating discussion. If a vote on an issue is appropriate, ask for a

“show of hands” or a voice vote to indicate votes for and against a proposal. Call

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 280 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 281 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ConDuCting EffECtivE MEEtings 281 ▶

for a vote only after all sides have had an opportunity to express differing points

of view.

5. Designate a specific time allotment for every discussion item. A timekeeper should be assigned at the start of each meeting. When the time on a discussion item has

elapsed, the group may decide to extend the time allotment or move to the next

item. Time limits establish a crisp pace for the meeting. Keep meetings as short as

possible and you’ll garner accolades from grateful members.

Box 8.1

Sample Agendas for Group Meetings

AGenDA FoR A Business MeeTinG (Meeting of the student senate)

Date

Boardroom

2:00–3:30 p.m.

Purpose: Biweekly meeting

I. Call meeting to order; introduce any new members

II. Approval of minutes of last meeting (5 minutes)

III. Additions to the agenda (2 minutes) IV. Committee reports

A. Student fee committee (5 minutes) B. Student activity committee (5 minutes) C. Student union committee (5 minutes)

V. Officer’s reports A. Treasurer’s report (5 minutes) B. President’s report (10 minutes)

VI. Old business A. Textbook prices (10 minutes) B. Campus parking problems (10 minutes) C. Pub on campus (5 minutes)

VII. New business A. Computer access on campus

(5 minutes) B. Safety on campus (20 minutes)

VIII. Building agenda for next business meeting (5 minutes)

IX. Adjournment

AGenDA FoR A DisCussion MeeTinG (Curriculum task force)

Date

Boardroom

3:00–5:00 p.m.

Purpose: To improve the curriculum change and approval process

I. How does the current curriculum process work?

II. What are the primary problems with present curriculum process?

III. What causes the problems? IV. What criteria determine an ideal curriculum

process? V. What are some possible improvements in

the curriculum process? VI. Which suggested improvements are the

most promising? Why? VII. Are there any drawbacks to these suggested

improvements? VIII. What needs to occur to implement the most

promising suggested improvements?

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 281 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 282 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 282 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

6. Reserve a few minutes at the end of the meeting to determine whether the objectives of the meeting were accomplished. If further work and discussion are deemed necessary,

schedule discussion of unfinished business for the next meeting. If the group has

made decisions, implementation of those decisions must be monitored. This is usu-

ally the chair’s responsibility, but all participants have some responsibility for this.

7. Distribute the minutes of the meeting as soon as possible. Someone attending the meeting should be delegated the responsibility for taking notes and turning them into meeting minutes. The minutes should indicate what was discussed, who said what, what action was taken, and what remains to be deliberated and decided. Minutes record the gist of a meeting. Don’t attempt to provide a tran- script of meeting proceedings. Also, do not include confidential information, and keep language neutral and unbiased (“Fred freaked,” “Jamie had a meltdown,” or “Stephanie begged” lacks neutrality).

The chair has responsibilities to conduct an efficient and effective meeting, but

group members also have responsibilities. In their book We’ve Got to Start Meet- ing Like This, Mosvick and Nelson (1987) offer some important tips for how best to

conduct yourself during meetings. They include: be organized when speaking and

don’t ramble; speak to points made only when your contribution might add light,

not just heat; state your arguments clearly and directly, and use evidence to support

those arguments whenever possible; and listen carefully to the discussion and state

opposing points of view fairly.

Critical Thinking and Effective Decision Making

Group members must exercise their critical reasoning abilities at every stage of the

Standard Agenda to maximize the probabilities of effective decisions (Hirokawa,

1992). Consequently, how you go about gathering information and the critical eye

you focus on information gathered should be primary concerns.

▶ Gathering Information: Accumulating Input The output of groups is likely to be no better than the input available to its members.

Faulty or insufficient information easily produces collective inferential error (see

Chapter 7). Information gathering is used in all six steps of the Standard Agenda and should be a focused effort by all group members. The group should divide the labor. Some members may concentrate on certain issues (problem causes and ef-

fects), while other members research different ones (potential solutions).

For the most up-to-date information, use the Internet. Learning to use the proper

search engines and focusing your search take time to master. Consult your librarian

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 282 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 283 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CritiCal thinking anD EffECtivE DECision Making 283 ▶

for assistance if necessary. Briefly, an Internet search usually begins with a search engine, such as Google or Yahoo, a tool that computer-generates indexes of web pages that match keywords typed in a search window. Because much of the informa-

tion on the Internet is irrelevant, erroneous, or plain nutty, virtual libraries were

created to provide more selective, higher-quality information. A virtual library is a search tool that combines Internet technology and standard library techniques for

cataloging and evaluating information. Virtual libraries are usually associated with

colleges, universities, or organizations with credible reputations in information dis-

semination. Some of the most popular virtual libraries are: Internet Public Library

(http://www.ipl.org), Social Science Information Gateway (http://www.sosig .ac.uk), and WWW Virtual Library (http://vlib.org).

To limit information overload, it is critical to narrow your search so that you don’t access thousands of websites on a topic. The quickest way to learn how to do this is to locate the “Help,” “Frequently Asked Questions,” or “Search Tips” button

on the Internet search tool’s home page. When you click on one of these buttons,

instructions will appear on-screen identifying how to use the search engine or virtual

library effectively.

Despite the popularity and utility of the Internet, the library is still a useful place

to search for information. Libraries have access to many electronic databases such

as the general-purpose InfoTrac and EBSCOhost, and education-related ERIC.

Libraries also have numerous standard references. There are numerous periodical

indexes such as Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature, the Public Affairs Information

Service (journal articles and government documents), Hispanic American Periodicals

Index (Hispanic American interests), Index to Black Periodicals (African American

issues), and Women’s Resources International (women’s issues). Excellent guides to

professional and scholarly articles include Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Ab-

stracts, and International Index: Guide to Periodical Literature in the Social Sciences

and Humanities.

Good sources of statistical information on a wide range of topics include the Sta-

tistical Abstract of the United States, Facts on File, Information Please Almanac, and

Vital Statistics of the United States. For government-related information, consult the

Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications. For information of gen-

eral interest, consult encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and

Collier’s. Also consult the New York Times Index and an index to your local newspa-

per. There are online versions of most of these resources.

Then, of course, there is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2011. This online collaborative encyclopedia is the most widely

used general reference source on the Internet. In late 2010, Wikipedia was the fifth most

visited website. There are 17 million articles, and counting, in multiple languages. As

Association for Psychological Science President Mahzarin Banaji (2010) notes, “It is the

largest collaboratively produced knowledge repository that has ever existed.”

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 283 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 284 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 284 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

One note of caution about Wikipedia. It takes contributions from almost any-

one willing to make entries. Information can be unreliable, even wrong. Co-founder

Jimmy Wales has admitted that some entries are “unreadable crap” and “a hor-

rific embarrassment” (quoted in Orlowski, 2005). An assessment by the Project

on Psychology of 935 articles on Wikipedia found only 2% were above “B level” in

quality, and many were woefully inadequate even inaccurate (Banaji, 2010). Duke

University English professor Cathy Davidson (2007), however, thinks Wikipedia is

“the single most impressive collaborative intellectual tool produced at least since the

Oxford English Dictionary” (p. B20). Anonymous readers from all over the world

edit entries, correct grammar, style, and interpretations of fact. She suggests using

Wikipedia as a “quick and easy reference before heading into more scholarly depths”

(p. B20). Be cautious when using Wikipedia. It may serve as a useful starting point

for research, but it is at present an unsatisfactory primary reference.

Searching for information can be a tedious process. Remaining focused by fol-

lowing the suggestions offered will reduce the tedium and increase group efficiency.

▶ Evaluating Information: Applying Criteria Knowing where to find appropriate information is helpful, but group members must

also know how to evaluate information to avoid basing group decisions on faulty

information. There are five criteria for evaluating information.

Credibility: Is It Believable? When the source of your information is biased (gains something by taking certain positions), credibility is low. The Quaker Oats

Company sponsored studies that reported reduction in cholesterol from eating oat

bran contained in its cereals. The reduction was a paltry 3%, meaning that you would

have to eat almost nothing but oatmeal to gain even a marginal health benefit. Au-

thorities quoted outside of their field of expertise are also not credible. Iben Browning

predicted a major earthquake for December 3 and 4, 1990, along the New Madrid

Fault located in the Midwest. Schools in several states were dismissed during these

two days as a result of his prediction. Browning had a doctorate in physiology and

a bachelor’s degree in physics and math. He studied climatology in his spare time.

Earthquake experts around the country repudiated Browning’s predictions. He was

not a credible source since earthquake predictions were not in his field of expertise.

(As you undoubtedly know, his predictions were wrong. There wasn’t a sizable earth-

quake on this fault until April 17, 2008, and it was considered “moderate” by quake

experts.)

Dr. Edgar Suter (1994), national chair of the Doctors for Integrity in Policy Re-

search, Inc., wrote in an article published in the prestigious Journal of the American

Medical Association that “between 25 and 75 lives may be saved by a gun for every

life lost to a gun.” There were 648,046 gun deaths in the United States in the final

two decades of the twentieth century (Sugarmann, 2001). If Suter’s estimation of

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 284 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 285 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CritiCal thinking anD EffECtivE DECision Making 285 ▶

lives saved by gun ownership is credible, this means that as many as 48,603,450

Americans would have died in the same 20-year period if guns had been inaccessible

to Americans to protect themselves (648,046 × 75). This amounts to one-sixth of the entire U.S. population and almost 50 times more fatalities than the total Ameri-

can combat deaths in all the wars in U.S. history. One can only wonder why Great

Britain, with its almost universal ban on guns, had only a few thousand homicides

during the same time period (Sugarmann, 2001). Other arguments and evidence

can be used to oppose gun control, but Suter’s statistics are not credible despite his

credentials.

Let me also note here that the Internet itself is not a credible source (see Closer

Look: “The Internet: Resource for Information and Misinformation”). The Internet

is merely a vehicle for finding information. Quoting the Internet as your source is

tantamount to quoting television.

CLOSER LOOK

The Internet: Resource for Information and Misinformation

The Internet has become a prime source for student research. A national study by UCLA of 272,000 first-year students showed that 76% often use the Internet for research, but only 35% of these students evaluate the qual- ity and reliability of the information so gathered (Marklein, 2008). The Internet is a rich re- source of information, but it is also a resource for rumor, gossip, urban legends, and hoaxes. Author Kurt Vonnegut’s commencement ad- dress to graduates at MIT was printed on the Internet in its entirety. Vonnegut advised gradu- ates to “wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it.” He also counseled graduates to “floss,” to “get plenty of calcium,” and to “be kind to your knees.” Vonnegut never gave a commence- ment address at MIT. The address was a hoax (Harmon, 2001).

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Internet spawned misinfor- mation faster than New York City’s emergency management officials could keep track (Filkins, 2001). A police officer surfed a wave of collaps- ing rubble for 82 stories and survived, Arab schoolchildren in Jersey City informed their classmates of the impending terrorist attack, and the CIA knew about the attacks and could have prevented them—just some examples of misinformation spread on the Internet at the speed of light. (You can check the validity of In- ternet rumors and stories at www.snopes.com; see also urbanlegends.about.com.)

More recently, the Internet has spawned hoaxes such as: Kenya erected a sign wel- coming travelers to the “birthplace of Barack Obama”; Wal-Mart authorized illegal immigra- tion raids at its stores; and the Olive Garden

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 285 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 286 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 286 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

restaurant chain distributed $500 gift cards to online fans (Stelter, 2010). All of these claims are fabrications debunked by the researchers at snopes.com.

Be extremely cautious about information found on the Internet. Apply the criteria of cred- ibility, currency, relevance, representativeness, and sufficiency (discussed in this section). You can do this by following a few simple steps.

First, consider the source. If no author for the information is provided on the website, be highly skeptical of its validity. If a name is pro- vided but no credentials are offered, again be highly skeptical unless the information can be validated from another source that is reputable (e.g., a national news agency).

Second, attempt to determine whether the source is biased. Websites that use a hard sell to promote their ideas, therapies, and products are probably offering misinformation. Search for websites that appear to have no vested interest, no products to sell, and no ideas or conspira- cies to peddle. The website address can provide hints; if it contains .gov or .edu, this means the site is sponsored and maintained by a govern- mental or educational institution with a reputa- tion to protect. Sites with .com or .org in their address are commercial ventures, or they are

sponsored by reputable and sometimes not so reputable organizations. Their credibility varies widely.

Third, determine the currency of the informa- tion. Many websites are not regularly updated. You may be accessing a site whose information is 5 to 10 years old. Look for a date when the site was last updated (often at the end of the docu- ment). Look for recency of information in the document to approximate the date of the origi- nal authorship.

Fourth, assess the accuracy of information on the site. Try to verify the accuracy of any information and statistics by comparing them to reputable sources. Do the facts and statis- tics offered on the site contradict information from reputable sources? For example, popu- lation and census statistics can be checked at the U.S. Census Bureau site (http://www .census.gov). Health and medical information can be checked at http://www. healthcentral .com, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention site (http://www.cdc.gov), or the health fraud site (http://www.quackwatch .com). News events can be checked at reputable news agencies’ sites (http://www.nytimes.com or http://www.abcnews.go.com or http://www .cnn.com).

Questions for Thought 1. An anti-Bush website claimed that, when commenting on gains in student achievement since the enactment

of his “No Child Left Behind” legislation, George W. Bush produced this blooper in 2007: “As yesterday’s

positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.” How

would you determine whether the quotation is a hoax or the real thing?

2. A list of a dozen “actual comments” written on students’ report cards by teachers in the New York City public schools is circulated on the Internet (a colleague e-mailed me the list). The list includes statements such as,

“I would not allow this student to breed,” “Your son is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot,” and “If this student

were any more stupid, he’d have to be watered twice a week.” Is this list a hoax? How would you determine this?

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 286 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 287 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CritiCal thinking anD EffECtivE DECision Making 287 ▶

Currency: Is It Up to Date? Information should be as up to date as possible. What used to be taken as fact may be called into question with new information. Only a

few years ago cholesterol levels below 300 were thought to pose no significant risk

of heart disease. Now the current advice calls for cholesterol levels below 200, and

a 150 level is preferred to keep heart disease risk low. Currency is especially impor-

tant when an event or situation is volatile and likely to change rapidly. Quoting last

month’s or even last week’s stock prices could leave you a pauper if you act on such

outdated information. Interest rates on home mortgages can change daily. You must

have current rates before you decide to lock in a fixed-rate mortgage on a house

you’re purchasing.

Relevance: Looking for Logical Connections Information should actually sup- port claims made. Claiming that the public education system in the United States is

the world’s best because America spends more money in total than any other nation

is irrelevant. Total spending doesn’t necessarily equate with educational excellence,

especially if the money is largely wasted or spent on the wrong priorities.

Representativeness: Reflecting the Facts A single example or statistic may or may not accurately reflect what is true in a particular instance. If a vivid example

(e.g., a testimonial from a victim of black lung disease on the health risks of mining

coal) illustrates the truth of a claim already supported by solid scientific evidence,

then it is representative and provides dramatic impact to the claim. If, however, a

claim rests solely on a few testimonials or even many examples, then a real question

of representativeness exists. Examples to support a claim may be selectively chosen

(confirmation bias), so they may not reflect what is true generally.

There are two principal guidelines for determining whether statistics are represen-

tative. First, the sample size (in polls, surveys, and studies) must be adequate. This can be determined most easily by the margin of error, which is the degree of sam- pling error accounted for by imperfections in selecting a sample. As the margin of

error increases, the representativeness of the statistic decreases. If the margin of error

reaches more than plus or minus 3%, the representativeness of the statistic becomes

questionable. A study (“Pre-employment,” 1990) of 103 California companies test-

ing job applicants for drug use revealed that 17.8% of the applicants tested positive.

The margin of error, however, was 7.8%. Thus, the results are questionable since the

true level of drug use among the job applicants may have been 25.6% (17.8% plus

7.8% margin of error) or 10% (17.8% minus 7.8% margin of error). The drug use

problem may be substantially overstated or understated by the 17.8% statistic.

A second guideline for assuring representative statistics is that the sample must be randomly selected, not self-selected. A random sample is a part of the population drawn in such a manner that every member of the entire population has

an equal chance of being selected. A self-selected sample is one in which the most

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 287 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 288 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 288 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

committed, aroused, or otherwise atypical parts of the population studied are more

likely to participate. For example, in January 2004, the American Family Association

(AFA) posted an online survey asking its constituents about their position on gay

marriage (Terdiman, 2004). The AFA supports a constitutional amendment banning

gay marriage. It expected overwhelming support from its conservative constituency,

so much so that it planned to send the results to members of Congress. Gay activist

groups, however, got wind of the poll, forwarded the survey to its supporters and

subverted the intended biased leaning of the results. Within weeks of the survey’s

release online, 60% of self-selected respondents said that they favored outright le-

galization of gay marriage and another 8% favored a civil union with full benefits.

A CNN poll of randomly selected respondents, however, conducted about the same

time as the AFA survey found that 64% opposed gay marriage (Espo, 2004). The

AFA abandoned its intention of using the results of its poll to bolster its case against

gay marriage. Similarly, a national tracking of 190,000 Twitter tweets by Crimson

Hexagon, a social analysis company, determined that 83% favored the court deci-

sion that overturned the ban on gay marriage in California (Proposition 8) (cited

in Villaraigosa, 2010). Examining tweets is using a self-selected sample because only

the most vocal and committed are likely to tweet about the issue, and many citizens

don’t have a Twitter account (yes, I know, it’s hard to believe).

Sufficiency: When Enough Really Is Enough When do you have enough infor- mation to support your claims? There is no magic formula for sufficiency. Determi-

nations of sufficiency are judgment calls. Nevertheless, there are some guidelines for

making such a determination.

First, what type of claim are you making? Causal relations require more evi- dence than a single study. In January 2000, results of a study showed that men with

significant hair loss on the crown of their heads had a higher risk of heart attack

than men with hair loss on the front of their heads. One study is insufficient to es-

tablish a causal relationship, so no conclusion can be drawn from this study. Claim-

ing that violence depicted on television “may contribute” to antisocial behavior,

however, requires less stringent criteria for sufficiency since only a weak connection

is claimed.

Second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Abell, 1981). When a claim contradicts a considerable body of research and knowledge, extraordinary

proof must accompany such a claim. A claim that Earth has been visited by extrater-

restrials requires much more evidence than a few alleged sightings. Claims of cancer

cures must be rigorously tested. The claims are extraordinary, so they require more

than ordinary, commonplace evidence. Ordinary claims such as “flu viruses pose a se-

rious health hazard to the elderly” can be demonstrated sufficiently with one authori-

tative statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B

for additional relevant material on critically examining information and claims.)

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 288 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 289 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CrEativE ProblEM solving 289 ▶

Creative Problem Solving

Years ago, a prisoner escaped from a penitentiary in the western United States. He

was recaptured after a few weeks. On his return, prison officials grilled him. “How

did you cut through the bars?” they demanded. Finally, he confessed. He said he had

taken bits of twine from the machine shop, dipped them in glue, then in emery. He

smuggled these makeshift “hacksaws” back to his cell. For three months he labo-

riously sawed through the inch-thick steel bars. Prison officials accepted his story,

locked him up, and kept him far away from the machine shop. Is that the end of the

story? Not quite. Three-and-a-half years later, he escaped again by cutting through

the cell bars. He was never recaptured, but how he escaped became a legend in the

underworld. It seems that his original story was a phony. He hadn’t fashioned a hack-

saw from any materials in the machine shop. Instead, he had used woolen strings

from his socks, moistened them with spit, and rubbed them in abrasive dirt from

the floor of his cell, then painstakingly sawed through the cell bars (Rossman, 1931).

The prisoner had fashioned a creative solution to a challenging problem. Creative

problem solving is the focus of this section.

Focus Questions

1. How do imagination and knowledge relate to creative problem solving?

2. What makes the brainstorming technique an effective, creative, problem- solving tool?

3. What is integrative problem solving and reframing?

▶ General Overview The story of the prisoner’s resourceful escape highlights several important points

about creativity and problem solving. First, to borrow Thomas Edison’s com- ment on genius, creativity is more perspiration than inspiration. We have to work to find creative solutions to problems. This means devoting time and energy

to the task, not hoping for imaginative ideas to fall from the sky and clunk us on

the head.

Second, creativity is spurred by challenges. As the old adage says, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” We are creative in response to some felt need, to some

problem that requires a solution. The bigger the challenge, the more complex the

problem, the greater is the need for creativity.

Third, creativity flourishes in cooperative, not competitive, environments. In a competitive atmosphere, thinking “may be used to plan, strategize, and coerce

rather than to problem solve and collaborate” (Carnevale & Probst, 1998, p. 1308).

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 289 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 290 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 290 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

Fourth, creativity requires sound ideas, not just imaginative ones. As Vincent Ruggiero (1988) puts it, creative ideas must be more than uncommon; they “must be

uncommonly good” (p. 77). Creative solutions are original, but they also must work.

I once heard a radio commentator read recipes submitted by children for preparing

a Thanksgiving turkey. One child wrote: “Put 10 pounds of butter on the turkey and

5 pounds of salt. Cook it for 20 minutes.” M-m-m-m-m good! Creative problem

solving and decision making require both imagination and knowledge. Children cre-

ate foolish things because they don’t know any better. Competent communicators

create solutions that are workable and effective.

“Thinking outside the box” is often a welcome method for engendering creative deci- sion making, but it has its limits. Some “outside the box” ideas are just plain messy and ineffective. Thus, ideas generated by brainstorming require evaluation after brain- storming by the group to determine which are best to implement.

he N

ew Y

or ke

r C

ol le

ct io

n 19

98 L

eo C

ul lu

m fr

om c

ar to

on ba

nk .c

om . A

ll R

ig ht

s R

es er

ve d.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 290 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 291 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CrEativE ProblEM solving 291 ▶

Fifth, creativity requires many ideas. Although sheer quantity doesn’t guarantee great solutions, the fewer the ideas, the less probable is the discovery of at least one

good idea—that flower among all the thistles. In the pharmaceutical industry it can

take as many as 5,000 ideas before a good one emerges (Lamb et al., 2004). Capital

One tested 45,000 credit card ideas; most failed but some succeeded (Sutton, 2002).

IDEO generated more than 4,000 ideas for new toys. Of these, 230 were explored and

12 were eventually produced by clients (Puccio et al., 2007).

Finally, creativity requires breaking mindsets and thinking “outside the box” (Puccio et al., 2007). Unless we try adopting different ways of approaching problems,

we’ll remain stuck in place.

▶ Specific Creative Techniques As previously noted, group decision making and problem solving are usually more

effective when systematic procedures are followed. Systematic procedures apply to

group creativity as well (Firestein, 1990). Haphazard, unfocused efforts to induce

creativity are often not as productive as more focused efforts.

Brainstorming and Nominal Group Techniques: Generating Lots of Ideas At IDEO, faced with the problem of an electric car that is so quiet that it would likely cause accidents, a product design team brainstorms solutions to the

problem. “How about tire treads that play music?” one team member offers. “How

about a little Eric Clapton?” another chimes in, and the ideas begin to fly (O’Brien,

1995).

Alex Osborn introduced the brainstorming technique in 1939. Brainstorming is a creative problem-solving technique that promotes plentiful, even zany, ideas in an

atmosphere free from criticism and with enthusiastic participation from all group

members. Rational approaches to decision making and problem solving run the dan-

ger of becoming methodical, stale, and unimaginative. Brainstorming can regenerate

a group by opening up a stuffy, plodding, and inhibited group process.

There are several guidelines for using this technique (Kelley & Littman, 2001;

Nussbaum, 2004):

1. Encourage wild ideas. At IDEO this is a motto that appears in large print on the walls of each brainstorming room. If edicts such as “It must be practical” or “It can’t cost too much” are stated before brainstorming occurs, the group will go silent. Worry about the practical stuff after ideas have been generated in rapid-fire brainstorming sessions. What appears to be a dumb idea initially can provoke a really good solution to a problem. Bolton (1979) cites the example of a brain- storming session by managers of a major airport who were generating ideas re- garding ways to remove snow from the runways. One participant offered the idea that snow could be removed by putting a giant frog on the control tower. The frog could push the snow aside with its enormous tongue. This zany idea provoked a

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 291 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 292 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 292 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

practical solution—a revolving cannon that shoots a jet airstream. Even if zany ideas never trigger effective solutions to problems, they at least encourage a free- wheeling, fun climate conducive to creativity.

2. Don’t evaluate ideas while brainstorming. Critiques will inhibit contributions from group members. Group members need to be self-monitoring. Idea slayers, such

as “That will never work” and “It’s completely impractical,” should be squelched

by members. Even a positive evaluation, such as “Great idea,” is out of order

because group members will quickly interpret absence of positive evaluation as a

negative assessment of their ideas.

3. Don’t clarify or seek clarification of an idea. This will slow down the process (Dugosh et al., 2000). Clarification can come later after a list of ideas has been

generated.

4. Do not engage in task-irrelevant discussion. Idea generation is significantly dimin- ished when conversation is permitted during brainstorming sessions (Dugosh et

al., 2000). With conversation often comes irrelevant chatter. A brainstorming fa-

cilitator should invoke this rule whenever talking interrupts idea generation.

5. Stay focused on the topic. You want all suggestions to be related to the topic. Wild ideas that are not on topic are not helpful.

6. Expand on the ideas of other group members. Halpern (1984) cites the example of a food manufacturer seeking better ways to bag potato chips. Corporate executives

were asked to identify the best packaging solution they had ever seen. One brain-

stormer said that bagging leaves wet was the best method. Dry leaves crumble

and use up more air space. Wet leaves pack more easily and require fewer bags.

Expanding on this idea, the manufacturer tried packing potato chips wet. When

the potato chips dried they became tasteless crumbs. Nevertheless, from this ini-

tial failure sprang the popular potato chips in a can, in which a potato mixture is

cooked in chip-shaped molds and then stacked in the can. From a bad idea came

a good one.

7. Record all ideas without reference to who contributed the idea. Do not censor any ideas, no matter how silly they may seem, as long as they are focused on the

problem.

8. Encourage participation from all group members. The maximum number of ideas requires the maximum effort from every group member.

9. Evaluate ideas generated once the brainstorming phase is completed (Sawyer, 2007). The group needs to decide what ideas generated are best to implement.

Brainstorming normally is instituted during the solutions suggestion step of the

Standard Agenda. Determining the quality of the ideas generated from brainstorm-

ing comes during the solution evaluation and selection step. Ideas are evaluated in

terms of solution criteria established earlier in the Standard Agenda process.

A second creative problem-solving method is nominal group technique (Delbecq et al., 1975). Individuals work by themselves generating lists of ideas on a problem,

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 292 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 293 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CrEativE ProblEM solving 293 ▶

then convene in a group where they merely record the ideas generated (usually on

a chart, blackboard, or computer screen for all to see). Interaction occurs only to

clarify ideas, not to discuss their merits and demerits. Individuals then select their

five favorite ideas, write them on a card, and rank them from most to least favorite.

The rankings are averaged and the ideas with the highest averages are the ones se-

lected by the group.

Some research has shown nominal group technique generates more and better

ideas than brainstorming (Paulus et al., 1993; Valacich et al., 1994). Mongeau (1993),

however, criticizes the research on brainstorming. He notes that “although consider-

able research has been performed on brainstorming, little of this research is a valid

test of Osborn’s ideas” (p. 22). Results have been derived from student groups that:

have no history together and no future, have no training and experience using the

brainstorming technique (aside from a brief explanation of the rules), are provided

no opportunity to research the task prior to brainstorming, are given little time to

think about the task, are given tasks often unrelated to students’ interests, and never

actually make choices regarding which ideas are best (Kramer et al., 1997). Also,

brainstorming tasks given in laboratory studies are simple enough for an individual

to tackle. Highly complex tasks, such as the design challenges faced by IDEO, have

not been given to brainstormers to compare the nominal group technique to brain-

storming groups (Sawyer, 2007). It’s difficult to imagine trained, experienced, and

knowledgeable IDEO brainstormers being outperformed by untrained, inexperi-

enced, and poorly informed nominal group brainstormers on complex tasks.

One study of brainstorming at IDEO also found that idea generation isn’t the only value of brainstorming (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). Regular brainstorming can reinforce an organizational culture, impress clients, provide opportunities for

skill improvement, attract skilled employees to an organization, and improve em-

ployee retention. “Brainstorming is the idea engine of IDEO’s culture” (Kelley &

Littman, 2001). Designers at IDEO refer to brainstorming sessions as “vacations” and

note that “brainstorms are a nice change of pace” from other work performed. One

designer offered, “Brainstorms are one of the rewards of working here” (Sutton &

Hargadon, 1996, p. 701).

Brainstorming, if done properly, can be highly effective (Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005;

Kelley & Littman, 2001). Osborn actually suggested that the proper brainstorming format should involve first an individual, then a group, followed by an individual brainstorming session (Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005). Members should be provided with a well-defined problem a few days in advance of the group brainstorming session so

members can research it and think of solutions to contribute. Then members meet

as a group to share their ideas and generate new ones. After the group session, indi-

viduals are given a few days to contemplate further ideas on their own. In addition,

members should not be strangers and they should belong to a long-standing (not a

zero-history) group. Diverse membership also enhances group creativity, with this

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 293 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 294 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 294 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

caveat: “Group genius can happen only if the brains in the team don’t contain all the

same stuff ” (Sawyer, 2007, p. 72). You want deep diversity where group members have

non-overlapping knowledge on a topic. Team members should also receive training

and experience in how to use the brainstorming technique. Research shows that train-

ing and experience in brainstorming vastly improve idea generation (Baruah & Paulus,

2008; Firestein, 1990). Having a trained facilitator encourages brainstormers to focus

on the ideas of others during brainstorming, not simply attend to their own ideas, and

vastly improves idea generation significantly beyond that of the nominal group tech-

nique (Dugosh et al., 2000; Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005). IDEO uses a trained facilitator for

brainstorming sessions (Kelley & Littman, 2005). Research also shows no advantage

for the nominal group technique compared to brainstorming in the final evaluation of

ideas generated that separates good from bad ideas (Rietzschel et al., 2006).

Electronic brainstorming occurs when group members sit at computer terminals and brainstorm ideas using a computer-based, file-sharing procedure (e.g., Group

Decision Support System). This offers an additional method for improving idea gen-

eration and creativity. Group members type their contributions, then send the file to

a shared pool. Ideas are added and shared with group members. This can be done

anonymously if group members fear a critique. Electronic brainstorming has some-

times outperformed nominal groups in idea generation (Dugosh et al., 2000; Valacich

et al., 1994), but most studies show that for small groups, electronic brainstorming is

not the most effective method for brainstorming (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001).

Framing/Reframing: It’s All in the Wording When MBA students and manag- ers were informed that a particular corporate strategy had a 70% chance of success,

most favored it. When it was framed as a 30% chance of failure, however, the majority

opposed the strategy (Wolkomir & Wolkomir, 1990). When people were presented

with two options for treating lung cancer, 84% chose the surgery option when it was

Wild ideas that are not on topic are not helpful. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to keep the group on track by focusing wild ideas on the main problem. You want focused wild ideas, not just goofy ideas unrelated to the problem.

D IL

B ER

T: ©

2 0

0 4

Sc ot

t A da

m s.

D is

t. B

y U

N IV

ER SA

L U

C LI

C K

. R

ep ri

nt ed

ith p

er m

is si

on . A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 294 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 295 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CrEativE ProblEM solving 295 ▶

framed in terms of living, while 56% chose the surgery option when it was presented

in terms of dying (McNeil et al., 1982). The reason for the difference lies in how the

problem is framed—the way in which language shapes our perception of choices. Our frame of reference can lock us into a mindset, making solutions to prob-

lems difficult if not impossible to discover. This mental gridlock can block the free flow of creative ideas. Postman (1976) provides an example. You have the number VI.

By the addition of a single line, make it into a seven. The answer is simple: VII. Now

consider this problem: You have the number IX. By the addition of a single line, make

it into a six. The answer is not so obvious because of your frame of reference, which

identifies the number as a Roman numeral and all lines as straight. Not until you

break away from this frame of reference by reframing the problem—by no longer

assuming that the answer must be in terms of a Roman numeral and that all lines are

straight—will you solve the problem. Have you found the answer? How about SIX? Frames determine whether people notice problems, how they understand and re-

member problems, and how they evaluate and act on them (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996).

Reframing is the creative process of breaking a mindset by describing the problem from a different frame of reference. For example, a service station proprietor put

an out-of-order sign on a soda machine. Customers paid no attention to the sign,

lost their money, then complained to the station owner. Frustrated and annoyed,

the owner changed the sign to read “$5.00” for a soda. No one made the mistake of

putting money in the faulty soda pop dispenser. The problem was reframed. Instead

of wondering how to get customers to realize that the machine was on the fritz, the

owner changed the frame of reference to one that would make customers not want to

put money in the dispenser. Learning to reframe problems can be a highly useful skill

for the competent communicator, and it is an essential part of effective leadership in

groups (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996).

When groups become stumped by narrow or rigid frames of reference, in- terjecting certain open-ended questions can help reframe the problem and the search for solutions. My personal favorite is “What if . . .?” The group asks, “What if we don’t accept this cutback in resources as inevitable?” “What if employees re-

ally want to produce quality work but find the work environment tedious?” “What

if we tried working together instead of against each other?” Additional reframing

questions include: “Why are these the only options?” “What happens if we reject the

proposal?” “How could this be turned into a win–win situation for everyone?”

Integrative Problem Solving: Satisfying Everyone Decision making often involves conflicts of interest. Integrative problem solving is a creative approach to conflicts of interest; it searches for solutions that benefit everyone. Two forms of in-

tegrative problem solving are expanding the pie and bridging (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).

Expanding the pie refers to increasing the resources as a solution to a problem. When faced with scarce resources, groups often become competitive and experience

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 295 25/10/11 4:24 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 296 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 296 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

serious strife, warring over who gets the biggest or best piece of the limited resource

pie. Groups, however, sometimes accept the inevitability of scarce resources—what

Bazerman and Neale (1983) call the “bias of the fixed pie”—without fully exploring

options that might expand the resources. School districts in California, faced with ever-

present lean budgets, could issue a collective sigh and proceed to cut programs and

teachers. Instead, many districts have found creative ways to increase resources beyond

what the state legislature provides. Some districts have established private foundations,

raising as much as $435,000 each year in community donations. These foundations

throw $125-a-plate dinners, organize black-tie auctions, stage celebrity tennis and golf

tournaments, and do car washes. One district foundation purchased a 10-acre vacant

school site, developed it, and sold it for a $4-million profit. These efforts to expand the

resource pie save teachers’ jobs and maintain important educational programs.

Bridging is the second type of integrative solution to conflicts. Bridging offers a new option devised to satisfy all parties on important issues. Bridging was used to

solve a conflict of interest over where to eat dinner involving a couple, a friend of the

couple’s, and the friend’s two teenage children. All three adults wished to eat dinner

at a moderately priced restaurant specializing in fresh-fish entrees served with wine.

Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert, enlisted IDEO to brainstorm “Dil- bert’s Ultimate Cubicle,” pictured here. Technological features include devices that alert employees to an approaching boss and can rid the office cubicle of unwanted guests.

A P

Ph ot

o/ B

ob R

ih a

Jr.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 296 25/10/11 4:25 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 297 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CrEativE ProblEM solving 297 ▶

The teenagers wanted burgers, fries, and colas. After a fair amount of wrangling,

the pouting and whining began—from the teenagers, not the adults. Frustrated, the

mother of the teenagers declared, “I think we’ll just take off and eat at home. This

isn’t working out.” A suggestion was made by one of the other adults: “Why don’t we

send the kids over to that burger joint up the street and have them bring back their

meal? We can ask the restaurant if they mind having food brought in by the kids, and,

if not, the adults will order dinners with all the trimmings.” The restaurant cooper-

ated and both the adults and the teenagers enjoyed their meals.

Competent communicators vigorously explore possible integrative solutions to

conflicts of interest. To do this successfully, they should take the following steps

(Pruitt & Rubin, 1986):

1. Conflicting parties should formulate a clear statement of issues and goals. If all are to benefit from the integrative solution, what the parties want to accomplish must be ap- parent. Rausch and his colleagues (1974) discovered that 66% of the conflicts they ex- amined were successfully resolved when the issues were clearly stated; only 18% of the conflicts were effectively resolved when the issues remained vague or unstipulated.

2. Parties in conflict must determine whether a real conflict of interest exists. Family members argue over whether to get a dog or not. The two kids say they want a

dog very much; the father and mother say they do not. On the surface this looks

like a standard conflict of interest. Yet when the issue is discussed, what becomes

clear is that the mother doesn’t want to take care of the dog and the father dislikes

barking. When asked whether a cat would serve as an adequate substitute, the kids

enthusiastically agree since they really just want a pet. No conflict really exists

since the parents actually like cats, which are low maintenance and mostly quiet,

and the kids get their pet.

3. The parties in disagreement should stick to their goals but remain flexible regarding the means of attaining them. Both expanding the pie and bridging allow conflict-

ing parties to find flexible, creative means of attaining goals without compromis-

ing those goals.

4. If stalemated, concede on low-priority issues or discard low-priority interests. The prime goals remain intact. The focus continues to be a solution that satisfies the goals of both parties. You give on minor issues that are relatively unimportant to you but are perhaps more important to the other party.

In summary, there is no dichotomy between rational and creative decision making

and problem solving. The two can be complementary paths to effective decisions in

groups. The discussion process, however, should be systematic, not haphazard. Con-

sideration of the problem should come before deliberations on solutions. Standard

Agenda is the most common and useful set of procedures for rational decision mak-

ing. Consensus, when applicable, is an effective process for guiding members toward

rational decisions. Brainstorming and nominal group technique, framing/reframing,

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 297 25/10/11 4:25 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 298 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 298 Chapter 8: EffECtivE DECision Making anD ProblEM solving

and integrative problem solving all provide systematic techniques for the discovery of

creative solutions to problems.

In the next two chapters, the interconnected concepts of power and conflict are dis-

cussed. These concepts have already been addressed superficially in earlier chapters.

Those brief references, however, were merely the preliminaries. Power and conflict are

integral parts of the small group process that are inescapable in any human system.

SECOND LOOK

The effective Problem-solving Process Standard Agenda Techniques

Problem identification Form questions of fact, value, or policy

Define ambiguous terms

Use framing/reframing

Problem analysis Explore causes of problem (gather info)

Explore effects (significance) of problem

Avoid analysis paralysis

Solution criteria Establish criteria

Prioritize criteria

Solution suggestions Brainstorm solutions

Clarify ambiguous or confusing ideas

Consolidate overlapping ideas

Use integrative problem solving

Solution evaluation/selection Explore merits/demerits of solutions

Use devil’s advocacy

Use dialectical inquiry

Consider solutions in terms of criteria

Use majority or minority rule, or consensus

Solution implementation Use force field analysis

Use PERT

NOTE: Although the consensus technique is used most directly during the solution cri- teria and solution evaluation/selection steps of the Standard Agenda, consensus rules may operate throughout the problem-solving process. Majority or minority rule may also be inserted at various steps if appropriate conditions exist.

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 298 25/10/11 4:25 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 299 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CrEativE ProblEM solving 299 ▶

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 8, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. Why is majority rule so popular when consensus decision making, by comparison, is often more advantageous?

2. Since a true consensus requires agreement, commitment, and satisfaction of group members, do you think groups are likely to achieve a true consensus, or is this mostly an ideal?

3. What are some drawbacks to the Standard Agenda approach to decision making? Explain your answer.

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Cartoon (p. 263): 2.

Apollo 13 (1995). Drama; PG This dramatization of the nearly disastrous Apollo 13 space mission to the moon illustrates creative problem solving. What creative problem-solving techniques are exhibited?

Flight of the Phoenix (2004; 1966). Drama; PG-13 The original 1966 version of this taut drama about a plane crash and efforts of survivors to literally rebuild their damaged plane into a smaller flying machine to escape their plight in the desert is probably superior to the remake. In either case, examine the creative group problem solving required. What methods were used to create the final product? What decision-making rules (unanimity, majority, or minority rule) were used?

O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000). Drama/Comedy; PG-13 Three convicts escape from a Depression-era chain gang. Their problem-solving knowledge and skills are severely deficient. Contrast the problem-solving mistakes of this small group of convicts with advice provided in this chapter on effective problem solving.

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch08_ptg01_hr_258-299.indd 299 25/10/11 4:25 PM

◀ 300

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 300 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. Power DefineD 1. The Nature of Power: No One

Is Powerless

2. Forms of Power: Competition and Cooperation Revisited

▶ B. inDicAtors of Power 1. General Indicators: Labeling,

Following, and Opposing

2. Verbal Indicators: Relatively Powerless and Powerful Speech

Focus on Gender/Culture: Powerful Language Differences

3. Nonverbal Indicators: Silent Power

▶ c. Power resources 1. Information: Restricted or Scarce

2. Expertise: Knowing and Showing

3. Rewards and Punishments: Carrots and Sticks

4. Personal Qualities: A Powerful Presence

Power in Groups: A Central Dynamic

5. Legitimate Authority: You Will Obey

Closer Look: The Milgram Studies

▶ D. effects of Power imBAlAnces 1. Physical Violence and Aggression:

Waging Power Struggles

2. Verbal and Nonverbal Contempt: Insulting Others

Focus on Culture: Power Distance and Cultural Differences

▶ e. ADDressing Power imBAlAnces 1. Compliance: Group Power

2. Alliance: Coalition Formation

3. Resistance: Dragging Your Feet

a. Strategic Stupidity: Smart Members Acting Dense

b. Loss of Motor Function: Attack of the Clumsies

c. The Misunderstanding Mirage: Feigning Confusion

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 300 25/10/11 4:22 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 301 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

301 ▶

Pu re

st oc

k/ G

et ty

Im ag

d. Selective Amnesia: Forgetting the Distasteful

e. Tactical Tardiness: Not So Grand an Entrance

f. Purposeful Procrastination: Intentional Delaying Tactic

4. Defiance: Digging in Your Heels

a. Threat of Contagion: Spreading Dissension

b. Variable Group Reaction: Discriminative Defiance

c. Defiant Member’s Influence: Alone against the Group

5. Significance: Self-Empowerment

a. Assertiveness: Neither Doormat nor Foot Wiper

b. Increasing Personal Power Resources: Mentoring and Networking

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 301 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 302 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 302 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

“P ower tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Lord Acton reputedly observed. This is a popular view. We are used to thinking of power as illegitimate or unpleasant, unless, perhaps, when we are the person accorded the power. Then, as

former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman once quipped, “Power corrupts. Absolute

power is kind of neat.”

The terms power politics, seizure of power, power struggles, power hungry, power

mad, and power play reflect just some of the negative views most of us associate with

this central element of human interaction. How group leaders act when they gain

power isn’t likely to diminish negative attitudes about power. Research shows that

“having power renders many individuals as impulsive and poorly attuned to others

as your garden-variety frontal lobe patient, making them prone to act abusively and

lose the esteem of their peers. What people want from leaders—social intelligence—

is what is damaged by the experience of power” (Keltner, 2007; see also Gonzaga

et al., 2008).

Being relatively powerless, however, is not a virtue (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Perceptions of powerlessness can induce indifference toward group tasks, dimin-

ish task performance, foster member passivity and withdrawal, destroy group

cohesiveness, strain personal relationships with group members, erode group

members’ self-esteem, and trigger destructive group conflict (Keltner et al., 2003;

Lee, 1997).

Power is central to group decision making and problem solving, managing

conflict, and evoking change. No group can achieve its goals without exercising

some power. As Wilmot and Hocker (2011) explain, “One does not have the

option of not using power. We only have options about whether to use power

destructively or productively for ourselves and relationships” (p. 115). The pri- mary purpose of this chapter is to explain how you can use power produc- tively and constructively in the small group arena. The following are three chapter objectives:

1. To define power, distinguishing its three types 2. To identify various indicators of power and power resources 3. To address ways that power imbalances produce negative consequences in groups

and how these imbalances can be addressed

◀ 302

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 302 25/10/11 4:22 PM

P o w e r D e f i n e D 303 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 303 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Power Defined

Power is the ability to influence the attainment of goals sought by yourself or others. This is a general definition. This section explains specifically what power is and, con-

versely, what it is not.

Focus Questions

1. What does it mean to say that power is group-centered?

2. What are the primary forms of power?

▶ The Nature of Power: No One Is Powerless First and foremost, power is group-centered. The power that you wield is depen- dent on the relationships you have with group members (Gilovich & Keltner, 2010).

Leaders, for instance, require the support of followers to remain in power. As presi-

dent of the United States, Richard Nixon wielded immense power. The Watergate

scandal, however, soured his relationship with the American public like a quart of

milk in a desert sun. He was forced to resign his office in disgrace. Conversely, Bill

Clinton weathered the storm of impeachment principally because 70% of the adult

population in the United States approved of the job he was doing as president, even

though his personal behavior may have disgusted them.

We often speak of powerful or powerless individuals as if the power distribution were

all one way or the other. Is a child in a supermarket completely powerless against his or

her parents when candy is the target? Have you ever witnessed a child whining, begging,

and throwing a fit until exasperated parents capitulate and shove the candy into the child’s

grasping hands to silence the obnoxious din? “Powerful or powerless” is a false dichotomy.

No group member is completely powerless. The interconnectedness of components in a system means that all group members have some degree of influence, even if it is to defy

or resist the group. Anthony Giddens (1979), the first to develop structuration theory (see

Chapter 1), explains that “subordinate positions in social systems are frequently adept

at converting whatever resources they possess into some degree of control” (p. 6). If all

group members have some degree of power, then the relevant question becomes “How

much power does Person A exert relative to other members in that group?” not “Is Person

A powerful or powerless?” Rules are established in groups and these rules grant some

group members particular forms of power over other members (West & Turner, 2010).

▶ Forms of Power: Competition and Cooperation Revisited There are three forms of power (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). Dominance or power over others flows from a hierarchical structure or from differences in

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 303 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 304 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 304 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

status among group members. Dominance is competitive. My gain in power is

your loss.

A second form of power is called prevention or power from the efforts of oth- ers to influence (e.g., we defy or resist leader dominance). When someone tries to

dominate us, psychological reactance occurs. We try to prevent the dominance.

Prevention also is a competitive form of power. Here you’re striving not to lose to

dominators.

A third form of power is empowerment— enhancing the capabilities and influ- ence of individuals and groups. Empowerment is power to accomplish your own

goals or help others achieve theirs through processes of group potency, mean-

ingfulness, autonomy, and impact (see Chapter 6). Empowerment is cooperative,

not competitive. The group as a whole profits from all of its members gaining

the ability to succeed together. For example, group members who improve their

speaking skills for a class presentation benefit the entire group. One of the posi-

tive aspects of the situational leadership model discussed in Chapter 5 is the em-

phasis on empowerment rather than dominance. The leader role is not geared

toward ordering underlings around and keeping followers in their place. Instead,

an effective leader actively seeks to increase the readiness levels of followers, thereby empowering them to accomplish tasks without the leader watching their every move.

The three forms of power are substantially different from one another. Those

who try to dominate see power as finite. The power pie is only so large and can-

not be expanded. Power, therefore, is seen as an active struggle between the haves

and have-nots. Those who try to prevent domination by fighting back see power as

reactive. Power is seen in competitive win–lose terms by those who try to dominate

and by those who try to prevent the domination. Those group members who try to

empower see the power pie as expandable (see Figure 9.1). Resources can be acquired

and shared. Integrative problem solving discussed in Chapter 8 is a practical exam-

ple. Empowerment is proactive, meaning each group member takes positive action to

assist himself or herself and others to attain goals cooperatively.

Those who harbor a negative concept of power are usually responding to dom- inance and its companion form—prevention. This may partly explain why women, historically dominated by men, are more inclined to embrace empowerment than

men (Maroda, 2004). Dominance, however, will assuredly remain as the primary

form of power in a competitive society. Nevertheless, the dominance–prevention

power struggle is a poor model for small groups both ethically and practically. “It

is not the manipulative, strategic Machiavellian who rises in power. Instead, social

science reveals that one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situ-

ations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group

members” (Keltner, 2007). What can be hoped for is that empowerment will gain a

wider audience and become more broadly applied.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 304 25/10/11 4:22 PM

i n D i C A t o r s o f P o w e r 305 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 305 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

40%

25%

35%

55%

45%

Dominance–Prevention Power Struggle Dynamic

40% 25%

35%

Empowerment—Expanding Resources and Enhancing Capabilities

Figure 9.1 Dominance–prevention power struggles are based on seeing the power pie as a fixed, zero-sum contest. The more powerful try to poach power from the less powerful, and the less powerful try to prevent this from occurring. Empowerment is based on seeing the power pie as expandable. From In the Company of Others, Third Edition, © 2010 J. Dan Rothwell. Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press.

SECOND LOOK

Forms of Power Type Definition Description

Dominance Power over Active

Prevention Power from Reactive

Empowerment Power to Proactive

Indicators of Power

Power indicators are the ways in which relative degrees of power are communicated in groups. If you can spot power indicators, then you will see the presence of power

dynamics and appreciate the importance of power in small groups. There are three

main categories of power indicators: general, verbal, and nonverbal.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 305 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 306 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 306 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Focus Questions

1. “Those who define others exercise control.” What does this mean?

2. In what ways do male and female communication patterns differ in regard to verbal dominance?

3. What are the effects of “powerless” verbal and nonverbal communication patterns?

▶ General Indicators: Labeling, Following, an.d Opposing There are several general indicators of power in groups. First, those who define others exercise control. Ordinarily we define people by attaching a label to them. Teachers define students (e.g., smart; slow learner), physicians define patients (hypochondriac;

unhealthy), psychiatrists define clients (schizophrenic), parents define children

(sweet; incorrigible), and bosses define employees (good worker; loafer).

Whose decisions are followed is a second general indicator of power in a group. The individual with the position of authority in a group (chair, president) may not be the

group member exercising the most power. Another group member respected more by

the members may actually be calling the shots, as indicated by whom the group follows.

Who opposes significant change is a third general indicator of power. Those who have been accorded power by the group are usually uncomfortable with change

that goes much beyond a little fine-tuning. Substantial change may risk altering

the power relationships. The disaffected, who are also relatively powerless, usually

clamor for substantial change.

▶ Verbal Indicators: Relatively Powerless and Powerful Speech Power is reflected in the way we speak. The speech of a subordinate is often

flooded with self-doubt, hesitancy, approval seeking, overqualification, and self-

disparagement (Mulac & Bradac, 1995). Examples of speech patterns perceived to be

relatively powerless include:

Hedges: “Perhaps the best way to proceed is . . .” “I’m a little concerned that this might cause problems.”

Hesitations: “Well, um, the important thing to remember is ah . . .” “Gosh, ah, shouldn’t we, ah, delay the decision?”

Tag Questions: “The meeting will be at noon, okay?” “This point seems redun- dant, doesn’t it?”

Disclaimers: “This is probably not very important, because I haven’t thought it out much, and you probably already considered it, and you know best anyway, but . . .”

Excessive Politeness: “I’m extremely sorry to barge in like this, sir, but . . .”

“Powerless speech” suggests uncertainty, indecisiveness, lack of confidence, vacil-

lation, and deference to authority. Speech patterns perceived to be relatively powerful

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 306 25/10/11 4:22 PM

i n D i C A t o r s o f P o w e r 307 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 307 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

are generally direct, fluent, declarative, commanding, and prone to interrupting or

overlapping other group members’ speech (Pearson et al., 1991).

In general, group members who use more powerful language patterns are perceived to be more credible, attractive, and persuasive than those using less powerful language. These perceptions are particularly strong for virtual groups primarily because language patterns become more influential when nonverbal cues

are restricted (Adkins & Brashers, 1995; Palomares, 2008). The consequences of us-

ing powerful or powerless speech can be seen from a study of student impressions

of teachers. Teachers created a positive impression by using powerful language that

made them seem significantly more dynamic, credible, organized, professional,

knowledgeable, and of higher status than teachers using powerless language. It is

critical that teachers establish a positive impression in the classroom to enhance

learning (Haleta, 1996).

Besides powerful language, verbal dominance is also indicated by competitive in-

terrupting, contradicting, berating, and sheer quantity of speech. Monopolizing a

conversation in these ways has obvious power implications. Those who dominate

conversations during group meetings are able to get their point presented to mem-

bers. Those who can’t sandwich a word into the conversation are unable to articulate

their point of view, and their silence prevents them from being considered a leader.

Powerful speech is not always appropriate (see Focus on Gender/Culture: “Pow- erful Language Differences”). Abusive and obscene language may be perceived in our

culture as powerful speech, but it can offend group members and can destroy the

cohesiveness of the group. Sometimes deferential language is a sign of respect and not

merely powerless speech. Even tag questions can sometimes be used powerfully. If the

leader of a small group says, “You’ll see that this is done, won’t you?” this may be issued

more as a directive than a request. Then the tag question is authoritative, not weak.

FOCUS ON GENDER

Powerful Language Differences

T here are gender differences in verbal indi-

cators of power. Men are typically more

verbally dominant. Thus, they are more

verbose, more given to long-winded verbal

presentation, and more talkative in mixed-sex

groups than are women (Crawford & Kauf-

man, 2006; Leaper & Ayres, 2007). Men are

also more verbally aggressive, direct, opin-

ionated, judgmental, and argumentative than

women (Brownlow, 2003; Mehl & Pennebak-

er, 2002). Men are likely to advocate contro-

versial positions during group discussions or

to challenge the positions on issues taken by

other group members (Stewart et al., 1996).

/culture

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 307 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 308 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 308 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Women are inclined to view verbal aggres-

siveness and argumentativeness as strategies

of dominance and control—a hostile, com-

bative act (Nicotera & Rancer, 1994). Women

also use tag questions, disclaimers, and hedges

more often than men (Brownlow, 2003).

Since men are more likely to seek status and

women are more likely to seek connection in

conversations (Tannen, 2010), these gender

differences in verbal indicators of power are

not surprising.

The issue of powerless versus powerful

speech has interesting cultural complexities

(Den Hartog, 2004). Most Asian cultures

view our version of powerful speech as im-

mature because it indicates insensitivity to

others and is likely to make agreement more

difficult (Wetzel, 1988). In Malagasy society

(Madagascar) “women have lower status than

men but they use our stereotypical ‘powerful’

language; they do the confronting and repri-

manding and in so doing . . . their constant

violation of societal norms is seen as confir-

mation of their inferiority” (Smith-Hefner,

1988, p. 536). In Western societies, verbal

obscenity and swearing are perceived as pow-

erful language—an aggressive flouting of

societal norms. Neither Japanese men nor

women, however, use such language except in

rare instances (De Klerk, 1991).

When cultures clash over issues of signifi-

cance, these different views of powerful and

powerless speech can pose serious problems.

When negotiating teams from Japan and the

United States meet, misunderstandings eas-

ily arise (Hellweg et al., 1994). The language

of Japanese negotiators is rife with indirect

language viewed as powerless to American

negotiators unfamiliar with cultural differ-

ences in perception. Japanese negotiators use

such expressions as I think, perhaps, probably,

and maybe with great frequency. They will

also expect no interruptions while they speak.

Americans negotiate in blunt terms, interrupt,

and view indirect and qualifying language as

signs of weakness and lack of resolve. Misun-

derstandings of this nature make negotiations

difficult and decision making troublesome.

Questions for Thought 1. Do women increase their power by using more powerful language or could there be a backlash to

such usage?

2. Do you think there is a relationship between powerful–powerless speech patterns in a culture and the individualism–collectivism focus of the culture? Explain.

▶ Nonverbal Indicators: Silent Power There are many nonverbal indicators of power (see especially Hall et al., 2005). Space is the prerogative of the powerful. Dorothy Parker once noted, “He and I had an office so tiny that an inch smaller and it would have been adultery” (Fitzhenry, 1993,

p. 296). The powerful get the best offices with the most space (Durand, 1977).

Parents get the master bedroom while children get stacked vertically in bunk beds

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 308 25/10/11 4:22 PM

i n D i C A t o r s o f P o w e r 309 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 309 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

in a smaller bedroom. The prime parking spaces are reserved for the higher-status

individuals. Lower-status individuals get to park in the next time zone, as students

experience on college campuses across the nation. Space allocation usually follows

a pecking order. Private space is the prerogative of the powerful. Those individuals

who are regarded as powerful may violate the space of those less powerful, but not

vice versa. You must be granted access to the chambers of the privileged.

Posture and gestural communication are also markedly different for super- ordinates and subordinates. Generally, the powerful exhibit more relaxed, casual posture and gestures (Pavitt & Curtis, 1994). Subordinates can be directed to “sit up

straight” or told to “stop slouching” by superordinates. Parents, for example, can tell

children how to stand, sit, and move their bodies, but children do not have the same

prerogative. Posture that is expansive (i.e., arms outstretched, legs spread apart with

feet propped onto a coffee table, or standing tall) is associated with dominance (Hall

et al., 2005), and adopting more powerful posture can make you feel more powerful

(Carney et al., 2010). Just exhibiting a more powerful posture can make individu-

als feel powerful even when they may not occupy a powerful position in the group

(Huang et al., 2011).

Touch clearly indicates power relationships in groups (Di Biase & Gunnoe, 2004; Henley, 1995). The less powerful often feel required to yield to the touch of

their superiors even when the touching triggers a gag reflex. Laws prohibiting sexual

harassment have been established in the United States to protect the less powerful

from the tactile abuse (among other inappropriate acts) of the more powerful. These

statutes recognize that uneven power distribution plays a primary role in most cases

of sexual harassment.

Eye contact is yet another nonverbal indicator of relative degrees of power (Henley, 1995). Staring is done more freely by the powerful. The less powerful must

monitor their eye contact more carefully. If a superordinate is speaking to a group of

subordinates during a meeting, eye contact connotes active listening and deference

to authority. Superordinates, however, may feel no obligation to exhibit interest or

attentiveness to subordinates by maintaining eye contact. Lowering your eyes and

looking down also indicates submissiveness.

Finally, nonverbal artifacts, or symbols of power, include a wide variety of objects and tangible materials: large desks, plush carpets, office windows, leather chairs, master keys, company cars, new computers, and the list could go on and on.

One study involving a personal injury lawsuit compared relatively powerful and

powerless nonverbal communication (Lee & Ofshe, 1981). When a speaker exhib-

ited powerful nonverbal communication while arguing for a reduction in the damage

award, subjects reduced the award by an average of $4,273. When the speaker exhib-

ited powerless nonverbal behaviors, however, subjects increased the award an average

of $2,843.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 309 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 310 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 310 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Much more could be added here regarding nonverbal indicators of power, but

the point has been made. You can discern the relative distribution of power in a

group by observing both verbal and nonverbal indicators and noticing a few general

communication patterns.

This cartoon illustrates 1. Nonverbal indicator of power 2. Space as a power indicator 3. Information is power 4. Hedging as a verbal indicator of power

Answers are given at end of chapter.

D IL

B ER

T: ©

1 99

6 Sc

ot t A

da m

s. D

is t.

B y

U N

IV ER

SA L

U C

LI C

K . R

ep ri

nt ed

w ith

p er

m is

si on

. A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

SECOND LOOK

Indicators of Power General Indicators Nonverbal Indicators

Who defines whom Space

Whose decisions are followed Posture and gestural communication

Who opposes significant change Touch

Eye contact

Verbal Indicators Artifacts

Powerless/powerful language

Verbal dominance

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 310 25/10/11 4:22 PM

P o w e r r e s o u r C e s 311 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 311 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Power Resources

When transacting power in groups, members utilize power resources. A power re- source is “anything that enables individuals to move toward their own goals or inter- fere with another’s actions” (Folger et al., 1993, p. 100). There are five primary power

resources relevant to group situations: information, expertise, punishments and re-

wards, personal qualities, and legitimate authority. These resources closely parallel

French and Raven’s (1959) classic types of power in groups.

Focus Questions

1. Information is power, but is all information power?

2. For expertise to serve as a power resource, must the expert always avoid errors?

3. What are the primary drawbacks of punishment and rewards as power resources?

4. How does authority become legitimate?

▶ Information: Restricted or Scarce Unquestionably, information is power (Sell et al., 2004). Not all information, how-

ever, serves as a source of power. Information assumes value or usefulness when it is perceived to be unavailable. If information is readily available to everyone, it has no power potential. If you can acquire important information from the Internet,

someone in your group offering the same information has no leverage to seek per-

sonal benefit.

Information becomes unavailable primarily from restrictions and scarcity (Brock, 1968). In this era of information overload, restricted or scarce information is

the exception, not the rule. Thus, when information is restricted or scarce, whatever

is available seems terribly important.

For example, a young woman in my small group communication class told her

project group that she could get a highly technical, information-rich report on the

subject chosen for the class project. The information from this report, so she claimed,

was unavailable anywhere else, but she could get the report from her father, who had

access to it because of his high position in a company. Her group members were

thrilled. Her prestige and influence in the group immediately soared. Unfortunately,

she never produced the report, and two weeks after she offered to obtain the report,

she dropped the class. Unavailable information has power potential, but only if it’s

not too scarce, so you can actually produce it.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 311 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 312 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 312 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The competent communicator can capitalize on information as a power resource

as follows:

1. Provide useful but scarce or restricted information to the group. Careful, diligent research often produces valuable information relevant to the group task. If this

information is unknown to other group members, it then assumes a power poten-

tial by increasing your prestige and influence in group decision making.

2. Be certain information is accurate. Sharing misinformation could earn you the enmity of group members. Misinformation could easily lead to collective inferen-

tial error.

▶ Expertise: Knowing and Showing Information and expertise are closely related, but not identical. A group member can

possess critical information without being an expert. You can download a hard drive

full of data for your group, but if you don’t know how to decipher the data, you need

someone who does (an expert). Experts not only have valuable and useful informa- tion for a group, but they also understand the information and know how to use it

to help the group. An expert can give knowledgeable advice (Franz & Larson, 2002).

The twin problems of information overload and rapid change mean that no indi-

vidual or group could ever hope to function effectively without requiring the services

of experts at some point. We require experts to fix computer problems, give legal and

financial advice. We also require plumbers, financial advisors, roofers, extermina-

tors, counselors, mechanics, and experts who repair our broken appliances, broken

finances, and broken hearts.

For expertise to function as a power resource, a minimum of two conditions

must be met. First, the group must be convinced that the person has the requisite skills, abilities, knowledge, and background to function as a real expert. Experts must demonstrate a mastery of relevant information and exhibit skill using it.

Second, the person must demonstrate trustworthiness. People the world over are more influenced by experts who stand to gain nothing personally than they are by

experts who would gain substantially by lying or offering poor advice (McGuinnies &

Ward, 1980).

Assuming that a group member has special knowledge, skills, or abilities use- ful to the group, he or she could capitalize on the power potential of expertise as follows:

1. Maintain skills, abilities, and knowledge. Let your knowledge grow out of date or your skills diminish, and the group will quickly see you as yesteryear’s expert—a

relic.

2. Demonstrate trustworthiness and credibility. Your expertise should be used to ben- efit the group, not merely bring personal advantages to yourself.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 312 25/10/11 4:22 PM

P o w e r r e s o u r C e s 313 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 313 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

3. Be certain of your facts before advising the group. Advice should be based on the best available information. An occasional error may not tarnish your credibility as

an expert. Relatively frequent or serious errors will.

4. Don’t assume an air of superiority. Putting on an air of superiority will trigger defensiveness among group members.

▶ Rewards and Punishments: Carrots and Sticks Parceling out rewards or meting out punishment can be an important source of

power. Salaries, bonuses, work schedules, perks, hirings, and firings are typical job-

related rewards and punishments. Money, privacy, car keys, and grounding are a few

of the rewards and punishments found in family situations. Social approval or disap-

proval, performance awards, suspension, and expulsion are a few of the rewards and

punishments available to educators when dealing with students.

Punishment is a source of power if it can be and likely will be exercised. If em-

ployees are protected from termination by civil service regulations or tenure, threat-

ening to fire them is laughable. Threats of punishment, however, seem to be more

effective when we perceive that the chances of punishment are highly probable

(Wooton, 1993).

There are serious drawbacks to using punishment to influence group mem- bers, however (Kassin, 1998; Uba & Huang, 1999). First, punishment indicates what you should not do, but it doesn’t teach what you should do. Firing a worker doesn’t

teach that person how to perform better in the future. Second, targets of punishment

can become angry and hostile toward their perceived tormenters. If the punishment

is perceived to be unfair or excessive, a backlash can easily occur from other group

members. Third, punishment can produce a negative ripple effect throughout the

group. If the punishment doesn’t achieve the desired effect, other group members

may be encouraged to engage in similar deviance. Issues of fairness and just cause

may surface and escalate into ugly conflicts, spreading tension and creating a com-

petitive group climate. The sign found in workplaces stating that “The beatings will

continue until morale improves” expresses ironically the difficulty of using punish-

ment to produce positive results in groups.

Rewards, viewed as the opposite of punishment, seem as though they would pro-

duce only positive results for groups. A reward can be an effective power resource,

but they should be used carefully. Consider the story of an old man who was besieged

daily by a group of 10-year-old boys hurling insults at him as they passed his house

on their way home from school. One day, after enduring the boys’ abusive remarks

about how stupid, bald, and ugly he was, he decided on a plan to deal with the little

troublemakers. On the following day, he approached the boys and told them that

anyone who came the next day and shouted insults at him would receive a dollar.

Dumbfounded, the boys left and returned the next afternoon to scream epithets at

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 313 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 314 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 314 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

the old man. He gave each boy a dollar. He then told them that he would pay each

boy 50 cents if they returned the next day and repeated their rude behavior. They

returned, shouted insults, and were paid. The old man then said that he would pay

them only a dime if they returned the next day and repeated their abusive behavior.

At this point, the boys said, “Forget it. It isn’t worth it.” They never returned.

This story illustrates how an extrinsic reward can diminish intrinsic motivation to behave in certain ways. An extrinsic reward motivates us to behave or perform by offering us an external inducement such as money, grades, praise, recognition,

or prestige. An intrinsic reward is enjoying what one does for its own sake (Kohn, 1993). An intrinsic reward motivates us to continue doing what brings us pleasure.

The boys initially were intrinsically motivated by perverse pleasure in tormenting the

old man. When paid to continue the torment, it became more like a job. Once the

pay became minimal, the job seemed pointless and they quit. “Work sucks, but

I need the bucks” is a bumper sticker that expresses the common effect an extrinsic

reward such as money can have on our interest in and enjoyment of work.

Work teams are likely to perform well when members are intrinsically motivated

by commitment to a shared goal, a desire to “change the world,” or a keen interest

in the task. Teams that are held together only by the extrinsic rewards of money,

recognition, or prestige are not as likely to be effective. As a survey of 500 profes-

sionals found, “95% agreed that pay and benefits were not the main motivation in

their decision whether or not to stay with a job. The key issue was the ability to de-

velop trusting relationships with upper management” (Shilling, 2000). The intrinsic

reward derived from good relationships and a trusting group climate outweighs the

extrinsic reward of money and benefits.

Does use of extrinsic rewards always produce negative results, as some have ar-

gued (Kohn, 1993)? The answer is no. Verbal praise (extrinsic reward), as long as it is

not offered as an obvious manipulative strategy to control group members’ behavior,

can actually increase intrinsic motivation (Carton, 1996; Eisenberger & Cameron,

1996). Also, it depends on how recipients perceive the extrinsic reward. If they per-

ceive it as a treat, it can increase intrinsic motivation to perform, but if they perceive

it as pressure to perform and be creative, it can decrease their intrinsic interest and

motivation to perform (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997).

Competent communicators use punishment and rewards carefully. Here are some guidelines:

1. Punishment should be a last resort. Because punishment can produce serious nega- tive consequences, it should be employed rarely and then only when efforts to

change group members’ behavior by noncoercive means have failed.

2. Punishment should be appropriate to the act. Anemic punishment for seriously flawed, irresponsible performance or severe punishment for relatively incon-

sequential error is out of proportion to the act. In the former instance, group

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 314 25/10/11 4:22 PM

P o w e r r e s o u r C e s 315 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 315 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

members will likely ridicule the ineffectual action, and in the latter instance, they

will likely rebel against the severity of the sanction.

3. Punishment should be swift and certain. The more disconnected punishment becomes from an objectionable act because of delays or uncertainty that pun-

ishment will occur, the more ineffectual it becomes. Idle threats are pointless.

4. Be generous with praise that is warranted. Praise recognizes accomplishment, nur- tures a positive group climate, and can increase intrinsic motivation unless it is

obviously manipulative.

5. Determine what rewards group members value before offering any. A $1,000 bonus may motivate a poor person, but Bill Gates would likely view it as pocket change.

Extrinsic rewards may be effective in circumstances where group members aren’t

initially motivated intrinsically to accomplish a task if group members value the

rewards (Uba & Huang, 1999).

6. Administer both punishments and rewards equitably and fairly. Perceived favorit- ism in receiving rewards creates a competitive group climate.

▶ Personal Qualities: A Powerful Presence We all know individuals who exert some influence over us, not because of any of the

previous power resources already discussed, but because of attractive personal quali-

ties they seem to possess in abundance. We are more likely to be influenced by those

individuals whom we find attractive than by those we don’t.

Communication researchers have known for some time that physical attractive-

ness, expertise, and mastery of certain persuasive and communication skills, dyna-

mism, trustworthiness, reliability, similarity of values and outlook, and identification

with the group all contribute to an individual’s ability to influence others. There is

also substantial research that shows a strong relationship between extraversion and

power. Those who exhibit high energy, activity, sociability, and assertiveness (high

extraverts) are likely to achieve elevated status in a group (Anderson et al., 2001;

Keltner et al., 2008).

Some or all of these personal qualities contribute to charisma. Some people

have a great deal of charisma, and others have less charisma than driftwood.

Charisma is not determined objectively. Groups decide what is attractive and what

is not. When Barack Obama campaigned for president, some in his audiences

would faint, others would weep during his speeches. He was greeted like a rock

star by adoring fans at campaign rallies. It is unlikely that a similar response to

Obama would occur from a group of conservative Republicans. Learning to be

charismatic is difficult, perhaps fruitless for some. Nevertheless, charismatic lead-

ers typically exhibit extraordinary communication skills (Hackman & Johnson,

2004). Developing communication competence certainly can improve one’s char-

ismatic potential.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 315 25/10/11 4:22 PM

◀ 316 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 316 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Legitimate Authority: You Will Obey We all play roles, but some of us exercise greater influence in groups because of our

acknowledged position or title. Power can be derived from the shared belief that

some individuals have a legitimate right to influence us and direct our behavior by

virtue of the roles that they play. Society grants parents legitimate authority. In addi-

tion to other power resources they have at their disposal, parents are supposed to be

accorded respect and deference simply because they are parents. We believe parents

have the right to discipline their children and to expect obedience. Similarly, teachers

and supervisors at work occupy an authority position considered legitimate by most

groups.

Obedience to legitimate authority is intricately woven into the fabric of our soci-

ety. We learn about the virtues of obedience to authority figures in school, at work,

in church, in courtrooms, and in military barracks. American soldiers at Abu Ghraib

prison in Iraq tortured Iraqi prisoners, then defended themselves by claiming that

they were “just following orders” from superiors (Zernike, 2005; Zimbardo, 2007).

(See Closer Look: “The Milgram Studies.”)

To have power potential, authority must be viewed as legitimate. We are not inclined to comply with directives from those individuals acting authoritatively but

Who has charisma, Bill Gates or professional wrestler turned actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson? On what do you base your answer?

JE FF

C H

R IS

TE N

SE N

/A FP

/G et

ty Im

ag es

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 316 25/10/11 4:22 PM

P o w e r r e s o u r C e s 317 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 317 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CLOSER LOOK

the Milgram Studies

An amazing series of studies conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s lends substan-tial support to the fear that as a society we have thoroughly absorbed the lesson of obedience to legitimate authority. The basic design of the stud- ies by Milgram consisted of a naïve subject who acted as “teacher” and a confederate who acted as “student.” The naïve subjects were told that the purpose of the experiment was to determine the effects of punishment on memory and learning. Punishment consisted of electric shocks admin- istered to the student for every wrong answer on a word association test. Shocks began at 15 volts and increased by 15-volt increments to a maxi- mum of 450 volts for each wrong answer from the victim. The experimenter directed the subjects to administer the increasingly intense shocks for every wrong answer even when the subjects ob- jected. The experimenter served as legitimate au- thority in each of Milgram’s experiments.

Almost two-thirds of the subjects progressed to 450 volts and delivered the maximum shock until they were instructed to stop by the experi- menter. Subjects continued to administer the shocks even when they could hear the victim’s screams of pain and agony. (The victim’s anguish was cleverly faked; no electric shocks were deliv- ered, but all except an insignificant few of the sub- jects thought the punishment was real.) In one of the experiments, the victim complained of a heart condition exacerbated by the shocks. Neverthe- less, 26 of the 40 subjects administered the maxi- mum shocks at the direction of the experimenter. In all, Milgram (1974) conducted 19 variations of the obedience to authority study with more than 1,000 subjects of various ages and walks of life.

Replications of Milgram’s experiments were conducted in America and abroad with similar re- sults (Blass, 2000). In one dramatic replication the victim was a cute, fluffy puppy dog, not a human confederate (Sheridan & King, 1972). The subjects actually shocked the helpless puppy. Despite the disbelief commonly expressed by my students that anyone would continue to shock an adorable, help- less puppy held captive in a box whose floor was an electrified grid from which there was no escape, the results of the experiment contradict conven- tional wisdom. Three-quarters of the subjects, all college students, were obedient to the end (54% of the men and 100% of the women.) At the be- hest of the experimenter, they delivered maximum- intensity shock to the cute puppy dog whose pain they could witness directly. They complained, some female subjects even wept, but they obeyed.

More recently, a number of television shows have offered various versions of the Milgram studies. Psychologist Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University in 2007 for ABC Primetime took ex- traordinary precautions to protect the psycholog- ical well-being of participants, including setting a top level of shock at 150 volts. (Four-fifths of Milgram’s subjects proceeded to 450 volts once the 150-volt tipping point was reached.) Never- theless, at 150 volts, the victim demands to be let out of the experiment and complains about his heart condition. Paralleling previous obedi- ence studies, 70% of participants ignored the victim’s pleas and obeyed the authority figure (Burger, 2007). British illusionist Derren Brown

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 317 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 318 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 318 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Questions for Thought 1. Are the Milgram studies and their replications ethical research? Explain by using the five standards of ethical

communication discussed in Chapter 1.

2. Would the results of the Milgram studies have been the same if a woman had been the authority figure? If a woman had been the victim? If a child had been the victim?

3. In Sheridan and King’s (puppy dog as victim) replication of the Milgram studies, 100% of the women obeyed, but only 54% of the male subjects. Why the difference in results?

conducted a replication for his UK TV program called The Heist. More than half of the partici- pants obeyed to the end (“Milgram Experiment - Derren Brown,” 2006). Another replication was presented in 2009 on the BBC documentary How Violent Are You? Of the 12 participants, 9 were completely obedient (“BBC Two Pro- grammes,” 2009). A French documentary film crew recreated the obedience studies in March 2010, but reframed it as a game show called The Game of Death. They added the “entertaining” element of live audience participa- tion with calls for “punishment” from the highly vocal crowd and a host that encouraged greater delivery of shocks. Of the 80 subjects on the show, 64 (80%) went to the extreme (Crumley, 2010). None of these television versions of the Milgram studies, with the possible exception of the Burger replication, are completely cred- ible because there is no way of discerning how much editing or fakery occurred to make the programs entertaining to a television audience. Nevertheless, they suggest that nothing much has changed since Milgram conducted his origi- nal experiments five decades ago.

Group members, however, do not have to be the pawns of legitimate authority. One study found that when group members discussed their misgivings about what a legitimate author- ity told them to do, most defied the authority figure (Gamson et al., 1982). Group discussion is a critical factor in defiance. Group members

must share concerns about what authorities tell them to do, so individual members realize that they are not alone in their misgivings.

Although results from obedience studies are disturbing, defiance of all authority is as empty-headed as consistent compliance. What kind of society would you live in if few people obeyed police, teachers, parents, judges, bosses, or physicians? The answer to the excessive influence of legitimate authority rests with your ability to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of authority, not the exercise of indiscriminate rebellion against all authority.

Would you administer 450-volt shocks to this cute puppy? In one experiment 100% of the women and 54% of the men (all college stu- dents) did just that to a puppy.

Pa tr

ic ia

D oy

le /S

to ne

/G et

ty im

ag es

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 318 25/10/11 4:23 PM

P o w e r r e s o u r C e s 319 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 319 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

who are not deemed legitimate. Group members must grant legitimacy before au-

thority will have any weight. One study revealed that leaders who usurp authority

are not granted legitimacy by the group (Read, 1974). Thus, they have less influence

than appointed or elected group leaders. The sad, sorry lot of inexperienced substi-

tute teachers illustrates the problem of authority without legitimacy. Teachers are

authority figures in a school environment, but substitute teachers must struggle to

establish legitimacy in students’ eyes. They must combat the strong impression that

as a substitute, they are not “real teachers.” Even regular teachers aren’t automati-

cally granted legitimacy and power in the classroom. “The teacher’s influential power

resides in students’ acceptance of the hierarchical roles of teacher and student and

the perception that teachers have the right to direct students in matters related to the

course” (Schrodt et al., 2008, p. 182). The group grants legitimacy.

Those who aspire to be competent communicators while capitalizing on legiti-

mate authority as a power resource can try the following:

1. Become an authority figure. There are two principal sources of authority: ap- pointed (designated) leader and emergent leader (Forsyth, 1990). Becoming either

grants you authority. Emergent leader has already been discussed in Chapter 5.

Appointed leader occurs because you gain favor of a powerful person, earn the

right to be appointed (e.g., by seniority), or are the only group member willing to

accept the appointment.

2. Gain legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from conforming to accepted principles, rules, and standards of the group. Authority that is imposed on the group (leader

appointed from outside the group) usually has problems of legitimacy because

the group may resent nonparticipation in making the appointment. Author-

ity that springs from the group (e.g., being voted by membership to represent

the group in bargaining talks or earning it by demonstrating competence) has

a solid base of legitimacy. When group members respect their team leader, the

leader can assert greater influence, especially when conflict arises in the group

(Balkundi et al., 2009).

3. Encourage participative decision making. Encouraging participative decision mak- ing can help maintain the legitimacy of your authority by retaining the goodwill

of group members. Keep in mind the qualifiers attached to participative decision

making discussed in the preceding chapter.

4. Act ethically. The abuses of legitimate authority are the product of unethical prac- tices. Honesty, respect, fairness, choice, and responsibility should guide legitimate

authorities whenever they use their power in groups.

In summary, power resources are not properties of individuals. A person does not

possess power, but is granted power by the group through transactions with mem-

bers. As such, the group must endorse the resource for it to be influential (Folger

et al., 1993). Group endorsement usually depends on whether the resource meets a

need of the group.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 319 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 320 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 320 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Effects of Power Imbalances

When power is inequitably distributed in a group and dominance becomes the focus, systemwide power struggles often ensue (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). With these power struggles come aggression and contempt.

Focus Questions

1. How are power imbalances and violence related?

2. “Dominance breeds conflict.” What does this mean?

SECOND LOOK

Competent Communicator’s Guide to Power Resources Power Resource Communication Guidelines

Information Power Provide group with scarce but useful information

Be certain information is accurate

Expertise Maintain knowledge currency

Demonstrate trustworthiness and credibility

Be certain of your facts before advising

Don’t assume air of superiority

Rewards/Punishments Punishments should be appropriate to the act

Punishment should be swift and certain

Be generous with praise that is warranted

Determine what rewards group members

value before offering any

Administer both punishment and reward

equitably and fairly

Personal Qualities Groups specify qualities that are preferred

Legitimate Authority Become an authority figure

Gain legitimacy

Encourage participative decision making

Act ethically

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 320 25/10/11 4:23 PM

e f f e C t s o f P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 321 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 321 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Physical Violence and Aggression: Waging Power Struggles Significant power disparities often foster violent or aggressive transactions (Straus, 2007). Gelles and Straus (1988) in their extensive study of family violence

conclude: “The greater the inequality, the more one person makes all the decisions

and has all the power, the greater the risk of violence. Power, power confrontations,

and perceived threats to domination, in fact, are underlying issues in almost all acts

of family violence” (p. 82). In families and marriages in which the husband insists on

being the dominant decision maker, breakup of the marriage and family or persis-

tent unhappiness experienced by all parties is four times more likely than in families

in which the husband shares power (Gottman & Silver, 1999).

Violence easily spills beyond the husband–wife relationship and becomes a sys-

temwide problem. “It is not unusual to find a pattern of violence in a home where the

husband hits his wife, the wife in turn uses violence toward her children, the older

children use violence on the younger children, and the youngest child takes out his or

her frustration on the family pet. . . . At each level the most powerful person is seek-

ing to control the next least powerful person” (Gelles & Straus, 1988, p. 35).

Too often we “settle” our power struggles at work with aggression. According to a

report by the U.S. Justice Department, almost 2 million people each year are victims

of violence on the job (Lardner, 1998). Workplace bullying is also an increasing problem. Workplace bullying “is a persistent form of badgering, abuse, and ‘ham-

mering away’ at targets” who have less power than their bullies (Lutgen-Sandvik

et al., 2005). In the United States, more than a third of workers have experienced

workplace bullying (“Results,” 2010). “Adult bullying at work is shockingly com-

mon and enormously destructive” (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2009, p. 41). Although

a troublesome problem in the United States, workplace bullying is even worse in

other countries. An International Labor Organization survey conducted in 2006 in

32 countries found that workplace bullying is one of the fastest-growing areas of

workplace aggression in these countries (“New Forms of Violence at Work,” 2006).

Dominance breeds violence and aggression.

▶ Verbal and Nonverbal Contempt: Insulting Others Power struggles in groups do not always end in physical violence. A more likely initial consequence is verbal and nonverbal expressions of contempt. Coaches of

teams, for example, may simply tear apart the self-esteem and self-worth of players.

Team leaders in the workplace may berate less powerful team members.

Contempt is the expression of insult that emotionally abuses others. Contempt is not merely criticism (Gottman, 1994). It is more destructive because it seeks to

humiliate, even destroy, whoever is targeted. Name-calling (“stupid,” “fool,” “idiot,”

“incompetent”), cursing, hostile humor (jokes that hurt and ridicule others), vicious

sarcasm, and insulting body language (rolling your eyes, curling your upper lip in a

sneer, shaking your head side to side while laughing snidely) are types of contempt.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 321 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 322 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 322 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

Power Distance and Cultural Differences

I n the United States, power imbalances are

often the catalyst for aggressive behav-

ior. The response to power imbalances in

some cultures, however, are strikingly differ-

ent from our own. Cultures vary in their at-

titudes concerning the appropriateness and

acceptance of power imbalances (Hofstede &

Hofstede, 2005). These variations are re-

ferred to as the power distance dimension (hereafter referred to simply as PD).

Countries that are culturally classified as

low-PD (relatively weak acceptance of main-

taining power differences), such as the United

States, Sweden, Denmark, Israel, and Austria,

are guided by norms and institutional regula-

tions that minimize power distinctions among

group members and between groups (See Fig-

ure 9.2). Challenging authority (not easy in any

culture, as the Milgram studies demonstrate),

flattening the organizational hierarchies, and

using power legitimately are subscribed to by

low-PD cultures. Low-PD cultures do not ad-

vocate eliminating power disparities entirely,

and in a country such as the United States,

power differences obviously exist. The em-

phasis on maintaining hierarchical boundaries

between the relatively powerful and powerless,

however, is de-emphasized in low-PD cultures.

Workers in low-PD cultures may disagree with

their supervisors; in fact, bosses may encour-

age disagreement. Even socializing outside of

the work environment and communication on

a first-name basis between workers and bosses

is not unusual (Brislin, 1993).

Countries culturally classified as high-PD

(relatively strong acceptance of maintaining

power differences), such as the Philippines,

Mexico, India, Singapore, and Hong Kong,

are guided by norms and institutional regu-

lations that accept, even cultivate, power dis-

tinctions. The actions of authorities are rarely

challenged, the powerful are thought to have a

legitimate right to use their power, and orga-

nizational and social hierarchies are encour-

aged (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Workers

normally do not feel comfortable disagreeing

with their bosses, and friendships and social-

izing between the two groups are rare.

Recall the study of doctor-nurse verbal abuse discussed in previous chapters. Almost

98% of the more than 2,100 physicians and nurses who completed the survey said

they witnessed acts of verbal contempt, usually by more powerful doctors targeting

less powerful nurses (Johnson, 2009).

Power imbalances easily create a climate that encourages physical, verbal, and

nonverbal aggression (see Focus on Culture: “Power Distance and Cultural Differ-

ences” for a different twist). Both aggressors and victims engage in such negative

behavior in a dominance–prevention power struggle. A more equitable sharing of

power is a primary preventive of such competitive ugliness in groups.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 322 25/10/11 4:23 PM

e f f e C t s o f P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 323 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 323 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

FOCUS ON CULTURE

The reactions by members to power im-

balances in small groups are likely to reflect

where a culture falls on the power distance

dimension. One study compared people’s re-

actions to insults in a high-PD (Hong Kong)

and a low-PD (United States) culture. Sub-

jects from Hong Kong were less upset than

those from the United States when they were

insulted, as long as the initiator of the insult

was a high-status person (Bond et al., 1985).

As Brislin (1993) explains, “When people

accept status distinctions as normal, they

accept the fact that the powerful are differ-

ent than the less powerful. The powerful can

engage in behaviors that the less powerful

cannot, in this case insult people and have

the insult accepted as part of their rights”

(p. 225).

Differences in power distance do not

mean that high-PD cultures never expe-

rience conflict and aggression in small

groups emanating from power imbalances.

Members of low-PD cultures, however, are

more likely to respond with frustration,

outrage, and hostility to power imbalances

than members of high-PD cultures because

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 323 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 324 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 324 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Addressing Power Imbalances

Transacting power in groups can involve any of five general responses: Compliance,

Alliance, Resistance, Defiance, and Significance (C-A-R-D-S). The last four alterna- tives are ways less powerful members attempt to balance power in groups. In this

section, the pros and cons of each alternative for balancing power are addressed.

Focus Questions

1. How are obedience and conformity similar to and different from each other?

2. What are the disadvantages of forming alliances?

3. Since resistance strategies rely on deceit and mixed messages, should com- petent communicators always avoid them?

4. Why are defiant members a threat to the group?

5. In what ways do aggressiveness and assertiveness differ?

▶ Compliance: Group Power Compliance is the process of consenting to the dictates and desires of others. Com- pliance involves both obedience to authority and conformity to group norms. When compliance is the result of group influence on the individual, it is usually

referred to as conformity, since we are expected to comply with norms established by

the group. When compliance is the result of a high-power group member (e.g., the

leader) influencing lower-power members, it is normally referred to as obedience.

FOCUS ON CULTURE

low-PD cultures value power balance even

though the experience of everyday life in

such cultures may reflect a somewhat differ-

ent reality. In a low-PD culture, the struggle

to achieve the ideal of balanced power in

small groups is more compelling, and the

denial of power is likely to be perceived as

more unjust, even intolerable, than in a

high-PD culture where power balance is not

viewed from the same vantage point.

Questions for Thought 1. Which leadership style would likely be preferred in high-PD cultures, directive or participative? How

about low-PD cultures? Explain.

2. If you were an exchange student in a high-PD culture, how would you react to the “Don’t challenge your teachers” norm in that culture?

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 324 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 325 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 325 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

In one study, conformity is pitted against obedience to determine which is most

influential (Milgram, 1974). Two confederates administered a test and a naïve subject

administered punishment (increasing levels of electric shock) for incorrect answers.

At the 150-volt shock level, one of the confederates refused to continue taking part

in the experiment. At 210 volts, the second confederate bailed out of the experiment.

With two defectors for support, 90% of the naïve subjects refused to comply with

the experimenter’s command to increase the shocks all the way to 450 volts. Most

of the 40 naïve subjects, 60%, stopped at 210 volts or less. Yet in a comparison study

where the naïve subject faced the experimenter alone, only 35% refused to comply

with the experimenter’s command and refusal never occurred before 300 volts. Con- formity to group norms can sometimes prove to be a more powerful tendency than obeying authority. The defectors created a group norm that opposed shocking a victim against his will. Most subjects complied with the norm instead of following

the authority figure’s insistent directives. This punctuates the power of groups to

withstand the unethical or wrong-headed directives of a powerful group leader or

member. Gaining allies to defy the orders of a group leader can be effective.

▶ Alliance: Coalition Formation Alliances are associations in the form of subgroups entered into for mutual ben- efit or a common objective. When group members form temporary alliances they

are called coalitions. Power is central to coalition formation (Grusky et al., 1995). Group members form coalitions to increase their power and thus control decisions

made in the group when group members don’t agree on issues of significance to the

group. Coalitions must be negotiated among group members.

Because coalitions can change the distribution of power in a group, coalition formation is typically adversarial, competitive, and contentious. Coalitions are formed not simply to advance the goals of the allied members (e.g., choosing the

preferred topic or option for a group project), but also to prevent the attainment of

noncoalition members’ goals (e.g., choosing an objectionable topic or option for a

group topic). Consequently, powerful members often move to stymie formation of

coalitions among weaker members. This can be accomplished by forming their own

coalitions with weaker parties or by confusing issues and arousing discontent in the

ranks of the weak, thus splintering potential allies.

Coalitions may be useful in the political realm and sometimes coalitions help less

powerful group members influence group decisions and prevent unethical or disas-

trous decisions ordered by the group leader, but they can pose problems for groups.

In families, parental coalitions may be necessary to present a united front when a

dispute with children occurs. Parent– child coalitions (e.g., father–son vs. mother–

daughter), however, can disrupt the family system (Rosenthal, 1997). Asking chil-

dren to choose sides in a dispute between parents can risk eroding family solidarity

and may threaten the survival of the family system.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 325 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 326 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 326 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Coalitions can also produce intragroup competition between rival coalitions that

encourages risky, poorly conceived decisions (Myers & Brashers, 1999). The overall

effectiveness of a group might also be diminished by coalitions because communica-

tion between the factions often becomes limited and external threats or problems im-

pacting the group are ignored (Myers & Brashers, 1999). Coalitions generally suffer

the disadvantages associated with competition by creating a dominance– prevention

transaction between group members.

▶ Resistance: Dragging Your Feet Resistance is normally the choice of the less powerful (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Re- sistance is a covert form of communicating noncompliance, and it is often duplici- tous and manipulative. Resisters are subtle saboteurs. When faced with a dominant

individual (supervisor, parent, or group leader), it is often safer to employ indirect

means of noncompliance than direct confrontation or open defiance. Nevertheless,

even high-power individuals on occasion will use resistance strategies. If undercur-

rents of dissatisfaction are apparent, openly defying the wishes of group members

may provoke outright rebellion.

Resistance is the prevention form of power (power from). Done craftily, resis-

tance can be difficult to identify unequivocally for those who are its targets because

the sabotage is ambiguous, often communicating a seemingly sincere effort to com-

ply. The target is often left mostly convinced that resistance is taking place, but is

unable to make this apparent to the group due to the mixed messages being sent.

In this section, specific communication strategies of resistance, or what Bach and

Goldberg (1974) term “passive aggression,” are discussed. I have combined their list

of strategies with my own (see also Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Reflect on whether you

have used any of these resistance strategies (see Box 9.1).

Strategic Stupidity: Smart Members Acting Dense Your group is working on an important class presentation. Each member has been assigned a topic area to

research. At one of your meetings, an inventory is taken regarding information col-

lected up to this point on relevant topic areas. When asked for a status report, one of

the members of your group whines, “I couldn’t find anything on world hunger.” Are

you faced with a drooling dolt or is this person covertly resisting active involvement

in the group project? Bet your money on the latter. When group members do not

want to expend energy on a project, especially if the project was not of their choos-

ing, they may feel hesitant to complain directly to the group about their dissension. If

they have been outvoted in the group when the proposal for the project was decided,

they may resent having little influence on the group decision. They may feign stupid-

ity to penalize the group and to exercise influence, at least in a negative way. When

the success of the group presentation depends on all members pulling a load, even

one resistant member can create systemwide problems.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 326 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 327 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 327 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Strategic stupidity can effectively thwart compliance attempts by more powerful

group members because in most instances the strategy is part of a recurring pattern.

If used only once, it becomes an isolated incident. If used repeatedly, as is often the

case, strategic stupidity can frustrate the dominant party to the point of capitulation.

If group members must spoon-feed their strategically stupid member on where to

look on the Internet or in the library for information on world hunger, they may

decide in exasperation that this takes too much effort and end up doing the research

themselves.

Strategic stupidity works exceedingly well when the low-power person claims stu-

pidity, is forced to attempt the task anyway, then purposely performs the task ineptly.

Doing a half-baked job of a simple task can frustrate even the most patient person.

If criticized for doing a poor job, the low-power person can always retort, “How was

I supposed to know?” or “I told you I didn’t know how to do it.” The pathetic perfor-

mance becomes proof that the stupidity was “real.” To expect any better performance

in the absence of careful and persistent tutelage would be an injustice.

Box 9.1

Do You Use Resistance Strategies?

Answer the following questions as honestly as possible.

1. I have purposely acted stupidly to get out of doing some disagreeable task

OFTEN NEVER 5 4 3 2 1

2. I have purposely acted clumsy or inept to avoid a disagreeable task

OFTEN NEVER 5 4 3 2 1

3. I have purposely pretended to misunder- stand someone who wants me to com- plete a disagreeable task

OFTEN NEVER 5 4 3 2 1

4. I find that I am forgetful when I am asked to complete a task I do not wish to perform

OFTEN NEVER 5 4 3 2 1

5. I’m late to meetings that I am not looking forward to attending

OFTEN NEVER 5 4 3 2 1

6. I purposely wait until the very last minute to perform tasks I do not want to complete

OFTEN NEVER 5 4 3 2 1

These six questions correspond to the six resis- tance strategies (in order): 1. strategic stupidity, 2. loss of motor function, 3. misunderstanding mirage, 4. selective amnesia, 5. tactical tardiness, and 6. purposeful procrastination. Any score above a 2 indicates frequent use of passive aggressive strategies.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 327 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 328 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 328 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Loss of Motor Function: Attack of the Clumsies This resistance strategy is an effective companion to strategic stupidity. Here the low-power person doesn’t

pretend to be stupid. The resister just acts incredibly clumsy, often resulting in costly

damage. There is a mixed message here. The nonverbal behavior displays resistance,

but the verbal statement that often accompanies it feigns a genuine attempt to comply.

Years ago I worked summers at a can factory to pay for college. I was a worker in

quality control. In a less-than-admirable effort to avoid the horrid press department,

I kept ducking out of sight at the start of the morning shift to avoid the supervisor,

who had a habit of selecting some poor college student employee to replace a worker

who had quit the press department. The press department was where can lids were

stamped out and sent through a machine, coated, and packed in boxes or paper

sleeves stacked onto wood pallets.

One day the supervisor spotted me and sent me to the press department to replace

someone who had quit. I went reluctantly. The job I was given pitted me against a

machine that pumped out can lids in rapid fashion. I had to stack and pack the lids

without spilling them onto the floor. I purposely adopted the loss of motor function

strategy to get out of the job. By the end of my shift, I had spilled thousands of lids

onto the factory floor, shut the machine down four times, incensed the machinist

who had to spend 20 minutes starting up the machine each time it was shut down,

and forced my supervisor to call in two workers to clean up my mess. I was making

the system adapt to my act of sabotage. All the while I insisted in bellicose tones to

my upset supervisor that I was trying hard but that the job was impossible to do. The

next day I returned to my previous job, pretending not to know that no one ever re-

turned to his previous job in quality control (strategic stupidity). I hid out, watched

my supervisor pick another college student to take my press job, and I spent the

rest of the summer free from press department duties. I even received a promotion

a month later. Ironically, I ended up in the press department the next summer and,

with a change of attitude, managed to master the job with little difficulty.

It is the apparent effort exerted that makes this strategy so effective. In my can fac-

tory incident I had sweat rolling down my face. I seemed to be making every effort

possible to keep up with the diabolical machine. I just couldn’t quite stay with it. If

the high-power person alleges deliberate sabotage, the low-power person can always

become incensed, even incredulous that anyone would even suggest such a thing. It’s

an awkward position for a high-power person. How does one conclusively prove will-

fulness? You don’t want to look like you’re beating up on a less-powerful group mem-

ber. If you make an accusation of willfulness but fail to convince the group, then you

may lose power by diminishing your credibility (personal qualities as a power base).

The Misunderstanding Mirage: Feigning Confusion This is the “I thought you meant” or “I could have sworn you said” strategy. The resistance is “expressed

behind a cloak of great sincerity” (Bach & Goldberg, 1974, p. 110). I have observed

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 328 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 329 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 329 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

numerous instances of this strategy in my group communication classes. Typi-

cally, a student will deliberately miss an important meeting with his or her group

and then claim, “Oh, I thought we were going to meet on Thursday. Sorry. I just

got confused.” I have lost count of the number of times students have used this

strategy to excuse their late assignments. “You said it was due Friday, not today,

didn’t you?” they’ll say hopefully. If I respond, “No, your paper is due today,” my

resistant student often replies, “Well, I thought you said Friday, so can I turn my

assignment in then without a penalty?” The implied message attached to this ploy

is clear: “Since this is a simple misunderstanding, penalizing me for a late assign-

ment would be unfair.”

Again, the high-power person is placed in a seemingly awkward position. The

teacher may lose some power (legitimate authority) if the class sees his or her behav-

ior as capricious, unfair, or lacking compassion (“Everyone makes mistakes”).

High-power persons sometimes use this strategy of misunderstanding to avoid felt

obligations. Teachers may purposely miss appointments with students or committee

meetings on campus because they’d prefer to leave town before the rush-hour traffic.

Pretending to have misunderstood when the meeting was scheduled relieves them of

having to confront directly their own irresponsibility.

Selective Amnesia: Forgetting the Distasteful Sometimes we get a brain cramp and forget things, but have you ever noticed that certain people are very for-

getful, especially about those things that they find distasteful? This amnesia is highly

selective when used as a resistance strategy. We rarely forget what is important to us

or what we like doing.

The message is again mixed. You manifest no outright signs of noncompliance.

You outwardly agree to perform the distasteful task. Appointments, promises, and

agreements just slip your mind. If your group insists that you assume a larger share

of unpleasant tasks, you can always agree, then forget to do them.

A more sophisticated version of this strategy, however, is truly selective. Take an

errand such as purchasing office supplies for your department. Remember to buy all

the items except one or two important ones. Hey, you did pretty well. So you forgot

cartridges for the laser printers and now the entire office staff is affected. No one’s

perfect. If your selective amnesia proves to be a recurring problem, that errand gig

may shift to someone else.

Tactical Tardiness: Not So Grand an Entrance When you really don’t want to go to a meeting, a class, a lecture, or whatever, you can show your contempt by arriv-

ing late. If you don’t arrive too late, you can still claim that you attended the event, so

you’re protected from punishment for being absent. Showing up late irritates, frus-

trates, and even humiliates those who take the meeting seriously. Tactical tardiness is

intended to produce these very feelings in those requiring attendance.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 329 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 330 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 330 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Tactical tardiness asserts power in disguised form. The group is faced with a di-

lemma. The group may wait for your arrival, but this holds the entire group hostage

until you appear. Members’ plans for the day may be trashed by the delay. The other

alternative is to commence without you. This also may prove to be problematic. If

you offer reasonable-sounding excuses for your late arrival, the group will feel bound

to clue you in on what has already transpired, thereby halting progress until you have

been informed. All instances of tardiness are not necessarily tactical. Occasionally,

getting to meetings on time is not possible through no fault of your own. Tactical tardiness is a recurrent pattern of resistance, not a rare occurrence.

Tactical tardiness is not the sole province of the less powerful. High-power per-

sons may also use this strategy to reinforce their dominance. Self-important celebri-

ties with egos swelled like a puffer fish often arrive late to functions. They hope to

underscore their perceived superiority over worshipful fans by making them wait.

Purposeful Procrastination: Intentional Delaying Tactic Most people put off doing that which they dislike. There is nothing purposeful about this. There is no

strategy involved. Procrastination, or what someone once called the “hardening of

the oughteries,” can become a resistance strategy when it is purposefully aimed at a

target.

Purposeful procrastinators pretend that they will pursue a task “soon.” While

promising imminent results, they deliberately refuse to commit to a specific time

or date for task accomplishment. Trying to pin down a purposeful procrastinator is like taking a knife and stabbing Jell-O to a wall—it won’t stick. They’ll make vague promises. When you become exasperated by the ambiguity and noncommit-

tal attitude, the purposeful procrastinator will try to make you the problem. “Relax!

You’ll stroke out if you’re not careful. I said I’d get to it, didn’t I?” The implication is

clear. You’re impatient and unreasonable. The job will get done—not without delay

after delay, however. If the task doesn’t get accomplished, it is because “something

came up unexpectedly.” If you express irritation at the delays, you’re a nag.

Resistance strategies are generally viewed as negative and unproductive (Bach & Goldberg, 1974). This is true in an ideal sense. Resistance strategies are underhanded,

deceitful, and rest on mixed messages. Resistance strategies are not the type of skills a

competent communicator needs to learn. Nevertheless, they should not be ruled out

unequivocally. Low-power members may have no better tools to resist abuse from

dominant group members. Hoping that treatment by dominant group members will

improve by itself is too passive. Hope is not a strategy. The essence of the problem,

however, doesn’t lie in the resistance strategies. The dominance form of power cre- ates a competitive group atmosphere in which resistance strategies are nurtured and encouraged.

From the standpoint of competent communication, however, emphasis must be

on how to deal effectively with resistance, since the resistance may not always be

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 330 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 331 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 331 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

noble. There are three principal ways for the competent communicator to deal with resistance strategies in groups:

1. Confront the strategy directly. Identify the communication pattern and ferret out the hidden hostility. Once this has been accomplished, efforts must be made to

discover alternatives to dominance–submissiveness power patterns. Care should

be taken to use the descriptive pattern of communication discussed in Chapter 4.

2. Don’t be an enabler. We become enablers when we allow ourselves to become en- snared in the resister’s net of duplicity. When we continue to wait for the chroni-

cally late, we encourage tactical tardiness. If we perform the tasks for those who

use loss of motor function to resist, we reward their behavior and guarantee

that the behavior will persist. Group members thwart the enabling process by

refusing to be a party to the resistance. If a staff member “forgets” an item at the

supplies store, guess who gets to make a return visit? If you hear the old refrain,

“I can’t be expected to remember everything,” tell him or her to make a list.

If the person is repeatedly late for committee meetings, refuse to interrupt the

meeting to fill him or her in on what was missed and encourage the person to

come on time. Continued tardiness may necessitate expulsion from the group.

3. Give clear directions regarding specific tasks. You want no possibility that confusion or misunderstanding can be used to excuse the poor behavior. Have the group

members repeat the directions if resistance is suspected.

Again, the appropriate focus should not be on how to combat resistance, but in-

stead on why the resistance occurs in the first place. If the main cause of resistance

resides in the dominance form of power, then the focus of attention should be on

how to reduce the power imbalance, or at least its perception.

SECOND LOOK

Resistance Strategies Strategic Stupidity—smart people acting dumb on purpose; feigned stupidity

Loss of Motor Function—sudden attack of clumsies

The Misunderstanding Mirage—illusory mistakes

Selective Amnesia—no fear of Alzheimer’s; forgetting only the distasteful

Tactical Tardiness—late for reasons within your control

Purposeful Procrastination—promising to do that which you have no intention

of doing anytime soon, if ever

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 331 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 332 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 332 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Defiance: Digging in Your Heels Defiance stands in bold contrast to resistance. Defiance is an overt form of com- municating noncompliance. It is unmitigated, audacious rebellion against attempts

to induce compliance. Defiance, like resistance, is a prevention form of power, but

unlike resistance there is no ambiguity or subtlety. No one is left guessing whether an

individual supports a specific norm or goal of the group.

When individuals exhibit behaviors that do not conform to group norms, they are

called nonconformists or deviants. When this nonconformity is a purposeful, con-

scious, overtly rebellious act against the wishes of a group leader or the group itself,

it becomes defiance. Group members typically turn to defiance when they perceive

little or no chance of enhancing their power position through formation of an alli-

ance, resistance strategies seem either inappropriate or ineffective, or they feel like

exhibiting independence from group conformity.

Threat of Contagion: Spreading Dissension Defiance can be contagious. In the Asch (1952) study, discussed in Chapter 3, an interesting wrinkle was added.

When one of the confederates deviated from the group judgment regarding the cor-

rect length of a line, naïve subjects’ conformity dropped precipitously to a mere 8%.

A single deviant encourages independent decision making, even outright rebellion.

In another study, even when the deviant was wearing glasses with “Coke bottle”

lenses and the task required visual discrimination, the influence of the deviant was

so strong that the support of an obviously visually impaired person was sufficient

to induce naïve subjects to defy the collective misperception of the group (Allen &

Levine, 1971).

The concern that defiance from even one member could spread throughout the group like a cold virus in a day-care center motivates groups to act quickly to squash it. In Chapter 3, the four strategies to quell nonconformity—reason, se- duction, coercion, and ostracism—were discussed. These strategies are what usually

await defiant group members. A defiant individual can threaten the power of a group

to command compliance from its members.

Variable Group Reaction: Discriminative Defiance All defiance is not created equal. Some instances of noncompliance will produce nary a ripple of concern in the

group. Other instances will be perceived as intolerable. Whether a group takes steps to

crush noncompliance, adopts a calculated indifference to the defiance, or explores ways

to adapt to the challenge posed by the deviant depends in large part on three factors.

First, some norms are not as important to a group as others, so the reaction to defiance will vary. For a basketball team, curfews and eating meals together before a game may be considered terribly important, but socializing with team members

outside of the basketball environment may be perceived as relatively unimportant.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 332 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 333 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 333 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Second, the degree of deviation from the norm also affects whether a group discourages noncompliance and, if so, to what extent. A group may have a norm requiring punctuality. If a member is a few minutes late to a meeting, this deviance

is usually ignored. If a member arrives two-thirds of the way through a meeting,

however, group members may view this as outright defiance and quite intolerable.

Third, the deviation from the norm has to be a matter of obvious defiance, not inadvertent noncompliance. Showing up for a new job dressed inappropriately is rarely an act of defiance. Normally, this show of nonconformity will be interpreted

as a clueless blunder, not an act of rebellion. Not all nonconformity is defiance.

Deviance must be overt, conscious, and clearly intended to flout group norms to

prevent domination by more powerful group members before it becomes defiance.

The group reaction to inadvertent deviance will likely be mild compared to unmis-

takable defiance. We smile indulgently when a small child bangs on the bathroom

door and inquires, “Whaddya doin’ in there?”

Defiant Member’s Influence: Alone against the Group Given the tremen- dous pressure to conform exerted on those who defy, how do we explain the individ-

ual who converts the group to his or her way of thinking, as dramatized in the movie

12 Angry Men? Admittedly not a frequent occurrence (Meyers & Brashers, 1999),

A courageous, unarmed man stops tanks during the Tiananmen Square upheaval in China in 1989. An imbalance of power, starkly evident here, often leads to conflict and defiance. To this day, no one has identified this man publicly or indicated what happened to him.

A P

Ph ot

o/ Je

ff W

id en

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 333 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 334 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 334 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

defiance from members does influence groups (Pennington & Hastie, 1990), more

often when the minority viewpoint comes from more than one group member

(Clark, 2001). For example, a minority view on a jury rarely converts a majority from

a guilty to an innocent verdict, but it often convinces the majority of jurors to change

their minds on the severity of guilt (from first-degree murder to second-degree mur-

der or manslaughter). Presenting high-quality arguments and effectively refuting

majority arguments are primary ways to accomplish such modification of verdicts

(Meyers & Brasher, 1999).

If the group cannot reject you (e.g., a juror or an elected official), then the devi-

ant’s best chance of converting the group is to remain unalterably and confidently

defiant throughout discussions—in other words, defy without cracking (Gebhardt &

Meyers, 1995). If, however, the group has the power to exclude the deviant from the

group or the deliberations, then the deviant stands a better chance if he or she re-

mains uncompromisingly defiant until the group seems about fed up. At this point,

the deviant should indicate a willingness to make some degree of compromise (Wolf,

1979). The group is more likely to modify its position if it sees the deviant as com-

ing around and being more reasonable. Remaining intransigent when the group can

reject you is a losing battle. Your consistent defiance will be taken as legitimate justi-

fication for your ostracism.

Remaining unalterably defiant will win you no friends. Unwavering deviants are seen as less reasonable, fair, warm, cooperative, liked, admired, and perceptive

than other group members (Moscovici & Mugny, 1983). This is not surprising since

the deviant creates secondary tension in the group. Although the consistent deviant

is not viewed as competent by the group, deviants are perceived to be confident and

self-assured, independent, active, and even original.

Consistency may increase the influence of defiant members in groups, especially

when there is some ambiguity and indecision among majority members, but it does

not necessarily improve group decision making (Gebhardt & Meyers, 1995; Wellen &

Neale, 2006). Flexibility is a key to communication competence in groups. Intransi-

gence aimed at winning over the group will likely produce rigidity from the majority

of group members. When both the defiant individual and the group members re-

main rigidly consistent, the majority prevails (Gebhardt & Meyers, 1995).

▶ Significance: Self-Empowerment When group members grow tired of being dominated by more powerful individuals,

they can balance the power in the group more evenly by increasing their value to the

group. Becoming more significant to the group can occur in two primary ways: by

developing assertiveness and by increasing personal power resources.

Assertiveness: Neither Doormat nor Foot Wiper The terms assertive and ag- gressive are often linked, even in scholarly circles. For example, some communication

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 334 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 335 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 335 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

scholars define assertiveness as “a generally constructive aggressive trait” (see espe-

cially Infante et al., 1997, p. 129). Distinguishing assertiveness and aggressiveness

conceptually does seem important. This is especially true in light of how psychologist

David Myers (2003) defines aggression—“any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy” (p. 719). This makes “constructive aggression” an oxymoron (I’m

trying to destroy you in order to save you?). If assertiveness is associated with aggres-

sion, then ethically I could not encourage anyone to learn and use such incompetent

communication.

Adler (1977) defines assertiveness as the “ability to communicate the full range of your thoughts and emotions with confidence and skill” (p. 6). Assertiveness falls

in between the extremes of passivity and aggressiveness and is distinctly different

from either. Aggressiveness puts one’s own needs first; you wipe your shoes on other

people. Passivity underemphasizes one’s needs (Lulofs, 1994); you’re a doormat in a

world of muddy shoes. Assertiveness takes into account both your needs and the needs of others.

Assertiveness is perceived by many people to be merely communicating the full

range of thoughts and emotions—period. The ability and skill part of the defini-

tion is overlooked. So group members sound like arrogant little Nazis in the process

of telling the group what they think or feel. Assertiveness is not a “looking out for

number one” competitive communication strategy. To be assertive is to be sensitive

to others while also looking out and standing up for yourself. You can stand up for

yourself without trampling others in the process. Defining assertiveness in terms of

empowerment makes this point obvious.

Assertiveness is not a strategy of resistance. As previously explained, resistance tactics are acts of passive aggression. On the surface you seem to be compliant (pas-

sive), but under the surface you’re sabotaging (aggression). I have not included as-

sertiveness in the section on defiance because it is a primarily empowering form

of communication. We most often use assertive communication not to defy the group, but instead to ensure that our individual needs, rights, and responsibili- ties or that of other group members are not submerged or ignored by the group.

There are distinct advantages to learning assertiveness. When a formerly passive

member is assertive, the group may view this as a highly constructive change, wholly

consistent with the norms of the group, and worthy of encouragement, not ostra-

cism. Self-assertion makes you a more significant person in a group. Your potential

influence in group decision making will be enhanced. Passive members become iso-

lates and are easily ignored by the group. Assertive members make their presence felt

and express their ideas and feelings to the group for consideration.

Considering previous evidence on compliance rates already cited, it isn’t surpris-

ing that research shows that assertiveness is conspicuous by its absence (Moriarity, 1975) (See Box 9.2.) A group of students in my small group communication class

demonstrated this by conducting a field study as a Candid Camera project. Three

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 335 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 336 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 336 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Box 9.2

Assertiveness Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Fill out the following Assertiveness Self- Assessment Questionnaire. Be as honest as you can. This is not an assessment of your “ideal self.” This should be your “real self.” For each situation indicate how likely you would be to take the action indicated by using the following scale:

5 = Very likely 4 = Likely 3 = Maybe 2 = Unlikely 1 = Very Unlikely

the instructor’s lecture. You lean over and calmly ask them to stop talking so you can listen to your instructor.

6. At a family holiday dinner gathering, your uncle makes a blatant racist remark, then tells a sexist joke. You sit silently.

7. While on vacation you sign up to re- ceive a group lesson in a new sport (jet skiing, rock climbing). After the instructor has explained the basics, everyone in the group appears to un- derstand perfectly. You, however, are unclear about a couple of instructions. You raise your hand and ask the in- structor to repeat the instructions and explain them more fully.

8. Three individuals representing a reli- gious group knock on your door. When you answer they begin to proselytize, trying to sell you on their religious point of view. You stand there waiting patiently for them to finish, wishing they would go away.

9. A small group of teenagers talks loudly during a movie you attend at a local theater. You become increasingly an- noyed but say nothing to them.

10. You live in a dorm room with two roommates. Next door loud music is playing, making it impossible for you to study. Your roommates seem not to care, but you are becoming increas- ingly annoyed by the noise. You walk next door, pound on the door, and when the door is opened you demand that the music be turned way down immediately.

11. A member of your group couldn’t af- ford to buy the textbook for the class. He asks you if he can borrow your book

1. You have been invited to a party, but you don’t know anyone except the friend who invited you. You see dozens of strangers. You walk up to a group of people and introduce yourself and be- gin a conversation.

2. There is a definite undercurrent of ten- sion and conflict in your group. You are feeling that tension as your group begins discussing its project for class. You stop the discussion, indicate that there is unresolved conflict in the group, and request that the group ad- dress this issue.

3. You strongly disagree with your group’s choice for a symposium proj- ect. Nevertheless, you say nothing and go along with the majority decision.

4. During class your instructor makes a point that angers you greatly. You raise your hand, are recognized by the instructor, and vehemently challenge your instructor’s position, raising your voice to almost a shout.

5. You’re sitting in the back of the class. Two students sitting beside you en- gage in an audible conversation that is distracting. You can’t concentrate on

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 336 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 337 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 337 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

for “a couple of days.” You agree. He has had the book for more than a week and shows no sign of returning it to you. You wait for him to return the book or explain why he hasn’t mentioned it.

12. At work, you are a member of a proj- ect team. Every member of the team makes considerably more money than you do, yet your jobs are equivalent. You believe that you deserve a hefty raise. You make an appointment with your boss to ask for a substantial raise.

13. You receive an e-mail from a team member that has a condescending tone. It angers you that this team mem- ber, whom you view as a bit of a screw- up, lectures you on the “right way” to approach your part of the group task. You write back a sarcastic, biting reply.

14. The coach of your sports team be- rates players at a team meeting for “lackluster play” and “lackadaisical attitudes.” The coach is shouting and abusive. You believe the criticism is mostly unfair and doesn’t apply to most of the players. You remain silent, wishing he/she would wind down.

15. A group member pulls you aside and begins accusing you of “unethical be- havior.” She is shouting at you, her face is flushed red, and she is wildly gesturing. People are noticing. You shout back at her.

16. The family next door has a dog that barks all hours of the night. It is dis- turbing you and your family members. You meet one of the dog owners dur- ing a walk through the neighborhood. You stop, begin to talk, and you calmly bring up the barking dog problems.

17. You are taking an exam. You notice several students cheating on the exam. You’re upset because this gives the students an undeserved advan- tage and may lower your own grade because the instructor grades on a

curve. The instructor doesn’t notice the cheating. You report the cheating to the instructor after class.

18. During a group discussion, your point of view clashes with that of another group member. You want very much to convince the group that your view- point should be accepted. You inter- rupt when the member who disagrees with you tries to voice her opinion, you keep talking when she tries to disagree with a point you make, and you insist that she is wrong and you are right.

19. At work, a member of your project team “steals” your idea and takes credit for work you have done. You angrily denounce him in front of the entire team and insist that he own up to his deception.

20. One of your team members has ex- tremely bad breath. This is a common problem when you meet. His bad breath bothers you a great deal. Nev- ertheless, you say nothing and try sit- ting as far away from him as possible during meetings.

21. You are waiting in line to be served at a local store. Just as you are about to be waited on, a group of three individuals steps in front of you. You demand that they step aside, insisting that you were in line ahead of them.

Scoring Directions: Total your scores for numbers 4, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 (aggressiveness). Now total your scores for numbers 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 16, and 17 (assertiveness). Finally, total your scores for numbers 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 20 (passivity). Enter these raw totals in the appropriate blanks.

_____ Aggressiveness ( ) _____ Assertiveness ( ) _____ Passivity ( )

Now average each raw score by dividing by 7 (e.g., 21 on aggressiveness divided by 7 = 3.0 average). Put the averages in the parentheses above.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 337 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 338 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 338 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

NOTE: Generally speaking, you want to average be- tween 4.0 and 5.0 on assertiveness, and average 2.0 or less on aggressiveness and passivity. This re- flects the general desirability of assertiveness and the general undesirability of aggressiveness and passivity. A low score on a specific assertiveness scenario or a high score on a specific aggressive- ness or passivity scenario may also mean a need for improvement in these particular situations.

Please note, however, that the appropriateness of assertiveness, aggressiveness, and passivity is situational. Assertiveness, although generally a desirable skill, is not always appropriate, espe- cially if harm may come to you by being assertive. Conversely, aggressiveness, although generally an undesirable communication pattern, is not always inappropriate. Likewise, occasionally the appropri- ate choice is passivity.

group members formed a line in front of two side-by-side ATMs. Neither cash ma-

chine was in use and no “out of order” sign was posted. Within minutes a long line

of people wanting to use the ATM formed behind my students. Some individuals

seemed agitated at having to wait in line without anyone using the cash machine, but

most never said a word. Several people waited 10 to 15 minutes before giving up and

leaving in disgust. One woman did ask my students at the head of the line, “Is there

something wrong with the ATM?” My students replied, “I don’t know.” The woman

inquired further, “Why are you standing in line?” My students responded again, “I

don’t know.” Did this inspire the woman to move out of line and use the ATM? No,

it didn’t. She rejoined the line, waited a few more minutes, then left. No one used the

ATM the entire time my students stood in line.

Assertiveness seems to be especially challenging for women. In one study, small

groups composed of four members met to decide which 12 individuals from a list

of 30 were best able to survive on a deserted island. During discussion, a male group

member (actually a confederate of the experimenters) utters three sexist remarks

(“We definitely need to keep the women in shape”; “One of the women can cook”; “I

think we need more women on the island to keep the men satisfied”). Imagine your-

self in this situation. Would you speak up and protest? When a comparative group of

college students were asked this, only 5% said that they would keep quiet and 48%

said that they would be assertive and speak up. When female participants were put to

the test, however, 55% said nothing and only 16% spoke out against the sexism. The

rest mostly asked questions or joked nervously (Swim & Hyers, 1999).

Additional research parallels these results, showing that women are far less asser-

tive than men (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). For example, women are significantly more

reticent than men to ask for higher starting salaries. In one study of students gradu-

ating with a master’s degree from Carnegie Mellon University, only 7% of the fe-

male participants asked for more money, but 57% of the male participants asked for

higher starting salaries. Those who requested higher salaries, on average, received

$4,053 in additional compensation (Babcock, 2002). Other studies support these

findings (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). This additional starting salary compounds

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 338 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 339 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 339 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

over the course of a career to more than $1 million (Pinkley & Northcraft, 2000).

That’s a huge chunk of money lost because no request was made for a higher start-

ing salary. Why don’t women typically assert themselves and request more money?

Women tend to see negotiation as an unpleasant conflict or contest that may disrupt

future interpersonal relations and acceptance into groups (Babcock & Laschever,

2003). In one study, men were two-and-a-half times more likely than women to

view a job negotiation as a means to advance their interests (status), while women

were two-and-a-half times more likely to see a job negotiation as a means to further

their acceptance by others (connection) (Barron, 2003). Women and men have been

socialized to view the world in different ways, and this is reflected in their commu-

nication in groups.

The competent communicator, however, cannot assume that assertiveness is always appropriate. Cultural differences, for example, must be taken into account (Den Hartog, 2004). Assertiveness is not valued in many Asian cultures (Samovar &

Porter, 2004). Standing up for yourself and speaking your mind are seen as disruptive

and provocative acts likely to create disharmony. One study also discovered that you

could be overly persistent in asserting yourself (Schmidt & Kipnis, 1987). Excessive

assertiveness can result in less favorable evaluations from supervisors, lower salaries,

greater job tension, and greater personal stress than a less vigorous assertion of one’s

needs and desires.

These results show that assertiveness is not preferable to passivity or aggres- siveness in every circumstance. The advantages and disadvantages must be weighed within each context. As a general rule, however, assertiveness is empowering, espe-

cially in American culture, and more advantageous with far fewer and less severe

disadvantages than aggressiveness or passivity.

So how do you become more assertive? Bower and Bower (1976) provide a useful

framework for learning assertiveness. They call it DESC Scripting:

Describe: This first step was discussed at length in Chapter 4. Review the language of description.

Express: Here you express how you think and feel about the offending behavior. Again, this is not a verbal assault on the offender. The express step is not an op-

portunity for finger-pointing (e.g., “You made me feel . . .”). Instead, you formu-

late a statement from your perspective (e.g., “I believe,” “I feel,” “I disagree”).

Specify: This step identifies the behavior you would like to see substituted for the bothersome behavior. The request needs to be concrete and spelled out, not

vague or merely suggestive. “I think it is only fair that I receive sole credit for this

proposal, and in the future I expect to receive credit for my ideas” is better than

“I want you to stop plagiarizing my ideas immediately.”

Consequences: The consequences of changing behavior or continuing the same behavior patterns should be articulated to the offending party. The emphasis, if

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 339 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 340 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 340 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

possible, should be on rewards, not punishments. “I like working here and expect

to continue as long as I’m treated fairly” is better than “If you continue to steal my

ideas I’ll be forced to quit.”

The DESC guidelines for assertiveness will prove to be nothing more than an

idealized fantasy cooked up by academics unless “powerless” language and ane-

mic, nonverbal behavior are eliminated from the process. Expressing your thoughts

and feelings must be accomplished with confidence and skill. This requires direct

eye contact, not looks cast downward or side to side. Posture should be erect, not

slouched in a cowering whipped-puppy stance. Tone of voice should be modulated

so aggression or passivity doesn’t emerge. Tag questions, hedges, hesitations, dis-

claimers, and overly polite references should be minimized or eliminated if possible.

If you are interrupted, calmly indicate, “I haven’t finished.” Everything suggested

regarding how to be assertive requires practice. You will find that assertiveness is far

easier in some circumstances than in others.

Increasing Personal Power Resources: Mentoring and Networking Since the group confers power on the individual, a person can enhance his or her power

by increasing personal resources valued by the group. There are a number of avenues

available for personal power enhancement.

Husbands who assume a greater portion of the domestic chores may increase their

value in the family. Children whose parents are unemployed or underemployed can

exercise greater power if they find a part-time job to supplement family income.

Learning certain skills valued by the group can enhance your power position. If

you master the skills required to use computers and no one in your group is com-

puter proficient, then your power increases when the group requires such technical

expertise.

Finally, the mentoring and networking processes can enhance personal power re-

sources (Feeney & Bozeman, 2008). Mentors are knowledgeable individuals who have achieved some success in their profession or jobs and who assist individuals

trying to get started in a line of work. Mentors can provide information to the new-

comer that prevents mistakes by trial and error. One study showed that women who

have mentors move up the corporate ladder much faster than women without men-

tors. Women also receive promotions more quickly when they are helped by mentors

(Kleiman, 1991). Mentors are essential for women trying to advance to the highest

levels of corporate leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Hackman & Johnson, 2004).

Networking is a form of group empowerment. Individuals with similar back- grounds, skills, and goals come together on a fairly regular basis and share informa-

tion that will assist members in pursuing goals. Networks also provide emotional

support for members, especially in women’s networks (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Stewart

et al., 1996).

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 340 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 341 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 341 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

SECOND LOOK

Significance (Empowerment) Assertiveness

Describe the behavior that is troublesome.

Express how you think and feel about the offending behavior.

Specify behavior preferred as a substitute for bothersome behavior.

Consequences of changing behavior or continuing without change should be

articulated.

Increasing Personal Power Resources

Personal improvement

Learn valued skills

Mentoring and networking

In summary, power is a central dynamic in all groups. Power is the ability to influ-

ence the attainment of goals sought by yourself and others. Power is not a property of

any individual. It is the product of transactions between group members. Informa-

tion, expertise, rewards and punishments, personal qualities, and legitimate author-

ity are primary resources of power. Groups must endorse these resources before they

have power potential. The influence that you wield cannot be determined precisely.

Nevertheless, you can approximate the distribution of power in groups by observing

certain general patterns of communication, plus verbal and nonverbal indicators.

An imbalance of power in groups promotes conflict and power struggles and in

some instances can lead to violence. The five ways we transact power in groups, es-

pecially when power is unequally distributed, are compliance, alliance, resistance,

defiance, and significance. Compliance primarily aims to bring the less powerful in

line with the dictates of the more powerful and to discourage deviance, which can

be contagious. Alliance, resistance, defiance, and significance are all means used by

members to balance the power more equitably in small groups.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 341 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 342 Chapter 9: Power in GrouPs: A CentrAl DynAmiC

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 342 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 9, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. Information is power. Can misinformation also serve as a power resource? 2. If punishment has significant drawbacks, why is it typically used more frequently than rewards by

those in power positions? 3. Have you ever used resistance strategies? Did they work? Were they used against dominant

individuals? 4. Can you think of instances in your own experience in which assertiveness was inappropriate?

Crimson Tide (1995). Drama; R Taut undersea drama that pits the captain of a nuclear submarine (Gene Hackman) against a new executive officer (Denzel Washington). The Washington character must de- cide whether to obey his superior officer and launch a nuclear “retaliation” against Russian rebels, risking total nuclear war, or to assume command of the submarine by force. All members of the crew must decide where their allegiance and duty lie. Relate this dramatic decision to the Milgram obedience studies and issues of compliance in groups. Consider the ethics of such a decision and how it was implemented.

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (2001). Fantasy/Drama; PG-13 Terrific screen adaptation of the first in a trilogy of the J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy epics. Analyze characters for their power resources. Are there any resistance or defiance strategies evi- dent? Consider the corrupting effects of power.

Morning Glory (2010). Comedy/Drama; PG-13 Workaholic Becky Fuller, played by Rachel McAdams, is the executive producer of a failing early morning network TV show called “Daybreak.” Desperate to raise the pathetic ratings of the show, she hires, under protest, egomaniacal news reporter Mike Pomeroy (Harrison

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 342 25/10/11 4:23 PM

A D D r e s s i n G P o w e r i m b A l A n C e s 343 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 343 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Ford) to co-host the show. Pomeroy views the job as distasteful and beneath him. Identify and analyze resistance strategies used by Pomeroy. Analyze the transactional nature of power between the McAdams and Ford characters. What are the power resources of each character?

The Great Debaters (2007). Drama; PG-13 African American poet Mel Tolson (Denzel Washington) forms a debate team at historically black Wiley College in the 1930s. Based on a true story, the Wiley College debate team achieves such distinction that it earns an opportunity to debate powerhouse Harvard University in 1935. Analyze the power dynamics of the debate team with Tolson as its coach. What power resources are used by each character? Are there any defiance or resistance strategies used?

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Cartoon (p. 310): 1, 2.

46850_ch09_ptg01_hr_300-343.indd 343 25/10/11 4:23 PM

◀ 344

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 344 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A. Definition of ConfliCt 1. General Definition:

Interconnectedness, Incompatibility, and Interference

2. Benefits of Conflict: Dissent Can Be Productive

3. Destructive and Constructive Conflict: It’s All in the Communication

▶ B. StyleS of ConfliCt MAnAgeMent 1. Collaborating: Problem Solving

a. Confrontation: Directly Addressing the Problem

b. Integration: Seeking Joint Gains

c. Smoothing: Calming Troubled Waters

2. Accommodating: Yielding

3. Compromising: Halving the Loaf

4. Avoiding: Withdrawing

Conflict Management in Groups

5. Competing: Power-Forcing

6. Comparing Styles: Likelihood of Success

▶ C. SituAtionAl fACtorS 1. Types of Conflict: Task,

Relationship, and Value

a. Task Conflict: Routine or Nonroutine

b. Relationship Conflict: It’s Personal

c. Values Conflict: Deeply Felt Struggles

Closer Look: KILL Radio Conflict Case Study

2. Culture and Conflict: Communication Differences

▶ D. negotiAting StrAtegieS 1. Tit for Tat: Do unto Others

2. Reformed Sinner: Spreading Redemption

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 344 25/10/11 9:04 PM

345 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 345 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Z oo

m /J

up ite

r Im

ag es

3. Positional Bargaining: Hard and Soft Negotiating

4. Principled Negotiation: Interest- Based Bargaining

a. The Four Principles: Appropriate Rules

b. Remaining Unconditionally Constructive: Sound Judgment

c. The BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

▶ e. Anger MAnAgeMent 1. Constructive and Destructive

Anger: Intensity and Duration

2. Managing Your Own Anger: Taking Control

3. Managing the Anger of Others: Communication Jujitsu

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 345 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 346 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 346 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 346 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

O nce upon a time, there was a quiet little condominium complex composed of 18 units beside a meandering creek in a forest set-ting. The residents enjoyed seeing the deer wander down in the evening from their habitat above the complex. Wildlife was abun-

dant. A climate of tranquility enveloped this special place.

Then one day, bulldozers and earthmovers of every variety rumbled in unan-

nounced. Peace and quiet were abruptly replaced by ear-splitting noise, incessant

vibration from the heavy equipment thundering back and forth across the once-

emerald terrain. Families residing in Village Haven were understandably shaken by

the realization that 32 additional units were about to be squeezed onto every speck of

available space a mere 30 feet across from the original 18 residences.

The situation did not improve once construction of the condos began. Residents

were awakened regularly at 6:30 a.m. on weekdays and sometimes on weekends to the

sounds of hammering, sawing, and shouting from workers. Cars previously parked

along the curb of the one-way road into and out of the complex had to be moved to

a small paved area in the center of the development where bulldozers and forklifts

whizzed by, showering the autos with dirt and debris. Tires were regularly punctured

by nails strewn across the road by careless workers. Huge trucks and construction

equipment frequently blocked the single-lane road into and out of the complex,

stranding residents in their cars, sometimes for 10 to 15 minutes. Residents occa-

sionally found pathways to their homes dangerous to traverse.

At one point, a signed message from the developer and contractor was taped to the

doors of the condos. Residents were instructed to remove their cars from the street

so “demolition and reconstruction” could take place. Residents were now ordered to

park their cars on a street overlooking the complex about two blocks up a very steep,

poorly lighted hill. During the demolition, two residents had stereos stolen out of

their cars while parked on this street. The homeowners as a group were not happy!

The inhabitants of Village Haven, working under the auspices of the complex’s

homeowners association, considered legal action, but ran into numerous tech-

nical and political roadblocks. The developer and the contractor were asked to

begin construction at 8 a.m. instead of 6:30 a.m. Residents were informed that

early starts were “the nature of construction” and couldn’t be changed. When

representatives of the association raised objections to the edict requiring removal

◀ 346

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 346 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 347 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

ConfliCt ManageMent in groups 347 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 347 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

of all cars to the street above, they were told that this was an unavoidable incon-

venience. Several residents got into shouting matches with the developer and the

contractor.

Vandalism started to crop up here and there. The professionally painted sign

at the entrance to the complex that read “Village Haven Forest Townhomes” was

painted over to read “Village of the Damned.” Another sign that read “Welcome to

Village Haven” was changed to read “Welcome to Hell.” Windows freshly installed in

new units were sporadically smashed. Security patrols were increased to thwart the

vandals, with little apparent success.

A few days after the message ordering the removal of all cars from paved areas

was attached to residents’ doors, a tongue-in-cheek message appeared on everyone’s

doorstep. Attributed to the contractor and developer (real author unknown), but

obviously intended as an underground satirical jibe at these two individuals, the mes-

sage was addressed to Village Haven residents and purported to answer complaints

from homeowners. The bogus message was signed under the names of the contractor

and developer, with the appellation “The Village Idiots” added.

Frustrated and weary, residents began listing their units for sale, but few potential

buyers were interested once they saw the 50 units crammed onto the once beautiful

and serene acreage. The project was finally completed; some of the original residents

left, but the animosities lingered.

The principal purpose of this chapter is to show you constructive ways to man- age a group conflict such as the Village Haven fracas. In previous chapters, sev- eral sources of conflict and their corresponding antidotes were discussed at length.

Briefly, these include:

Sources Solutions Competitive group climate Structure cooperative group climate

Defensive communication patterns Structure supportive communication

Self-centered disruptive roles Adopt strategies for dealing with difficult

group members

Imbalance of power Balance power among group members

Conflicts of interest Use integrative problem solving

Building on this foundation of previous discussion, there are three chapter objectives:

1. To define conflict, identifying the differences between its constructive and destructive form

2. To explain the pros and cons of five communication styles of conflict management 3. To discuss how to transact conflict effectively in small groups

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 347 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 348 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 348 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 348 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Definition of Conflict

The Village Haven case study (based on a real situation) provides us with a means

of explaining the general definition of conflict in a group context. In this section,

destructive conflict and constructive conflict are also differentiated.

▶ General Definition: Interconnectedness, Incompatibility, and Interference

In general, conflict is the expressed struggle of interconnected parties who per- ceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in attaining those goals

(Donohue & Kolt, 1992; Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). You can see all of the elements of

this definition in the Village Haven battle.

First, conflict is an expressed struggle between parties. If the homeowners of Vil-

lage Haven had merely sat and stewed over perceived outrages, then no conflict

would have existed because the developer and contractor wouldn’t have known there

was a problem. Often the expression of a struggle is manifested in shouting matches,

such as those that occurred between the residents of Village Haven and the developer

and contractor. Sometimes it is expressed more indirectly, such as the exchange of

written messages placed on residents’ doorsteps. Occasionally, the expression is of a

nonverbal nature. Vandalism and the reaction to it (beefed-up security) are examples

from the Village Haven conflict.

Second, conflict occurs between interconnected parties in a group system. This

means that for a conflict to exist, the behavior of one or more parties must produce

consequences for the other party or parties. The invasion of the bulldozers signifi-

cantly affected the residents of Village Haven. Likewise, the developer and contractor

could not completely ignore residents’ angry reactions.

Third, conflict involves perceived incompatible goals. The residents of Village

Haven would have preferred an 18-unit instead of a 50-unit complex. The developer

and contractor couldn’t make any money that way. The goal of the builders to erect

32 additional units collided squarely with the desire of the residents for a quiet, natu-

ral, uncrowded setting.

Finally, conflict involves interference from each other in attaining desired goals.

Unless one party attempts to block the attainment of another party’s goal, there is

no conflict. You and I may express a disagreement, be interconnected parties, and

we may even perceive our goals to be incompatible, yet conflict may not exist even

then. You may, in an act of pure selflessness, assist me in the attainment of my goal

at the expense of attaining your own goal. There must be an attempt to interfere with

another’s goal attainment for conflict to exist.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 348 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 349 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Definition of ConfliCt 349 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 349 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

In Village Haven, interference abounded. Builders interfered with residents’

tranquility and convenience and transformed the environment from a desirable,

low-density development to an undesirable, high-density development. Residents

interfered with builders in the form of verbal abuse and vandalism (again assuming

the culprits were residents).

▶ Benefits of Conflict: Dissent Can Be Productive Conflict is not an event that most people welcome, and residents of Village Haven

certainly didn’t seem thrilled by their battle with developers. Most conflict probably

seems destructive, given how poorly conflict is typically managed in groups, and a

high level of conflict can be counterproductive for groups because it can interfere

with task accomplishment. Low levels or the absence of conflict, however, can lead

to complacency and groupthink (Jehn, 1995). Moderate amounts of conflict can be a constructive force in groups if the conflict is managed competently. Conflict can instigate positive changes that foster individual and group growth, it can pro-

mote creative problem solving (Dovidio et al., 2009; Crano & Seyranian, 2009), it

can encourage power balancing, and conflict can even enhance group cohesiveness

(Nicotera, 1995). Conflict can also prevent groupthink (Jehn, 1995).

Previously, I discussed the value of a devil’s advocate in preventing groupthink.

A devil’s advocate introduces dissent to produce effective decision making and prob-

lem solving. In the absence of genuine dissent, a devil’s advocate plays an important

role for the group. Playing the part of a dissenter for argument’s sake and to stimu-

late processes that can short-circuit groupthink, however, is not genuine dissent and

it doesn’t have to provoke real conflict. A devil’s advocate doesn’t have to pursue

incompatible goals or interfere with the pursuit of those goals by others. A devil’s

advocate can introduce disagreement as a role play without personally advocating

such disagreement (“for the sake of argument”), and disagreement alone does not

constitute conflict (see definition).

Authentic dissent, on the other hand, is genuine disagreement and usually pro-

duces an attempt to take the group in a different direction (an expressed struggle).

Thus, authentic dissent can provoke real conflict and make group decision mak-

ing and problem solving more effective (Nemeth et al., 2001). Those who genuinely

disagree with the group tend to have a greater impact on the group’s final decisions

than a devil’s advocate might have. Authentic dissenters are usually more committed

to their disagreement with the group and more engaged than someone playing the

role of dissenter (devil’s advocate). Although this may make for a tougher decision

making process, the benefits of genuine dissent voiced directly for group discussion

can be substantial. Encouraging dissenting voices to be heard is very useful. How this

genuine dissent is communicated, of course, determines whether the conflict will be

constructive or destructive.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 349 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 350 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 350 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 350 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Destructive and Constructive Conflict: It’s All in the Communication

So what distinguishes destructive from constructive conflict? The principal dif- ference is how competent the communication is when transacting the conflict (Olson, 2002). Destructive conflict is characterized by dominating, escalating, retal- iating, competing, defensive, and inflexible communication patterns (Lulofs, 1994;

Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). When conflicts spiral out of control they push conflict to

unmanageable levels. Participants lose sight of their initial goals and focus on hurt-

ing their adversary.

The Village Haven conflict was essentially a destructive conflict. Escalation,

vandalism, threats, shouting, inflexibility on both sides, and expressions of contempt

and ridicule occurred. Neither side seemed able to work together to find a mutually

satisfactory solution to the conflict.

Recognizing destructive conflict while it is occurring may not always be easy.

When it becomes obvious to you that “Gee, I’m getting stupid,” you’re engaged in

destructive conflict (Donohue & Kolt, 1992). When you see yourself engaging in

petty, even infantile, tactics to win an argument, you’re getting stupid. Becom-

ing physically and verbally aggressive moves the conflict into destructive terri-

tory. This doesn’t mean that you can never raise your voice, express frustration,

or disagree with other group members. Conflict can remain constructive even

Destructive conflict is characterized by “getting stupid” with adversaries in a dispute. This often involves shouting, finger-pointing, and even physical violence.

To dd

B uc

ha na

n/ G

et ty

Im ag

En te

rt ai

nm en

t/ G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 350 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 351 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

styles of ConfliCt ManageMent 351 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 351 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

when discussion becomes somewhat contentious. When conflict becomes more emotional than reasonable, when you can’t think straight because you are too con-

sumed by anger, then conflict has become destructive (Fisher & Shapiro, 2005;

Gottman, 1994).

Constructive conflict is characterized by We-oriented, de-escalating, coop- erative, supportive, and flexible communication patterns (Lulofs, 1994; Wilmot &

Hocker, 2011). It is competent communication in action. The principal focus is on

trying to achieve a solution between struggling parties that is mutually satisfactory to

everyone. Even if no mutually satisfactory solution is achieved at the time, the com-

munication process that characterizes constructive conflict allows conflicting parties

to maintain cordial relationships while agreeing to disagree. This makes the ultimate

emergence of a creative solution that is mutually satisfactory to conflicting parties

more likely.

Styles of Conflict Management

Communication is central to conflict in groups. Our communication can signal that

conflict exists, it can create conflict, and it can be the means for managing conflict

constructively or destructively (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Consequently, communi-

cation styles have been the center of much research and discussion. A communica- tion style of conflict management is an orientation toward conflict. Styles exhibit predispositions or tendencies regarding the way conflict is managed in groups. In-

dividual group members may exhibit a specific style or an entire group may adopt

a normative preference for a certain style of conflict management (Kuhn & Poole,

2000). There are five communication styles of conflict management (Blake &

Mouton, 1964; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). I will explain each of the five styles and

add some modifications of the original theoretical descriptions.

Let me offer one quick clarification. I have chosen the term conflict “manage-

ment” instead of “resolution” in most instances because it is more appropriate

for a systems perspective. Resolution suggests settling conflict by ending it, as if

that is always desirable. Since conflict can be an essential catalyst for growth in a system, increasing conflict may be required to evoke change (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Civil rights demonstrators purposely provoked conflict to

challenge racist laws in the South. Women who file sexual harassment lawsuits

provoke conflict to end an evil. “Managing conflict” implies no end to the strug-

gle. Although some conflict episodes end within a group and are therefore re-

solved, conflict overall in a system is a continuous phenomenon that waxes and

wanes. Management of conflict also implies no judgment on the goodness or

badness of struggles in general.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 351 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 352 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 352 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 352 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Focus Questions

1. How do communication styles of conflict management differ on task and social dimensions of small groups?

2. Should group members always use the collaborating style and avoid the competing (power-forcing) style?

▶ Collaborating: Problem Solving The most complex and potentially productive communication style of conflict

management is collaborating, or what some refer to as problem solving. The col- laborating style is a win–win, cooperative approach to conflict. It attempts to satisfy all parties. Someone employing this style has a high concern for both task and social relationships in groups. The collaborating style recognizes the interconnec- tion between the task and social components of groups and deals directly with both

requirements. A collaborating style has three key components: confrontation, integration, and smoothing.

Confrontation: Directly Addressing the Problem The overt recognition that conflict exists in a group and the direct effort to manage it effectively is called con- frontation. Although the news media are fond of using the term confrontation in a negative sense, as in “There was a violent confrontation between protesters and

police,” this is not the meaning relevant to this discussion. Confrontation as a

conflict-management technique incorporates all the elements already discussed at

length regarding assertiveness (describe, express, specify, and identify consequences)

and supportive communication patterns (description, problem orientation, etc.).

The purpose of confrontation is to manage conflict in a productive way for all par-

ties involved.

Not all issues are worth confronting. Members who confront even trivial differ- ences of opinion or can’t let a momentary flash of pique go unattended can be like

telemarketers at the dinner hour—beyond annoying. Groups have to decide which

issues and concerns are priorities and which are tangential. You can overuse confron-

tation and make yourself a nuisance.

Integration: Seeking Joint Gains A collaborative technique that devises creative solutions that are mutually satisfactory for all parties in conflict is called integration.

Since integrative solutions to problems were discussed in Chapter 8, they will not

be repeated here. Integration as a collaborative technique, however, has not been

given the attention that it deserves. Negotiators in organizations are typically better

at maximizing their own gains (competitive) than they are at maximizing joint gains

(integrative) (Brett et al., 1990). Also, negotiators tend to reach agreement on the

first satisfactory proposal that comes along rather than looking for a better solution

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 352 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 353 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

styles of ConfliCt ManageMent 353 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 353 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

(Pruitt, 1981). Training through lecture, reading, and exercises can vastly improve

integrative skills of group members (Neale et al., 1988). Programs that provide ex-

tensive training for students on how to negotiate integrative agreements have proved

to be highly effective (Johnson & Johnson, 2000).

Smoothing: Calming Troubled Waters The act of calming the agitated feelings of group members during a conflict episode is called smoothing. When tempers ignite and anger morphs into screaming and shedding of tears, no collaboration is

possible. Turbulent emotions need to be smoothed. A simple “I’m sorry” is a useful

smoothing response. “Let’s all calm down. Attacking each other won’t help us find a

solution everyone can accept” is another example of smoothing. Calming the emo-

tional storm opens the way to confronting conflict and brainstorming integrative

solutions.

Since collaborating is such an effective communication style for solving conflicts

of interest, why isn’t it always used in these situations? There are several reasons.

First, collaborating usually requires a significant investment of time and effort along with greater-than-ordinary communication skills. Even if you are willing to employ the collaborating techniques of confrontation, integration, and smoothing,

collaborating requires mutually agreeable parties. I have witnessed several instances

in which an integrative solution was devised, but the group rejected it because the

members disliked the person who originated the proposal. Second, collaboration is built on trust. If parties are suspicious of each other and worry that one will betray the other by not honoring agreements, then even an integrative solution may be

rejected. Third, parties in a conflict sometimes do not share the same emotional investment in finding an agreeable solution for all involved. Hypercompetitive group members want a clear “victory,” not a mutually satisfactory solution that ben-

efits all parties.

▶ Accommodating: Yielding The accommodating style yields to the concerns and desires of others. Someone using this style shows a high concern for social relationships but low concern for task accomplishment. This style may camouflage deep divisions among group members to maintain the appearance of harmony. If the task can be accomplished

without social disruption, fine. If accomplishing the task threatens to jeopardize the

harmonious relationships within the group, however, a person using this style will

opt for giving members what they want, even though this may sacrifice productivity.

Generally, group members with less power are expected to accommodate more often

and to a greater degree than more powerful members (Lulofs, 1994).

Although we tend to view accommodating in a negative light, as appeasement

with all its negative connotations, this style can be quite positive. A group that has

experienced protracted strife may rejoice when one side accommodates, even on an

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 353 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 354 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 354 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 354 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

issue of only minor importance. Yielding on issues of incidental concern to your group but of major concern to other parties while holding firm on issues of im- portance to your group usually achieves mutually advantageous outcomes (Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Mannix et al., 1989).

▶ Compromising: Halving the Loaf When compromising, we give up something to get something. Some have referred to this as a lose–lose style of conflict management because neither party is ever fully

satisfied with the solution. Compromising is choosing a middle ground. Someone using this style shows a moderate concern for both task and social relationships in groups. The emphasis is on workable but not necessarily optimal solutions.

Compromise evokes ambivalence—both negative and positive reactions. We

speak disparagingly of those who would “compromise their integrity.” On some is-

sues, usually moral or ethical conflicts such as abortion or capital punishment, com-

promise is thought to be intolerable. Yet despite this negative view of compromise,

negotiations of labor–management contracts and political agreements are expected,

even encouraged, to end in compromise. Members of task forces, ad hoc groups, and

committees of many shapes and sizes often seek a compromise as an admirable goal

(“There has to be some give and take”).

Half a loaf is better than starvation—not in all circumstances, but certainly in

some. When an integrative solution cannot be achieved, when a temporary settle- ment is the only feasible alternative, or when the issues involved are not consid- ered critical to the group, compromise can be useful.

▶ Avoiding: Withdrawing Avoiding is a communicating style of withdrawing from potentially contentious and unpleasant struggles. Groups typically change the subject under discussion soon af-

ter a period of disagreement among members (Gouran & Baird, 1972). Flights from

fights may seem constructive at the time because they circumvent unpleasantness.

In the long run, however, facing problems proves to be more effective than run-

ning from them. Someone using the avoiding conflict style shows little concern for both task and social relationships in groups. Avoiders shrink from conflict, even fear it (“I can’t deal with this”). By avoiding conflict they hope it will disappear.

Group tasks are sacrificed to a preoccupation with dodging trouble. Social relation-

ships within the group have scant possibility of improving when the conflict distorts

the behavior of those doing the avoiding. Avoiding may actually increase relationship

conflict (Impett et al., 2005).

Avoiding, nevertheless, is sometimes appropriate. If you are a low-power per- son in a group and the consequences of confrontation are potentially hazardous to

you, avoiding might be a reasonable strategy until other alternatives present them-

selves. Standing up to a bully may work out well in movies, but confronting antisocial

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 354 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 355 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

styles of ConfliCt ManageMent 355 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 355 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

types (workplace bullies) who look like they eat raw meat for breakfast and might eat

you for lunch may not be a very bright choice. Staying out of a bully’s way, although

perhaps ego-deflating, may be the best temporary option in a bad situation.

If the advantages of confrontation do not outweigh the disadvantages, avoid- ing the conflict might be a desirable course of action. In some cases, tempers need to cool. Avoiding contentious issues for a time may prove to be constructive. (“Let’s

deal with this later when we’ve had a chance to simmer down a bit, okay? We can

think more clearly when we aren’t upset.”) When passions run high, reason usu-

ally trails far behind. We often make foolish, irrational choices when we are highly

stressed.

In most cases, avoiding rather than confronting is highly counterproductive. Fail-

ure to address conflict early on can lead to destructive conflict later, while address-

ing conflict effectively early on usually prevents escalation into destructive conflict

This cartoon illustrates which of the conflict management styles? 1. Power-forcing 2. Accommodating 3. Compromising 4. Avoiding

Answers are given at end of chapter.

Th e

N ew

Y or

ke r

C ol

le ct

io n

19 95

T om

C he

ne y

fr om

c ar

to on

ba nk

.c om

. A ll

R ig

ht s

R es

er ve

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 355 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 356 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 356 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 356 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

(Behfar et al., 2008; Greer et al., 2008). From their research on family violence, Gelles

and Straus (1988) suggest confronting the very first incident of even minor violence,

not avoiding the issue while waiting to see if it happens again. They conclude: “De-

laying until the violence escalates to a frequency or severity that would generally be

considered abusive is too late. A firm, emphatic, and rational approach appears to

be the most effective personal strategy a woman can use to prevent future violence”

(p. 159). “Don’t ever again lay a hand on me in anger—EVER!” makes the point

firmly and emphatically.

▶ Competing: Power-Forcing When we approach conflict as a win–lose contest, we are competing. The compet-

ing style is communicated in a variety of ways that are likely to produce destructive

conflict: threats, criticism, contempt, hostile remarks and jokes, sarcasm, ridicule,

intimidation, faultfinding and blaming, and denials of responsibility (Wilmot &

Hocker, 2011). The competing style is aggressive, not assertive. It is not confron-

tation as previously defined; it is an attack. The competing or power-forcing style

flows from the dominance perspective on power. Competing and forcing your will on others is a win–lose style. Someone using a competing or forcing style shows high concern for task but low concern for relationships in groups. Task comes first. If accomplishing the group task requires a few wounded egos, that is thought to

be the unavoidable price of productivity. Someone using the competing/forcing style

sees task accomplishment as a means of furthering personal more than group goals

(Me-Not-We orientation). Making friends and developing a positive social climate

are secondary and expendable.

One notable aspect of the competing style is the tendency to ascribe blame when

groups don’t function perfectly. Blame “produces disagreement, denial, and little

learning. It evokes fears of punishment . . . Nobody wants to be blamed, especially

unfairly, so our energy goes into defending ourselves” (Stone et al., 1999, pp. 11–12).

Blame is about looking backward to judge a group member. “You blew it” or “It’s

your fault” is blame aimed at assigning responsibility, not on solving the problem.

As with all other styles, the competing style also has its constructive side. If a troublemaker in your group shows no signs of ending disruptions and the serious-

ness of the situation is clear, then forcing out this difficult member may be the cor-

rect choice. Eliminating a troublemaker can revitalize the remaining members and

allow progress on the task to proceed unimpeded.

All five styles of conflict management show different emphases on task and so-

cial dimensions of groups. Nevertheless, someone using the competing style may,

in some circumstances, manifest genuine concern for social climate. Low concern

doesn’t mean no concern. An accommodator, on occasion, may regard the task ac-

complishment as vital. All of these styles represent tendencies, not unalterably fixed

ways of managing conflict in every situation.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 356 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 357 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

styles of ConfliCt ManageMent 357 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 357 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Comparing Styles: Likelihood of Success As a general rule, research clearly favors some conflict styles over others, even though more than one style may need to be used, perhaps by a single group member, over the course of a conflict (see Closer Look: “KILL Radio Conflict Case Study”). Collabo- rating is the most constructive and effective style of conflict management (DeChurch

et al., 2007; Kuhn & Poole, 2000). Impressive field research on a program called Peace-

makers, involving students from kindergarten to ninth grade, supports the efficacy of

the collaborative method of conflict management. The Peacemaker program specializes

in training students in schools throughout North America, Europe, Asia, Central and

South America, the Middle East, and Africa to use the collaborative method of conflict

management. A review of 17 studies on the Peacemaker program shows that trained

students almost always used the method in actual conflict incidents both at school and

at home. As a result, student conflicts referred to teachers for resolution were reduced

by 80% and referrals to the school principal were reduced to zero. Conflicts between

students became less severe and destructive (Johnson & Johnson, 2000).

Overall, the collaborating style in a variety of contexts produces the best decisions

and greatest satisfaction from parties in conflict, and the competing/forcing style is

least effective. Collaborating encourages constructive conflict; competing tends to

promote destructive conflict (Isenhart & Spangle, 2000).

Despite the clear benefits of the collaborating style, the disadvantages of the com-

peting style, and mixed results for the other three styles, we seem to use the least effective styles most often to manage conflict in groups. Students who were not trained to use collaboration in the Peacemakers experiments never used integrative

negotiations, rarely used accommodation, and most often chose the competing or

avoiding styles. Consequently, they left many conflicts to fester, and they experienced

mostly negative outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Studies of doctor-nurse abuse

SECOND LOOK

Communication Styles of Conflict Management Style Task–Social Dimension

Collaborating (Problem Solving) High task, high social

Accommodating (Yielding) Low task, high social

Compromising (Halving the Loaf) Moderate task, moderate social

Avoiding (Withdrawing) Low task, low social

Competing (Power-Forcing) High task, low social

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 357 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 358 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 358 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 358 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

found that avoidance was a chief style used by nurses (Johnson, 2009; Maxfield et al.,

2005). One study showed that fewer than 7% of nurses confronted abusive doctors

(Maxfield et al., 2005). “The Silence Kills study found countless examples of caregiv-

ers who delayed action, withheld feedback or went along with erroneous diagnoses

rather than face potential abuse from a colleague” (Grenny, 2009). One study com-

pared collaboration and power-forcing styles in 52 conflict cases in the workplace.

Forcing was used twice as often as collaboration, yet in about half the situations in

which forcing was used the outcomes were bad, whereas in all instances in which

integrative problem solving was used the outcomes were good (Phillips & Cheston,

1979). In another study, a scant 5% of first-line supervisors, middle managers, and

top managers and administrators admitted to actually using the collaborating style

in specific conflict situations; 41% selected competing and 26% chose avoiding styles

(Gayle, 1991). Both male and female supervisors and managers, according to this

study, typically select the least effective styles of conflict management.

Even if the style with the greatest likelihood of success is chosen, when and how it is used must also be figured into the equation. Confrontation used as a collaborative tactic can be highly effective, but it is not effective when used in a

hit-and-run fashion (Johnson & Johnson, 1987a). Confronting contentious is-

sues five minutes before the group is due to adjourn or just before you leave for

a luncheon date provides no time for another person to respond constructively.

Hit-and-run confrontations look like guerrilla tactics, not attempts to communi- cate competently and work out disputes. Likewise, when to use power-forcing is an

important concern. Competing/power-forcing is a style of last resort, except in times of emergencies in which quick, decisive action must be taken and discus- sion has no place. If all other approaches to managing conflict produce little result, then competing may be a necessary means of managing the dispute. Power-forcing

typically produces psychological reactance. If you try to force, are met with resis-

tance, then attempt to collaborate or accommodate, you may find that this sequence

of styles suffers from poor timing. Trying to collaborate after unsuccessfully forc-

ing will be seen as the disingenuous act of a person whose bluff and bluster were

challenged. On the other hand, temporarily withdrawing after a protracted feud has

stalemated might allow heads to clear and passions to cool. Sometimes we just need

a break from the struggle, a chance to think calmly and dispassionately.

Situational Factors

Although some conflict styles have a higher probability of effectiveness than others,

the choice of styles always operates within a context. To understand how to trans-

act conflict effectively in a small group context, certain situational factors should be

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 358 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 359 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

situational faCtors 359 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 359 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

considered, such as the type of conflict and cultural views of conflict-management

communication styles.

Focus Questions

1. How do group members short-circuit conflict spirals?

2. Why is principled negotiation superior to other negotiating strategies?

▶ Types of Conflict: Task, Relationship, and Value There are several types of conflicts, and we shouldn’t attempt to handle them all ex-

actly the same. Communication styles of conflict management have to be adapted to

the different types of conflict to be appropriate and effective.

Task Conflict: Routine or Nonroutine Whether conflicts regarding group tasks are beneficial or detrimental depends largely on the type of task, routine or nonrou-

tine, performed by the group. A routine task is one in which the group performs processes and procedures that have little variability and little likelihood of change.

A nonroutine task is one that requires problem solving, has few set procedures, and has a high level of uncertainty. Conflicts about routine tasks often have a nega- tive effect on group performance, while conflicts about nonroutine tasks often have a positive effect (Jehn, 1995). Conflicts regarding routine tasks easily dete- riorate into gripe sessions with little opportunity for resolution. As one participant

in Jehn’s (1995) study noted: “We seem to fight about these things (routine tasks)

and they typically can’t be changed because that’s the way the job has to be done.

So the arguments just seem to get in the way of the work” (p. 272). Conflicts about

nonroutine tasks, however, promote “critical evaluation of problems and decision

options, a process crucial to the performance of nonroutine tasks” (p. 275). These

positive results, of course, are predicated on group members choosing a collaborative

(problem-solving) style rather than a competing style.

Relationship Conflict: It’s Personal Conflicts are not always about task ac- complishment; some are about relationships between and among group members.

Group members don’t always get along well together because of interpersonal in-

compatibilities. Some of the most frustrating and volatile conflicts are provoked

by personality clashes and outright dislike between group members (Varela et al.,

2008). Roommate conflicts are a typical instance. A survey of 31,000 first-year

college students conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA

reported that 29% experienced conflicts with roommates (Warters, 2005), and liv-

ing situations with multiple roommates can increase the complexity of such con-

flicts. You may simply not like your roommates and this produces tension and

disagreements.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 359 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 360 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 360 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 360 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Participants in the Jehn (1995) study expressed strong frustration with relation-

ship conflicts of this ilk. One person offered, “Trina and I don’t get along. We never

will get along. We dislike each other and that’s all there is to it” (p. 271). Another par-

ticipant said, “Personality conflicts, personality conflicts. I can’t handle it” (p. 271).

The competing/forcing style tends to provoke relationship conflict when none

may have initially existed, while the collaborating style does not (DeChurch et al.,

2007). Trying to force your will upon roommates, for example, may trigger dislike

among all parties and lead to future discord and recurring battles. Approaching dis-

agreements from a collaborative perspective may prevent relationship conflict from

occurring. If not, avoidance may be your next best alternative. Typically, individ-

uals try to avoid each other when personality clashes and outright dislike emerge

(Jehn, 1995). They may even redesign their workspace or job to avoid such conflicts.

You may avoid much contact with disliked roommates until a more favorable living

arrangement emerges.

In actual practice, we do make style choices in terms of our relationships with

other parties. Managers typically are accommodating with superiors (“Yes, I will get

that report to you by tomorrow”) and compromising with peers (“Let’s split the work

load equally between us”) (Rahim, 1985). The reality of power imbalances sometimes

makes choosing accommodation a matter of self-preservation. Lower-power group

members may want to collaborate. Dominating, high-power group members may

see little need to collaborate since they can impose their will on other group members

(“Do it because I say so”). Granted, power-forcing may be an unwise choice for the

powerful parties in the long run, but it may be an unavoidable reality you have to face

if you’re the lower-power person in a conflict.

If a relationship is one of trust and cooperation, regardless of the power dis- parities, then collaborating has real potential. In one study (Tjosvold, 1986), high- power supervisors in cooperative environments actually used their power to assist

subordinates (“Let me see what I can do to get that information for you so your re-

port can be completed on time”). This was not so true in environments characterized

by a competitive or individualistic climate (“Why should I do your work for you?”).

If a relationship is one of mistrust and suspicion, then collaborating will be difficult.

Power-forcing is the style of choice among supervisors dealing with subordinates

they do not trust (Riccillo & Trenholm, 1983).

In relationships poisoned by mistrust, a collaborative attempt by one party may

be seen as a ploy to gain some unforeseen advantage. Accommodating by one party,

even as a gesture to change the negative dynamics of the parties in conflict, may be

viewed as weakness and a sign that capitulation is likely to occur after a period of

waiting.

Recognizing the interconnectedness of task and relationship dimensions of groups can be critical when conflict arises (see Closer Look: “KILL Radio Conflict Case Study”). A conflict initially about task accomplishment can easily morph into

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 360 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 361 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

situational faCtors 361 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 361 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CLOSER LOOK

KILL Radio Conflict Case Study

The situation (based on a real event): Open warfare has been raging for almost a year at public radio station K-I-L-L (slogan: “Live ra- dio that’ll knock you dead”). The station operates from facilities on the campus of Bayview Commu- nity College in Tsunami, California. KILL radio has 1,000 watts of power, enough to reach into the local Tsunami community (population 42,000).

The program director quit after a feud with the general manager (GM). The GM resigned soon after. His reasons for leaving, stated in his letter of resignation, were as follows:

1. The volunteer staff (community members who were not students) inappropriately edi- torialized while reading news on the air and presented only one side on controversial is- sues; both are violations of Federal Commu- nications Commission (FCC) regulations for public radio stations.

2. The volunteers were “insubordinate” when they refused to obey his directives concerning substi- tution of other programs for previously sched- uled regular shows.

3. The volunteers threatened him with bodily injury when he ordered them either to imple- ment his directives or terminate their associa- tion with the station.

The volunteer staff countered these allega- tions with its own accusations: the GM showed them little respect and treated them abusively; they were overworked and underappreciated; and the GM never sought their input on pro- gramming and scheduling concerns.

The volunteers issued the following demands:

1. Programming should not be determined by one person, but by a consensus of the staff.

2. Program substitution should be made only when prior notice (at least two weeks in ad- vance) has been given so staff members will not prepare material destined to be preempted at the last minute.

3. Volunteers should run the station since they do the lion’s share of the work and are the only ones with the necessary technical expertise.

The college supports the station with $85,000 annually, but is seriously considering a drastic cut in the station’s budget due to the persis- tent conflict and because students are not ac- tively involved in the station. The administration wants the station to be a learning laboratory for students interested in pursuing careers in broadcasting.

The volunteer staff has threatened to quit en masse unless their demands are met. The school’s board of trustees is getting twitchy be- cause of all the commotion; the faculty in the de- partment of mass communication are in a dither about the conflict because it is disruptive. The local community highly values the station and is upset by the dispute. The college administration named the chair of the mass communication de- partment at Bayview College as the new general manager and temporary program director of the station.

Before reading further, analyze this dispute. How would you manage this conflict if you were the new GM? Which conflict styles would you employ? When? How?

The Analysis: The KILL radio dispute is a power struggle. Competing/forcing has become the

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 361 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 362 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 362 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 362 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

primary style of managing the conflict. The pre- vious GM threatened the staff with termination and the staff threatened the GM with bodily in- jury. So far, the power-forcing style has produced two resignations, the threat of a mass exodus by the staff, several demands from the staff, and a reservoir of ill feeling and disruption. If you, as the new GM, were to continue in this vein by terminating the volunteer staff, you might ignite a conflict spiral. Disgruntled volunteers might vandalize the station in retaliation, and relations between the college and the community would be strained further. The station would have to shut down until qualified staff could be found to replace those individuals terminated. In such an atmosphere, the board and administration just might decide to close the station permanently and cut their losses.

Since the staff has not been actively consulted in the past regarding programming (at least that’s the allegation, and perception is the re- ality you must confront), the climate is one of control, not problem orientation. The staff feels disconfirmed and defensive. The perception ex- ists among them that the previous GM treated them as expendable technicians, not talented employees worthy of respect. A task conflict spilled over into a relationship conflict.

This situation cries out for collaboration. The first step is confrontation. The new GM should immediately meet with the volunteers, probably individually first, to gather information from their perspective. Staff members feel unappre- ciated and undervalued. Supportive, confirming statements concerning the essential role volun- teers play in the functioning of the station should be made to all involved. Smoothing statements (e.g., “We’re starting fresh. I want us to work to- gether”) should be delivered to the staff. You’re seeking a cooperative working relationship with the volunteers.

In keeping with the desire for cooperation, an appeal to the superordinate goal of keeping the station on the air should be delivered. The new GM must impress on the staff that violations of FCC regulations could result in the revocation of the station’s operating license. This is not a mat- ter of personal preference but of law. The GM could further state, “Unless we handle our differ- ences constructively, the college may shut down the station. None of us wants this to happen.” There should be no threats about firing anyone. The tone and climate should be positive and focused on the central cooperative goal all can agree to—namely, maintaining the station.

Although final say on the programming issue is the GM’s responsibility, input from the staff should be sought actively and given serious con- sideration. After all, the staff has to make the programming work on the air. That’s difficult to accomplish if you’d like to play rhythm and blues but are ordered to play country western. The staff could conduct a survey of the community (this is a public radio station) to determine the programming preferences of the station’s audi- ence. The GM could then make programming decisions based on data from the survey and not on personal tastes of a single individual or the (possibly narrow) preferences of the staff. One or two experimental programs could be tried as a compromise if community preferences do not match staff preferences in programming. Some compromise may be possible on program sub- stitution (perhaps one week prior notice, not two weeks as demanded).

Integrating the radio station into the college curriculum should be a fairly simple process. In- volving students in the actual operation of the station, perhaps as supervised interns earning class credit, would satisfy a primary concern of the administration and board. This would also expand the resources of the station by training

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 362 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 363 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

situational faCtors 363 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 363 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

additional individuals to help staff members who already feel overworked.

Finally, the demand that the volunteers run the station would have to be denied. More than likely, however, this demand was made without any expectation that it would be accepted. Avoid this issue unless a staff member raises it. Power- forcing would be required if this issue came to a showdown. Handling other issues effectively may reduce this issue to irrelevance. If disrup- tions or violations of FCC regulations recur, then those responsible should be terminated.

The key to the management of this conflict by a competent communicator is the flexible use of several conflict styles. No single style alone could effectively manage this complex dispute. The overriding conflict style, however, is col- laboration. You begin by confronting central concerns of disputing parties, not competing/ forcing. You find integrative solutions where

possible. Termination (power-forcing) is a last resort, not a first choice. You compromise only when a better solution cannot be found. You smooth hurt feelings because a supportive en- vironment is essential to the management of conflict. You avoid emotional issues that seem tangential to the real sources of the conflict and are likely to provoke a power struggle and rela- tional conflict.

None of these styles of conflict management, of course, will work unless you think through each step before you take it (act, don’t just react). The competent communicator must have knowl- edge of different conflict styles, the skill to use all the styles, a sensitivity for the requirements of the specific situation and the likely outcomes of each choice made, and a commitment to resolv- ing the dispute as equitably and ethically as pos- sible. Complex conflicts require sufficient time to be resolved. This means patience.

Questions for Thought 1. Before you read the analysis of this case study, what action would you have proposed to resolve the conflict?

In what ways were your proposals different from the ones suggested in the analysis?

2. Do you disagree with any suggestions provided in the analysis? Explain.

mostly a relationship conflict, especially if task accomplishment is affected (Jehn,

1995). Establishing trust among group members is a key component necessary to

prevent task conflict from mutating into relationship conflict (Curseu & Schruijer

2010). When working on a group project for class, some group members may ex-

hibit social loafing. Such lackluster effort on a task from some members can trigger

relationship conflict. Those members who wish to achieve a high grade may lash out

at members who do not produce for the group. They don’t trust some group mem-

bers to fulfill their responsibilities to the group. Anger can erupt, and relationship

conflict can escalate into destructive conflict and poor overall group performance

on the project. Relationship conflict often diminishes group productivity on tasks

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 363 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 364 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 364 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 364 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

(Curseu & Schruijer, 2010; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Free expression of conflict-

ing ideas in groups can be constructive and prevent groupthink, but not if such

disagreement erupts into personal squabbles and divisive quarrels (Kozlowski &

Ilgen, 2006).

Values Conflict: Deeply Felt Struggles The most difficult disputes to manage are values conflicts (Borisoff & Victor, 1989). Values are the most deeply felt views of what is deemed good, worthwhile, or ethically right. We may clash over beliefs

and still walk away as friends, especially if the ideas do not touch much on values.

Beliefs are what we think is true or probable. “Republicans favor big business” or “Democrats are beholden to labor” are beliefs that don’t ordinarily degenerate into

fistfights or verbal assaults. When disputes about beliefs spill over into value clashes,

especially when the values are held passionately, then you have a conflict of a differ-

ent ilk. Battles over abortion, pornography, flag burning, hate speech, and the like

are fundamentally about values such as freedom, right to privacy, and equality. Such

conflicts do not lend themselves much to compromise (would you compromise your

values?). When dichotomous battle lines are drawn—friends versus enemies, saviors

versus sinners—power-forcing is often the style required for conflict management.

The courts have had to settle these issues by declaring what is permissible, even es-

sential, and what is prohibited.

Values conflicts are especially difficult to manage when members of different cultures clash over divergent worldviews. Rubenstein (1975) presented a hypo- thetical situation to Arabs and Americans. Suppose that a small boat is occupied by a

man and his wife, his mother, and his child when it capsizes. The man is the only oc-

cupant who can swim. He can save only one of the three nonswimmers. Which per-

son should he save? All of the Arabs surveyed by Rubenstein would save the mother

because a wife and child can be replaced, but not a mother. Sixty of 100 American

college freshmen, however, would save the wife, and 40 would save the child. Saving

the mother while sacrificing the wife and child was thought to be laughable. Who

has the greatest value among the three is a cultural conundrum. Intercultural values

conflicts are probably the most difficult to manage (see the next section for tips on

managing intercultural value conflicts).

▶ Culture and Conflict: Communication Differences Individualist and collectivist cultures exhibit a specific difference in communica-

tion patterns. Individualist cultures such as the United States and most Western

European countries typically employ what Hall (1981) calls low-context communi-

cation, while collectivist countries such as most Latin American and Asian countries

use a high-context communication (Griffin, 1994). Low-context communication has a message-content orientation and high-context communication has a message- context orientation. “In low-context communication, the listener knows very little

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 364 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 365 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

situational faCtors 365 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 365 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

and must be told practically everything. In high-context communication, the listener

is already ‘contexted’ and does not need to be given much background information”

(Hall & Hall, 1987, p. 183).

The primary difference between the two is exhibited in verbal expression. Low-context communication is verbally precise, direct, literal, and explicit. A legal

contract is an example of low-context communication. Instructions given to com-

puters and e-mail addresses are also examples of low-context communication. Com-

puter instructions must be exact for the computer to function as you desire, and

e-mail addresses must have every space, number, period, and letter typed exactly.

High-context communication is indirect, imprecise, and implicit. For example, an

indirect verbal expression, such as “I’ll think about it,” may be a face-saving means

of saying no in Japan, or it may be assumed that no verbal expression is required to

state what should be obvious from the nonverbal context. You are expected to “read

between the lines” by recognizing hints and knowing the cultural context and unspo-

ken rules, rituals, and norms.

The difference between the hi- and low-context communication styles is aptly

expressed by a Japanese manager working in the United States, “When we say one

word, we understand 10, but here you have to say 10 to understand one” (quoted

in Kameda, 2003). For example, here is a typical English message written by a Jap-

anese manager: “Our office has moved to Kawasaki. I’m going to buy a Honda.”

To Americans, this may seem to be two disconnected sentences. To a Japanese, the

meaning is obvious: “Our office has moved to Kawasaki. It’s too far from the station

to walk, so I’ll have to buy a car. I’m thinking of getting a Honda” (Kameda, 2003).

“If you hear ‘one’ part of a message you are supposed to understand all the other

unsaid ‘nine’ so that with ‘one’ part you must understand the whole ‘ten’ parts” (Ka-

meda, 2007).

Individualist and collectivist values significantly affect the communication styles

of conflict management chosen when conflict occurs (Ting-Toomey & Chung,

2005). Individualist, low-context cultures favor direct competitive or compro- mising styles of conflict management (Cupach & Canary, 1997). Communica- tion during conflict is explicit and direct, sometimes “brutally honest” (Holtgraves,

1997). Americans are inclined to become impatient when members of collectivist

cultures “beat around the bush.” Allowing a conflict to go unresolved makes most

Americans uncomfortable, even agitated. Collectivist, high-context cultures favor

avoiding or accommodating styles of conflict management (Chen & Starosta, 1998).

Assertive confrontation is considered rude and offensive. It is too direct, explicit,

and unsettling. For example, avoidance of confrontation is “a core element of Thai

culture. Expressions of emotion and excitement are seen as impolite, improper,

and threatening” (Knutson & Posirisuk, 2006, p. 211). A Thai avoids conflict and

exhibits respect, tactfulness, politeness, modesty, and emotional control (Knutson

et al., 2003). Similarly, the collectivist Malaysian culture values harmony, eschews

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 365 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 366 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 366 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 366 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

SECOND LOOK

General Conditions for Communication Styles of Conflict Management Appropriate Inappropriate

Collaborating Complex issues Trivial issues

First approach Last resort (unlikely

to work)

Ample time

Accommodating Trivial issues Complex issues

Issues significant only

to one side

Issues significant

to all parties

Maintaining close

relationships (especially

collectivist cultures)

Social relationships

temporary

Large power imbalance Relatively equal power

Compromising No integrative solution

available

Initial goal

Temporary solution

better than no agreement

Giving up too soon on

critical issues

Avoiding Issues are trivial Issues are significant

Hazardous to confront Ignoring disagreements

may damage social

relationships

Need temporary break May increase anger by

ignoring issues

Competing Timely decision required Time not a constraint

Last resort First option

Disruptive member

unresponsive to other

approaches

Concern for positive

social relations critical

(especially collectivist

cultures)

See also Rahim (2002).

assertiveness, and values face saving. Power-forcing is rarely used because it is per-

ceived to be too aggressive (Rose et al., 2007).

Consider a comparison between typical Chinese and American approaches to

conflict. The Chinese culture, for example, considers “harmony as the universal path

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 366 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 367 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

negotiating strategies 367 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 367 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

which we all should pursue” (Chen & Starosta, 1997, p. 6). This philosophy trans-

lates into avoiding conflicts that might stir up trouble and disharmony. Conflicts

handled ineptly might bring shame on the individual and the entire group. Thus,

while Americans tend to focus immediately on task conflicts, Chinese tend to focus

on relationship conflicts and avoid task conflicts until the relationships among all

disputing parties have had time to build (Jehn & Weldon, 1997). To Americans this

may look like stalling to gain advantage.

Conflicts with individuals from other cultures (outgroups), however, are often handled differently in collectivist cultures than are conflicts within the culture (ingroup). Although not the initial choice, competing (power-forcing) is not an un- common way to approach conflict with outsiders, especially if the interests of the

opposing parties are highly incompatible. Vicious quarrels, even physical fights, are

not uncommon in such circumstances (Chen & Starosta, 1998; Yu, 1998).

Managing intercultural conflicts is challenging where expectations differ on the

appropriateness of different communication styles. Remaining flexible by employing

a style that is well suited to cultural expectations is a key to effective conflict manage-

ment in such situations (Knutson et al., 2003). Don’t abandon collaborating, but be

prepared to accommodate whenever appropriate if group conflict involves members

of collectivist cultures. Also recognize that competing/power-forcing is ineffective

and inappropriate in most intercultural conflicts.

Negotiating Strategies

Negotiation is “a process by which a joint decision is made by two or more parties” (Pruitt, 1981, p. 1). Negotiating strategies are the ways we transact these joint decisions when conflicts arise. In this section, commonly used strategies for nego- tiating conflict are discussed.

▶ Tit for Tat: Do unto Others The tit-for-tat strategy begins with an act of cooperating, and if the other party or

parties in the negotiation follow suit and cooperate, you continue to do the same

(you reciprocate). If, however, the other party competes after your initial cooperative

offer, then you match them by competing (again you reciprocate).

Those who tout tit for tat (Axelrod, 1984) can make a case for the utility of the

strategy when cooperation does occur. Tit for tat will maintain cooperation once it

has been initiated because you reciprocate an act of cooperation, thereby encour-

aging further cooperation from the other party. Tit for tat has been shown to be

moderately effective in producing cooperation in some circumstances, particularly

when participants are perceived to be firm but fair (Axelrod et al., 2002; Sheldon,

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 367 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 368 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 368 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 368 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

1999). In real situations, however, this strategy runs the risk of provoking conflict spirals—the escalating cycle of negative communication that produces destruc- tive conflict. We tend to adopt those conflict strategies that are used by other par-

ties during a conflict (Park & Antonioni, 2007). With tit for tat, “once a feud gets

started, it can continue indefinitely” (Axelrod, 1984, p. 138). If someone tries to

cheat, blackmail, or exploit you in a dispute, should you reciprocate in kind? If

another party has a snit fit, should you likewise throw a temper tantrum? If your an-

tagonist demands outrageous concessions from you, should you mindlessly match

the demands? Does any of this sound to you like competent communication? As

Fisher and Brown (1988) explain, “If you are acting in ways that injure your own

competence, there is no reason for me to do the same. Two heads are better than one,

but one is better than none” (p. 202). Tit for tat predisposes us to stoop to whatever

level the other party is willing to sink. Although a common negotiating strategy, it

is not recommended.

▶ Reformed Sinner: Spreading Redemption A second strategy of negotiating is called reformed sinner (Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977).

Someone using the reformed sinner strategy initially competes or acts tough, then cooperates and relaxes demands. The inducement to cooperate is the demonstrated

willingness to compete if necessary. Unlike tit for tat, you try to break a conflict spiral

by making the first move toward cooperation.

A rather interesting version of the reformed sinner strategy is Osgood’s (1959;

1966) GRIT proposal. GRIT stands for Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension reduction. Originally offered as a means to de-escalate the international arms race, the strategy has been employed in less-global conflicts. GRIT tries to break conflict spirals and impasses by initiating a cycle of de-escalation, thus moving from destructive to constructive conflict. This strategy uses the following sequence of steps (see Folger et al., 1993, for greater detail):

1. Issue a sincere public statement expressing a desire to deescalate the conflict. 2. Specify the concession to be made, clarifying what, when, and how the action will

be undertaken.

3. Follow through and complete the concession, but do not make this contingent on reciprocation by the other parties.

4. Encourage, but do not demand, reciprocation from the other parties. 5. Make no high-risk concessions that leave you vulnerable or in an indefensible

position. Don’t give away the store.

Someone using this method of promoting cooperation in a competitive conflict

situation should consider following the first concession with another concession if no

progress is made after a time. Here lies the main weakness of the GRIT strategy—it

appears to reward obstinate behavior from the other party (Brett et al., 1998). Thus,

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 368 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 369 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

negotiating strategies 369 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 369 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

don’t pile concession onto concession with nothing offered in return. This strategy

may take patience and persistence. Offering a minor concession and then withdraw-

ing it when no immediate reciprocation is forthcoming from the other party is not

a true GRIT.

▶ Positional Bargaining: Hard and Soft Negotiating In positional bargaining, parties take positions on contested issues, then they haggle

back and forth until concessions are made and an agreement is reached. There are

two styles of positional bargaining: hard and soft. Hard bargainers (sometimes called

tough bargainers) see negotiation as a contest of wills. Hard bargaining is the “nego-

tiate from strength” approach to conflicts of interest, heard so often in foreign affairs

deliberations. The focus is on conveying strength and resilience so the other party or

parties will yield.

Hard bargaining is a competing/forcing strategy. Hard bargainers can be abusive

or sarcastic in an attempt to gain an advantage over the other party. When both sides

adopt a hard bargaining style, the battle is joined. Both sides attempt to cut the best

deal for themselves (Me-Not-We orientation), instead of finding the most equitable

and constructive solution to the conflicts of interest. Opening positions typically are

extreme and unreasonable. The more hard bargainers publicly defend these posi-

tions, the more hardened the positions tend to become. Egos become identified with

positions (task conflict transforms into relationship conflict as well). Concessions

easily take on the appearance of “selling out.” Walking out on the negotiations in a huff, refusing to budge even on trivial issues, and issuing ultimatums (“Take it or leave it”) are commonplace tactics in hard positional bargaining. “Getting stupid” is a common hard bargaining tactic.

Consider this example of hard positional bargaining among housemates:

A: I want to have a party here at the house on Saturday. B: Hey, that’s a great idea. C: Sorry, you can’t. I have to study for my law exam and I sure can’t do that with

a couple of dozen of your belching, retching friends cranking the music to a

decibel level equivalent to a jet airplane taking off. I’d have to lug a truckload

of stuff to the library or anywhere else I might choose to study.

A: Who appointed you king? This is our house too. Since when do you dictate what can and can’t happen around here?

C: Since I pay a third of the rent and am not about to sacrifice my standing in law school so you can get drunk with your brain-dead friends and act like imbe-

ciles. I’m vetoing your little beer bash.

B: I don’t even know why we’re bothering to ask for your permission to hold this party. There’s no way you can stop us anyway. I say we just go ahead and do it.

If you don’t like it, sue us.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 369 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 370 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 370 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 370 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

A: Yeah! Get used to the idea because we’re going to have this party and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

C: On the contrary, there is a great deal I can do about it. Suing you is actually an option that appeals to me. I could sue you for damages, especially if I do

poorly on the exam. I could also argue in small claims court that you violated

a verbal contract not to have parties without the consent of all housemates—

I have witnesses affirming that you both agreed to such an arrangement. So

don’t start issuing ultimatums unless you want this party to cost a lot more

than the price of beer.

And on and on the silliness escalates, a contest of wills complete with recrimina-

tions, threats, name-calling, and anger.

Hard bargaining doesn’t have to mean ruthless bargaining and obstinacy, even

though it often degenerates into such behavior. A person can achieve positive results

by acting tough (Chertkoff & Esser, 1976). Eventually, though, there has to be some

This cartoon illustrates which negotiating strategy? 1. Hard bargaining 2. Principled negotiating 3. Soft bargaining 4. Tit-for-tat

Answers are given at end of chapter.

he N

ew Y

or ke

r C

ol le

ct io

n 20

0 8

M ic

ha el

S ha

w fr

om c

ar to

on ba

nk .c

om . A

ll R

ig ht

s R

es er

ve d.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 370 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 371 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

negotiating strategies 371 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 371 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

give-and-take for a stalemate to be avoided if all parties assume a hard bargaining strat-

egy. The key to making this a constructive conflict strategy is to appear tough but fair.

The main difficulty with this strategy is determining how tough you should be

without seeming pigheaded. As with any competitive strategy, when hard bargain- ers face off against each other, their moves and countermoves can easily produce an impasse. Hard bargainers lower the odds of reaching an agreement (Pavitt & Curtis, 1994). The 2005 National Hockey League strike and impasse was a hard bar-

gaining fiasco. By 2011 the NHL had still not recovered its fan base that largely left

when the entire season was wiped out by the strike (Segers, 2011).

Soft bargainers, recognizing the high costs of hard bargaining on relationships

with people they may have to interact with once the negotiations are concluded, yield

to pressure. To soft bargainers, making an agreement and remaining friends is more

important than winning a victory. The major drawback to soft bargaining is that the

accommodator may give away too much to maintain harmonious relationships dur-

ing negotiations. Hard bargainers looking to enhance self-interest, not group inter-

ests, often exploit those who desire cooperation if a soft bargaining approach is taken

(Schei & Rognes, 2005).

▶ Principled Negotiation: Interest-Based Bargaining Fisher and Ury (1981) offer a third choice besides hard and soft positional

bargaining—principled negotiation, or interest-based bargaining. Principled nego- tiation embodies the essential elements of competent communication.

The Four Principles: Appropriate Rules All negotiations are conducted ac- cording to rules. Principled negotiation changes the rules from competitive (hard

bargaining) to cooperative. The four basic elements to this approach with corre-

sponding principles for each element are:

People: Separate the people from the problem. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standards.

(Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 11)

Separating the people from the problem reaffirms the importance of supportive climates (e.g., description, problem orientation, equality, or provisionalism) and the

inappropriateness of defensive communication patterns (e.g., evaluation, control,

superiority, or certainty) during negotiations. Principled negotiation also focuses on

task conflicts and strives to diminish relationship conflicts during negotiations.

When Frank Lorenzo became president of Eastern Airlines, relations be-

tween management and labor immediately became tense and personal, and af-

ter a year of fruitless negotiations, Eastern’s machinists and pilots went on strike.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 371 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 372 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 372 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 372 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The machinist union targeted Lorenzo as the issue in negotiations, painting him as an

unscrupulous takeover artist. The Airline Pilots Association characterized Lorenzo as

a Machiavellian sleazeball whose middle name was Greed. Lorenzo fired back, calling

the pilots’ role in the strike “suicidal” and akin to the Jonestown cult mass suicide

tragedy. Eastern filed for bankruptcy, and thousands lost their jobs because the par-

ties in conflict could not separate the people from the problem.

Negotiating interests first, not arguing positions, is critical. Positions (what do you want) differ from interests (why do you want it). For instance, a group in my

class working on a symposium presentation got into a dispute over topic choice.

Two members wanted the group to choose “Global Warming.” Two other mem-

bers pushed for “Capital Punishment.” The three remaining group members advo-

cated “Animal Rights.” Bickering broke out as each faction chose a hard bargaining

approach. Nobody was willing to budge. The focus of the bargaining became the

weaknesses of each topic advocated by one faction or the other. Put-downs, snide

comments, and abusive remarks were flung back and forth.

When instructed to explore their interests, not the positions of each faction, the

group found a mutually satisfactory solution. The capital punishment faction had

already done a great deal of research on the topic for other classes. Their primary

interest was time management since they had families who wanted them home. They

wanted to “double dip” by using research for two classes instead of just one. The

global warming faction turned out to have a similar interest. They had done some

research on environmental issues. The animal rights faction simply wanted to do a

presentation that dealt with an issue of values, not some “dry, scientific report of facts

and figures on the environment.”

Once the interests of each faction were identified and discussed, the global warm-

ing faction realized that the capital punishment faction had already done most of

the necessary research for the entire group presentation. This was far more extensive

than the research already completed by those urging the environmental topic. The

animal rights group agreed that capital punishment was an issue of values as well as

“facts and figures,” so they settled on capital punishment as the group topic.

Positions are the concrete things one party wants. Interests are the intangible motivations—needs, desires, concerns, fears, aspirations—that lead a party in the

conflict to take a position (Ury, 1993). The struggle over which topic best fulfills the

assignment is a position, but time management is the interest behind the position

in the example above. Interest answers the question of why a party takes a position.

Focusing on interests instead of positions underlines the importance of structuring

cooperation into the deliberations. Positional bargaining structures negotiations as

a win–lose game. Negotiating interests structures cooperation into the deliberations

because the focus is on the problem and a mutually satisfactory solution, not on the

position or the people advocating the position. Focusing on interests, not on posi-

tions, is the basis of integrative conflict management.

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 372 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 373 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

negotiating strategies 373 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 373 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Generating a variety of options is another aspect of principled negotiation. This involves brainstorming, as already explained in my discussion of problem solving.

Integration by expanding the pie or bridging may be discovered in a brainstorming

session. The nominal group technique may also prove to be useful here.

Finally, principled negotiation rests on establishing objective standards (crite- ria) for weighing the merits and demerits of any proposal. In the conflict over topic

choice just discussed, one primary objective standard that was agreed to was “the

least number of hours doing research.” An objective standard for “fairness” might be

that both parties share equally all risks and financial costs.

Remaining Unconditionally Constructive: Sound Judgment The principled negotiation approach to conflicts of interest must include two additional elements:

remaining unconditionally constructive (Fisher & Brown, 1988) and developing

a BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) (Fisher & Shapiro, 2005; Fisher & Ury, 1981).

Being unconditionally constructive means you make choices and take only those

actions that benefit both you and the other parties in the dispute, regardless of

whether the other parties reciprocate. Remaining unconditionally constructive during negotiations short-circuits conflict spirals. If they become abusive, you re- main civil. If they purposely misunderstand or confuse issues, you clarify. If they try

to bully, you neither yield nor bully back. You try to persuade them on the merits of

your proposal. If they try to deceive you, neither trust nor deceive them. You remain

trustworthy throughout the negotiations. If they do not listen carefully, you never-

theless listen to them carefully and empathically. This is not a guide to earning your

way into heaven. This is a realistic, eyes-wide-open guide to effective negotiations.

You remain unconditionally constructive because it serves your own best interests to

do so (Brett et al., 1998).

A story told (Fadiman, 1985) about Gautama Buddha, an Indian prince who lived

in the sixth century b.c. and whose teachings formed the basis of Buddhism, ex-

emplifies the unconditionally constructive attitude necessary for principled negotia-

tions. A man interrupted Buddha’s preaching with a torrent of abuse. Buddha waited

for the man to finish. He then asked his detractor, “If a man offered a gift to another

but the gift was declined, to whom would the gift belong?” The man responded, “To

the one who offered it.” “Then,” said Buddha, “I decline to accept your abuse and

request you to keep it for yourself ” (p. 84). Reciprocating abuse with abuse only

sidetracks negotiations onto unproductive avenues of mutual disparagement. Abuse

needs to be neutralized, not encouraged.

What do you do if the other parties insist on hard bargaining, not principled

negotiations? You remain unconditionally constructive. If one of your interests is

fairness, ask the other parties to explain how their position is fair. Don’t assert that

the other side offers an unfair proposal. Asking the hard bargainers to justify their

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 373 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 374 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 374 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 374 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

position translates positions (e.g., no parties on weekends) into interests (e.g., peace

and quiet in order to study). Personal attacks, threats, and bullying tactics can be

handled by confronting them openly and immediately. For example, “Threats are

not constructive. They won’t work. I negotiate only on merit. Can we return to the

substantive issues?” Research shows that labeling the hard bargaining tactic as inef-

fective and refusing to reciprocate bad bargaining behavior effectively refocuses the

negotiations on interest-based issues and prevents conflict spirals (Brett et al., 1998).

If necessary, redirect the hard bargainers’ game plan by forthrightly asking for the

rules of the game. For instance, “Before we go any further, I need to know what rules

we are following during this bargaining. Does everyone here want to achieve a fair

settlement in the quickest amount of time, or are we going to play the hard bargain-

ing game where blind stubbornness wins out?” Make them convince you that their

intentions are honorable. In the process they may convince themselves that hard

bargaining isn’t appropriate. You want to bring hard bargainers to their senses, not

to their knees (Ury, 1993).

The BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement You also need to develop a BATNA as a standard against which any proposal can be measured. Your

BATNA tells you what is the best you can do if negotiations fail to produce an agree-

ment. Most importantly, your BATNA keeps you from accepting an agreement worse

than what you could have done without negotiations.

For instance, if you have ever visited towns on the Mexican side of the border with

the United States, you have undoubtedly engaged in street negotiations with local

merchants on items such as handcrafted rugs, sunglasses, and pottery. Not having

a BATNA before entering into negotiations with merchants can lead you to overpay

for merchandise. If you have no idea how much comparable items would cost in the

United States, then you are likely to make a charitable contribution to the Mexican

economy when negotiating with a savvy merchant on what you think is a hot deal.

Your BATNA in this instance is a comparable item that sells at a slightly higher price

in the United States, a similar item of better quality for more money, or a similar item

of lesser quality for less money. You know when you’ve negotiated a real value if you

have such a BATNA. Information is power. A BATNA can save you from making a

serious mistake (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

Anger Management

Conflict often produces anger (Fisher & Shapiro, 2005). Workplace anger, for exam-

ple, has become widespread and a national concern (Glomb, 2002; Marino, 2000).

Although it is not always harmful to dispute resolution in groups, anger can easily

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 374 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 375 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

anger ManageMent 375 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 375 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

trigger a tit-for-tat response of retaliatory anger from others that disrupts construc-

tive negotiations (Friedman et al., 2004). As one study concluded, “Negotiators who

felt angry engaged in more competitive and less cooperative behavior” (Liu, 2009,

p. 162). The most commonly reported communication behaviors associated with

workplace anger include: yelling, swearing, hurling insults, using sarcasm, criticiz-

ing, crying, giving dirty looks, making angry gestures, throwing things, and physical

assault (Glomb, 2002; Johnson, 2009). Thus, managing anger is an important aspect

of constructive conflict management in groups.

▶ Constructive and Destructive Anger: Intensity and Duration There are numerous ways group members express anger. One study (Domagalski,

1998) reported that women more commonly than men use avoiding, crying, and

holding back tears as expressions of anger. Men are more likely than women to ex-

press anger outwardly toward others rather than to camouflage or hold in the anger.

“Domineering, uncivil behavior by others” is the most common trigger of anger in

work situations.

Anger is sometimes justified (e.g., in cases of injustice). The difference between constructive and destructive anger depends on two conditions: the intensity and the duration of the anger expression (Adler & Proctor, 2007). The intensity of anger can vary from mild irritation to outright rage. The more intense the anger,

the more likely it is that outcomes will be negative (Glomb, 2002). Mild to moderate

expressions of anger can signal problems that must be addressed in groups. In such

circumstances the anger can be constructive. Rage, however, is destructive. It is the

antithesis of competent communication because the group member expressing the

rage is out of control. In the workplace, rage is not appropriate because it “shows

you’ve lost control—not to mention that it’s tough to be articulate if you’re having a

conniption” (Black, 1990, p. 88). Temper tantrums, ranting, and screaming fits make

you look like a lunatic because you’re “getting stupid.” When used as a power-forcing

strategy during conflict, it will likely provoke counter-rage.

The duration, or how long the anger lasts, also determines whether anger is constructive or destructive. The length of an anger episode can vary from mo-

mentary to prolonged. Quick flashes of anger may hardly cause group members to

notice. Even intense anger, if brief, can underline that you are very upset without

causing irreparable damage. Prolonged expressions of anger, even if mild, how-

ever, can cause group members to tune out and ignore you. Highly intense an-

ger that is long-lasting is a combustible combination. Venting our anger, despite

popular notions to the contrary, merely rehearses our anger and can increase it

(Bushman, 2002; Tavris, 1989). “Blowing off steam” awakens our anger. It doesn’t

put it to bed. As Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morella noted after Zack

de la Rocha quit the band in November 2000 citing the group’s poor decision-

making process, “We have spent so much time raging against one another that we

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 375 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 376 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 376 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 376 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

have often left raging against the machine by the side of the road” (“Perspective,”

2000, p. 23).

▶ Managing Your Own Anger: Taking Control There are several steps you can take to diffuse your own anger when you sense that it

is approaching the destructive stage of intensity and duration.

1. Reframe self-talk. Thoughts trigger anger. If you think a group member intention- ally sabotaged your work, you feel righteously angry, even vengeful. If you believe

that no sabotage was intended and that there was merely a misunderstanding,

then anger usually doesn’t ignite. As a first step in managing your own anger, try

assuming group members did not intend to harm you. View harm as accidental

or simply the result of clumsiness unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Reframing the way we think about events can deflate our anger before it escalates

(Baron, 1990; Gottman & Gottman, 2006).

2. Listen nondefensively. When group members criticize, blame, or ridicule you, re- fuse to be defensive. Reframe the criticism or blame as a challenge or problem,

Managing the anger of others works best when you 1. remain symmetrical 2. remain asymmetrical 3. assume a problem orientation 4. let others blow off steam to diminish their anger

Answers are given at end of chapter

B ru

ce A

yr es

/S to

ne /G

et ty

Im ag

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 376 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 377 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

anger ManageMent 377 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 377 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

not an opportunity for retaliation. Counter defensive communication from oth-

ers with supportive communication.

3. Deliberately calm yourself. Exercise discipline and refuse to vent your anger. When you sense anger boiling to the surface, deliberately slow your breathing.

Count to 10 before responding to collect yourself. A cooling-off period often

works well to calm your anger (Gottman & Gottman, 2006). Typically, it takes

about 20 minutes to recover from a surge of adrenaline that accompanies anger

(Goleman, 1995).

4. Find distractions. Ruminating, focusing your thoughts on what makes you angry, can bring them to a boiling point (Bushman et al., 2005). Don’t rehearse your

anger by constantly revisiting past injustices or slights instigated by fellow group

members. Distract yourself when old wounds resurface (Bushman, 2002). Read a

newspaper, watch television, play with the dog, or take a walk with someone and

discuss subjects unrelated to the anger-inducing subject.

Don’t attempt to employ all four of these steps at once. Pick one and work on making it an automatic response when your anger wells up. Then try a second step

and so on.

▶ Managing the Anger of Others: Communication Jujitsu Managing conflict constructively means defusing and de-escalating the anger of

other group members so you can confront issues without eruptions of verbal or

physical aggression. It is usually best to address a group member’s anger first before

dealing with the substance of the dispute that triggers the anger (Donohue & Kolt,

1992). Try these suggestions for defusing the anger of others:

1. Be asymmetrical. When a group member is expressing anger, especially if it turns to rage, it is critical that you not strike back in kind. Be asymmetrical, which means

do the opposite. Counter rage with absolute calm. Stay composed. Hostage ne-

gotiators are trained to defuse highly volatile individuals by remaining absolutely

calm throughout the interaction. Imagine the outcome if hostage negotiators flew

into a rage while talking to hostage takers. Use smoothing techniques to quiet the

enraged group member.

2. Validate the other person. Validation is a form of the smoothing technique of col- laborating. Let the person know that his or her point of view and anger have some

validity, even though you may not agree (Fisher & Shapiro, 2005). You can vali-

date another person in several ways. First, you can take responsibility for the other

person’s anger. “I made you angry, didn’t I?” acknowledges your role in provoking

anger. Second, you can apologize. “I’m sorry. You have a right to be angry” can

be a very powerful validation of the other person. Apologies, of course, should be

offered only when truly warranted. Third, actively listening and acknowledging

what the other person has said can also be very validating. “I know it upsets you

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 377 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 378 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 378 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 378 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

when I don’t come to meetings on time” makes the other person feel heard, even

if conflict remains.

3. Probe. Seek information from an angry group member so you can understand his or her anger (Gottman & Gottman, 2006). When you ask a question of an angry

group member, it forces the person to shift from emotional outburst to rational

response. Simply asking, “Can we sit down and discuss this calmly so I can under-

stand your point of view?” can momentarily defuse a group member’s anger.

4. Distract. Shifting the focus of attention when a person is really out of control can sometimes short-circuit rage (Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). A humorous

quip, an odd question, a request for help, or pointing to an unrelated event can

break a rage cycle.

5. Assume a problem orientation. This is supportive communication. This step should occur once you have calmed the angry group member by using previous

steps. Approach the anger display as a problem to be solved, not a reason to retali-

ate. The question “What would you like to see occur?” invites problem solving.

6. Refuse to be abused. Even if you are wrong, feel guilty, or deserve another person’s anger, do not permit yourself to be verbally battered (McKay et al., 1989). Ver-

bal aggression is unproductive no matter who is at fault in a conflict. “I cannot

discuss this with you if you insist on being abusive. I can see you’re upset, but

verbally assaulting me won’t lead to a solution” sets a ground rule on how anger

can be expressed.

7. Disengage. This is the final step when all else fails to defuse a group member’s anger. This step is especially important if the person continues to be enraged and

abusive despite your best, most constructive efforts to calm the emotional storm.

Firmly state, “This meeting is over. I’m leaving. We’ll discuss this another time.”

Keeping track of all seven steps to quell the anger of group members, particularly

when faced with an enraged person, is too much to expect. Concentrate on one or two steps until they become almost a reflex reaction, a habit. Being asymmetri- cal is the crucial first step, with validation a close second. The remaining steps can

gradually become part of your anger-defusing skill package.

Anger is a common companion of group conflict. The constructive management

of conflict can occur only when anger is kept under control. This does not mean

squelching anger. A group member can feel angry for good reasons. Anger acts as a

signal that changes need to occur. Anger should not be used as a weapon, however,

to abuse others. We want to learn ways to cope with and express anger constructively,

not be devoured by it.

In summary, conflict is a reality of group life. Although most people would pre-

fer that conflict didn’t exist, there are both positive and negative aspects to conflict.

Constructive management of conflict can turn a dispute into a positive experience

for the group. The five primary communication styles of conflict management—

collaborating, accommodating, compromising, avoiding, and competing—all have

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 378 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 379 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

anger ManageMent 379 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 379 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

pros and cons depending on the situation. Nevertheless, collaborating has a higher

probability of producing constructive outcomes than does competing. Negotiation

is a universal process used to manage conflicts of interests. Principled negotiation is

the most productive means of resolving conflicts of interests.

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 10, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. If competition has so many disadvantages, why would the competing/forcing style ever be appro- priate for a competent communicator?

2. If principled negotiating is so effective, why isn’t it used more often?

The Social Network (2010). Biography/Drama; PG-13 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s meteoric rise to social networking superstar is pre- sented in this well-made movie. Analyze the communication styles of conflict manage- ment used by Zuckerberg and others. What negotiating strategies are used, especially in response to a lawsuit filed against Zuckerberg contesting who came up with the initial idea for Facebook?

The Upside of Anger (2005). Drama; R Compelling story of a woman (Joan Allen) whose husband appears to have walked out on her and his four daughters and the residual anger that wells up inside of her and others as a result. Kevin Costner plays an ex-baseball player turned radio personality who insinuates himself into the family. Examine anger as destructive or constructive. How do characters handle their anger?

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 379 25/10/11 9:04 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 380 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 380 Chapter 10: ConfliCt ManageMent in groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 380 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

The War of the Roses (1989). Black Comedy; R This is a very dark comedy depicting all the ways not to manage conflict. Analyze this film for destructive conflict and communication styles of conflict management. Which styles are predominately used by the main characters with what results?

What’s Cooking? (2000). Comedy/Drama; PG-13 This is a portrayal of four separate, yet interrelated families (African American, Vietnamese, Mexican American, and Jewish) trying to celebrate Thanksgiving. Identify the communica- tion styles of conflict management used by the characters. Are conflicts mostly task, rela- tionship, or a combination of both? How does culture affect conflict management? In what ways is anger managed? Are these ways effective?

Answers to Multiple-Choice Questions in Captions Cartoon (p. 355): 4; Cartoon (p. 370): 3. Photo (p. 376 ms): 2, 3

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 380 25/10/11 9:04 PM

46850_ch10_ptg01_hr_344-381.indd 381 25/10/11 9:04 PM

◀ 382

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 382 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 382 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ A TechnologicAl group opTions 1. Text-Messaging: Typing Gone

High-Tech

2. Audioconferences: Voice-Only Technology

3. Videoconferences: Sight and Sound

▶ B BenefiTs And chAllenges of VirTuAl groups

1. Time and Space: The Death of Distance

2. Decision Making: Quality of the Output

3. Social Relationships: Developing Personal Connections

4. Power Distance: Prominence of Status Cues

5. Conflict: Constructive and Destructive

6. Member Participation: Motivation to Perform

a. Social Anxiety: Reticence to Participate

b. Social Loafing: Virtually Unproductive

7. Conversational Documentation: Transactional Transcripts

▶ c VirTuAl group effecTiVeness 1. General Factors: Getting Set

for Success

a. Temporality: Long-Term versus Short-Term Virtual Groups

b. Media Richness: The Lean and Meaty Theory

c. Media Synchronicity: Extending MRT

2. Specific Suggestions: Tentative Advice

a. Choosing Media: Richness and Synchronicity

b. Conducting Virtual Meetings: Special Challenges

Closer Look: ComCorp Case Study

Technology and Virtual Groups

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 382 25/10/11 5:38 PM

383 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 383 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

D im

itr i V

er vi

ts io

tis /P

ho to

gr ap

he r’

C ho

ic e/

G et

ty Im

ag es

C ommunication tech-nologies permeate our lives daily. More than 240 million Americans were Internet users in 2010, second only to

China with 420 million users (“Top 10 Countries,” 2010), and cell phone use has al-

most completely saturated the American and world markets. By 2011, there were an

estimated 5.1 billion cell phone subscribers, making those who do not use cell phones

a rarity (some would say “dinosaurs”). As reported previously, social networking

systems such as Facebook, which claimed 500 million registered users worldwide in

2011 (“Facebook Factsheet,” 2011), Twitter, which grew to about 200 million “fol-

lowers” in just four years (Murphy, 2010), and, LinkedIn, which claimed more than

90 million “connections” globally by the beginning of 2011 (Bailey, 2011), have be-

come a phenomenon.

To provide some perspective on the rapidity with which electronic communica-

tion technologies have grown, in January 2011, a video clip went viral on the Internet

and was the subject of great amusement. The clip shows Katie Couric and Bryant

Gumbel, hosts of the NBC Today Show, in January 1994, discussing Gumbel’s ques-

tion, “What is Internet anyway?” Couric responds, rather uncertainly, “Internet is

that massive computer network, the one that’s becoming really big now.” Gumbel

continues, “What do you mean? What do you, write to it, like mail?” “No,” Couric

responds, “a lot of people use it to communicate.” Couric then turns to an uniden-

tified member of the television crew, “Can you explain what Internet is?” (quoted

in Pitts, 2011, p. A15). Couric and Gumbel can be forgiven for not knowing what

exactly is the Internet back then because the huge majority of the world’s population

was equally ignorant about this stunning invention that would markedly alter com-

munication everywhere in the world in just a very few years.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 383 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 384 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 384 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 384 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

The impact of these electronic technologies on our interpersonal communica-

tion is interesting, and I discuss this at length elsewhere (Rothwell, 2010), but such

impact is tangential to small group concerns. The more narrow implications of com-

munication technologies on small group communication require a more focused

perspective. Although some faculty require or encourage students working on group

projects to interact with team members using one of the social networking systems,

these networking systems are largely interpersonal in nature. The primary use is to

stay in touch with friends or to make new friends (Lenhart, 2007).

Despite the largely interpersonal nature of many communication technologies

(cell phone conversations are usually between only two people), these technologies

have nevertheless rolled over into the small group arena to some extent. For example,

interest groups (such as car nuts) and activist groups (such as feminists or Tea Party

activists) form on social networks for members to share ideas and information, de-

bate issues, and promote social action (Preston, 2008). Social media can be a place

where group leaders address group members collectively. New questions emerge

with social media as well. Should you include your boss or team leader at work as a

friend on Facebook? Should you gossip about group members since such messages

are more widely available than simple water-cooler small talk? Might issues of confi-

dentiality (contract negotiations between management and workers) be problematic

when social networks are so transparent and easy to use (Andersson, 2010)?

Sometimes social network groups remain small by design; most often they are

allowed or encouraged to grow large, vastly exceeding the limits of our focus. For

Is this social networking interpersonal or small group communication?

M an

go P

ro du

ct io

ns /C

or bi

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 384 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 385 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 385 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

TeChnology and VirTual groups 385 ▶

instance, Facebook has a limit of 5,000 “friends” who can join an individual’s net-

work; that’s 5,000 of your closest friends, and no more. Commenting on these social

networks, Scott Kirsner (2007), author of The Future of Web Video, observes, “Many

of us are obsessed with audience metrics, seeking a tally of how many people we’re

reaching as something of a touchstone—an indicator of our influence, popularity

or coolness” (p. 6P). These “friends” are often only loosely connected to each other;

often not even that. As Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California–

Berkeley, quips, “I’m a Facebook friend of Bob Dylan, which probably means I have

a deeply meaningful relationship with his publicist” (quoted in Ball, 2010). “Friends”

and “followers” may wander in and out of contact on the sites, so system intercon-

nectedness (an important element of the definition of a group) is also often dubious.

Virtual groups did not begin in earnest with the advent of computers. The

computer revolution was slow to incorporate small groups and teams (Majchrzak

et al., 2004). The early mainframe computers were behemoths that facilitated com-

panywide operations but were largely unavailable to the average worker in an organi-

zation. The introduction of the personal computer in the 1970s and 1980s facilitated

individual productivity. It wasn’t until the late 1990s when the Internet and the

World Wide Web were readily available, however, that virtual groups became a staple

of most organizations. In 1995, a mere 16 million people worldwide used the Inter-

net (Bazeley, 2005). A billion people worldwide were Internet users 10 years later

(“Internet Usage Statistics,” 2005), and 2 billion people had access to the Internet

by the end of 2010 (“Top 10 Countries,” 2010). Although rudimentary versions of

virtual groups already existed prior to the Internet revolution (e.g., teleconferences),

the stratospheric rise in Internet access accelerated the widespread growth of virtual

groups.

As noted in Chapter 1, a virtual group is a small group whose members interact by means of electronic technologies (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Lipnack & Stamps,

1997). Virtual groups have three primary characteristics that make them different

from conventional groups (Fisher, 2000; Schiller & Mandviwalla, 2007). First, their

members are spread across multiple locations and often across multiple time zones.

Second, group members often have more diverse backgrounds incorporating mem-

bers from different cultures speaking multiple languages and harboring varied or-

ganizational allegiances. Third, membership tends to be less stable. In short, virtual

groups are members “working together apart” (Fisher, 2000).

There are also “degrees of virtuality” when considering what constitutes a virtual

group (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Johnson et al., 2009). Highly virtual groups

communicate entirely by using electronic technologies. Some virtual groups are

hybrids—members communicate mostly by electronic means but may occasionally

meet face to face. In a study of virtual groups, 46% of the 600 respondents never met

with members of their virtual groups, 30% met only once a year, and 24% met two

or more times (Solomon, 2010). In addition, members of highly virtual groups are

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 385 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 386 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 386 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 386 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

dispersed widely across large geographic areas; less virtual groups may have members

in the same building or living in the same city or county.

Although researchers and scholars often make no clear distinction between a vir-

tual group and a virtual team (see Godar & Ferris, 2004; Rad & Levin, 2003), the

two are not identical. They have electronic technologies and remote communication

in common, but they differ in the same ways that standard face-to-face groups and

teams differ: level of cooperation, diversity of skills, group identity, and commit-

ment of members (see Chapter 6). An online class discussion group, for example,

is a virtual group but not a virtual team. Electronic technologies make remote com-

munication possible, so class members may never see fellow students face to face.

Participants, however, join the virtual discussion to express points of view and share

perceptions. A high level of cooperation is not required to participate, members

aren’t chosen because of diversity of skills, little effort is made to establish a strong

group identity (students are merely fulfilling a course requirement), and commit-

ment to the discussion may be lackluster and sporadic.

Given these clarifications and distinctions, the primary purpose of this chapter is to explore the vast potential of and the new challenges posed by virtual groups. This chapter focuses on the broader topic of virtual groups, not the narrower virtual

teams, although virtual teams qualify as a type of virtual group. The suggestions

offered for making virtual groups effective apply well to virtual teams, especially if

previous advice on making teams effective is employed. There are three chapter ob-

jectives relevant to the primary purpose:

1. To describe the many ways technology integrates with small group communication 2. To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of virtual groups 3. To offer suggestions regarding how to develop and maintain effective virtual

groups

One cautionary note seems appropriate before addressing these objectives. De-

spite considerable research that compares virtual groups to face-to-face groups, sig-

nificant gaps remain in our knowledge about virtual groups (Mortensen at al., 2009).

Our experience with virtual groups is barely beyond its infancy. Nevertheless, that

should not prevent sharing what is known, and offering tentative advice based on the

available research.

Technological Group Options

Multiple electronic communication technologies make virtual groups possible.

A technology is a tool to accomplish some purpose. A communication technology is a tool to achieve a communication purpose. Electronic communication technologies

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 386 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 387 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

TeChnologiCal group opTions 387 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 387 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

that make virtual groups possible include the Internet, e-mail, phones, video, and

voice mail. Any of these technologies, singly or in combinations, create a variety of

virtual group opportunities, discussed in this section.

▶ Text-Messaging: Typing Gone High-Tech There are several text-based options for virtual groups. E-mail has become so popular

and so taken for granted as part of most of our daily lives that it’s difficult to remember

when this technological marvel was not readily available. Despite a precipitous drop in

e-mail use among teens who prefer social networking sites, e-mail remains a principal

method of communicating in organizations, both within an organization (intranet)

and between organizations (Internet), and its importance is not likely to diminish any

time soon (Horn, 2011; “International Workplace Productivity Survey,” 2010).

In its most fundamental form, e-mail can be used for communicating in virtual

groups by typing a message and sending it to group members. They in turn can re-

spond to your message, add additional information and opinions, and include the

ever-popular attachments to the message. The ease with which attached information

can be sent to any and all group members is potentially a benefit and a drawback

simultaneously. The benefit is that a large amount of information is available to the

group with minimal effort required, but e-mail attachments can easily produce in-

formation overload and can create unreasonable expectations regarding how much

information each group member can digest in a short time.

Text-only messaging is not restricted to computer-based e-mail. Text-messaging

with cell phones has become a worldwide phenomenon. Approximately 4.2 trillion

text messages were sent in 2010 (Wansink & Budde, 2010). A text-messaging short-

hand lingo has emerged to abbreviate the amount of thumb punching on cell phone

keys (thumb jockeying) to spell out messages (e.g., YOYO for “You’re on your own”).

Although not a prime tool for virtual groups, the potential to text-message team

members regularly who are dispersed across the globe is real. Electronic bulletin

boards and blogs in which posted messages are available to group members and ev-

eryone’s responses are available to be read are other options in the text-only toolbox

for virtual groups. These are popular options for online college classes.

Text-only interactive meetings are facilitated by hardware and software options

called Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS). The simplest version permits par-

ticipants to register votes electronically on issues discussed during meetings. This

allows for anonymity. Another version of GDSS is for electronic brainstorming,

discussed in Chapter 8. There are chat rooms that permit group member interac-

tion through text messages. Even more elaborate (and expensive) systems can be

used that add audio and video to computer e-mail messaging for virtual group work,

taking the technology beyond text-only. More sophisticated hardware and software

options will surely be developed.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 387 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 388 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 388 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 388 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Audioconferences: Voice-Only Technology In-person meetings are what most of us are accustomed to, but as our globe

becomes more village-like with the ever-expanding reach of electronic technology,

and organizations increasingly conduct business internationally, meeting face to

face is often a poor choice. There are several electronic alternatives to the standard

in-person format. One of the simplest is the audioconference, commonly referred

to as the conference call. The survey of more than 1,800 employees in six countries

by Plantronics revealed that 61% of respondents considered audioconferences as

critical to their overall success and productivity (“Plantronics Study,” 2010). This

version of a virtual group allows several individuals to conduct a joint meeting

over the telephone or in some instances by a computer-based voice link. Once

the exclusive province of corporations, a conference call can now be easily set

up by almost anyone (Rodriguez & Solomon, 2007). Most business and many

residential phone services provide conference call capability. Remember that a

teleconference is not simply a phone conversation. Its primary purpose for virtual

groups is to conduct meetings. Most of the guidelines for conducting efficient and

effective meetings already discussed in Chapter 8 apply to teleconferences. The conference call should be necessary, focused, organized, and short.

▶ Videoconferences: Sight and Sound Videoconferences are more technologically sophisticated than teleconferences.

Meetings are usually conducted via a closed-circuit or satellite-link. The video-

conference, similar to the teleconference, is a useful option when participants can-

not meet easily in person. Videoconferences also provide huge savings in travel

time and expense when group members are living long distances from each other

(Houghton, 2006). Videoconferences provide nonverbal cues such as facial ex-

pressions, gestures, posture, and eye contact unavailable in teleconferencing. Body

language cues help participants assess messages more accurately, and they are in-

strumental in defining relationships between participants (Thompson & Coovert,

2003).

The technology has become so sophisticated that virtual group members meet-

ing by videoconferencing across several time zones begin to feel that they are all

in the same room. Members will offer each other sandwiches or snacks, forget-

ting they’re thousands of miles apart (“Who wants a chocolate? Oops! Forgot.

Two of you are in Australia. Oh well, more for us!”). Comedian Jerry Seinfeld

worked on his animated film creation, Bee Movie, mostly by videoconferencing

with animation teams on two U.S. coasts. Working from New York, he was in

touch daily with animators in Los Angeles and Redwood City, California. Seinfeld

observed that it was as if everyone involved was working in the same room eight

hours a day. Seinfeld repeatedly wrote new material and performed it live so

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 388 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 389 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

TeChnologiCal group opTions 389 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 389 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Some videoconferences are elaborate, requiring expensive equipment and complex set-up.

Er ic

S lo

m an

so n/

Z U

M A

/C or

bi s

animators could draw his mannerisms for Barry, the central bee character in the

film (Newman, 2007).

The technology necessary to produce such an effect, however, is more compli-

cated and expensive than what is required for a teleconference. Adding the visual

element to a virtual meeting can require a studio equipped with pricey cameras,

lighting, and a crew. Less expensive alternatives such as Skype videoconferencing

requires a web-cam, reasonably fast personal computers and Internet connectivity,

and a fairly large computer screen to see each group member clearly (“Group Video

Calling,” 2011). Videoconferencing on Skype can accommodate between 3 and

10 members at a time. A cell phone videoconferencing option is available, but the

image is hardly bigger than a postage stamp.

Yet another option is videoconferencing with avatars created using Second Life,

an online three-dimensional virtual world (Sherblom et al., 2009). Using avatars cre-

ated by each group member provides a sense of social presence and semi-real in-

teraction during group meetings when actual video of participants is not available.

Virtual team building activities can also be conducted using Second Life (“Virtual

Team Building in Second Life,” 2010). Videoconferences in any form, as with any meeting, should be necessary, focused, organized, and short.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 389 25/10/11 5:39 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 390 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 390 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 390 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Benefits and Challenges of Virtual Groups

Virtual groups present a mixed batch of advantages and disadvantages. In this

section, several important pros and cons of virtual groups are addressed with the

repeated notation that further research will likely modify some of what we “know”

about virtual groups.

▶ Time and Space: The Death of Distance Time and space can be transcended by electronic technologies. Cairncross (1997)

coined the phrase “the death of distance” to emphasize, in somewhat overstated fash-

ion, that virtual groups are not restricted by distances separating group members.

Group members can communicate with each other at the speed of light over vast dis-

tances, even continents. Finding one central meeting place available at a specific time

is not an issue for virtual groups. Members can connect at home, at their office, even

in airport terminals or restroom stalls—a survey by Wirthlin Worldwide showed

that 39% of respondents would converse on a cell phone while answering nature’s

call (cited in Carpenter, 2000). As wireless technology becomes ever more sophisti-

cated and readily available, few limitations on where and when a group member can

join discussions and meetings will exist.

B B

us co

/P ho

to gr

ap he

r’ s

C ho

ic e/

G et

ty Im

ag es

Simpler forms of videoconferencing are more readily available than ever before.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 390 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 391 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

BenefiTs and Challenges of VirTual groups 391 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 391 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Being able to communicate over vast distances, however, removes group mem-

bers from physical proximity to each other. Communication competence becomes a significant challenge. What works well in face-to-face communication may not work well in virtual group communication. Sarcasm, gentle teasing, or harmless jok-

ing may be taken as hurtful or insulting in the absence of a glint in the eyes of the

sender, a smile, a clarifying gesture, or a subtle facial expression. The absence of

nonverbal cues that we all depend on for helping determine meaning of messages is a

substantial limitation of text-only and voice-only virtual groups. As reported previ-

ously, 94% of respondents in one study said that “inability to read nonverbal cues”

was the “greatest personal challenge” of virtual groups (Solomon, 2010).

▶ Decision Making: Quality of the Output “There are no compelling theoretical or empirical reasons for predicting differ-

ences in decision quality” (Valacich and Schwenk, 1995, p. 161) when comparing

face-to-face and virtual groups (see also Chudoba et al., 2005). This may be true in

general when comparing face-to-face communication to all types of virtual groups

The death of distance and the ability to “meet” with virtual group members almost anywhere isn’t always an advantage, especially for outsiders.

Tr ib

un e

M ed

ia S

er vi

ce s,

In c.

A ll

R ig

ht s

R es

er ve

d. R

ep ri

nt ed

w ith

p er

m is

si on

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 391 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 392 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 392 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 392 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

lumped together. There are exceptions, however. Virtual groups working under

time pressure, for example, do not perform as well as face-to-face groups in the

same condition (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). This may occur partly because de-

cision making can be slower in virtual groups. A hefty 80% of respondents in the

Solomon (2010) study reported that this was a significant concern. Text-only elec-

tronic technology, for example, may slow decision making if delays occur because

group members haven’t checked their e-mail or bulletin board or don’t respond

immediately, for whatever reason. As one member of a global team explains her

experience, “There are delays in response and communication, and in such cases

I might lose a day instead of a few hours. . . . Communication and collaboration can

take up a significant chunk of project time” (quoted in Kumar, 2006, p. 25). Stu-

dents working in teams for online class projects may experience similar challenges.

Presumably, videoconferencing would not produce such delays or consequent

frustration from group members pressured to decide, unless technological glitches

occur that force delays or require cancellation of the videoconference. One study of 64 virtual groups revealed no significant differences in decision quality when comparing text-only and audio-only technologies, but the addition of video to the audio-only group produced a significant improvement in decision quality (Baker, 2002).

The more time consuming it is for virtual groups to make decisions, the less sat-

isfied members are with final decisions (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Frustration

and annoyance with learning elaborate new technologies, sometimes referred to as

mechanical friction, may impair the decision-making process, at least until all mem-

bers feel confident using the technology (Poole et al., 1993). Mechanical friction may

invite human friction—abrasiveness in social relationships—as group members

struggle with the frustrations of trying to manage technologies that aren’t always user

friendly.

▶ Social Relationships: Developing Personal Connections Group decision quality can also be significantly affected by social relationships

among members (interconnectedness of task and social dimensions). This is no less

important in virtual groups than in face-to-face ones. Virtual groups pose unique

challenges in this respect. How do you identify with team members you have never

met personally or ever seen in many cases? (Some virtual groups, however, attempt

to address the invisibility of members by directing participants to Facebook or

LinkedIn personal sites for profiles of group members. Those who have not created

such a profile are encouraged to develop one.)

Virtual groups seem to require more time than face-to-face groups to de- velop positive social relationships and cohesiveness (Johnson et al., 2009). Virtual group members tend to rate each other unfavorably early in the develop-

ment process, but after several weeks of interacting, ratings of members on trust,

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 392 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 393 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

BenefiTs and Challenges of VirTual groups 393 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 393 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

receptivity, sociability, informality, and relaxation become more positive (Walther &

Burgoon, 1992).

One potential benefit of text-only and audio-only group communication is that

social bonds between group members can be based on more substantive features

such as the quality of conversation, similarities in values and beliefs, and apparent

friendliness of members, instead of more superficial physical appearance (McKenna

& Green, 2002). Physical features are not readily available in text-only or audio-only

group interactions (although members’ photographs can be scanned onto websites

and e-mail locations). This advantage, however, is more speculative than tested, and

to what extent this appearance deficit might be an advantage of virtual groups is not

known.

▶ Power Distance: Prominence of Status Cues Power differences may be less prominent in virtual groups. Rank is less obvious when

e-mailing group members than it is when communicating face to face. This status

equalization effect, however, is probably more prominent in text-only group discus-

sion than it is in audioconferences or especially videoconferences.

There are two types of status characteristics that are hidden from text-only communication: (1) physical characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, and age, and (2) communication cues such as rapid speaking rate, fluency of speech (few pauses

or disfluencies such as “ums” and “ahs”), emphatic tone of voice, strong eye contact

when speaking, and head of the table seating location (Driskell et al., 2003). E-mail-

only communication among group members screens these status markers that are

immediately available in face-to-face communication. Audioconferencing screens

out some of these status markers, although age, gender, ethnicity, and even physi-

cal attributes can often be discerned from voice-only communication (Krauss et al.,

2002). Note, however, that this status equalization effect might be only temporary—

experienced during the initial development of a virtual group. More mature groups

typically develop status markers even when restricted to text-only communica-

tion, such as waiting a long time to respond to messages from less-powerful group

members, answering questions with curt responses, and using “powerful” language

(Rocheleau, 2002).

Conversely, grammatical errors and misspellings, especially if they occur of-

ten and in numerous messages, may taint a group member as poorly educated,

careless, and unconcerned about credibility with other group members (all status-

diminishing). Slipping into casual text-messaging acronyms and shorthand may

also prove to be inappropriate with more powerful group members who may expect

formal communication from others. A 2008 survey released by the Pew Internet

and American Life Project showed that two-thirds of teens have accidentally used

texting shorthand (F2F for “face-to-face,” IMHO for “in my humble opinion”),

sometimes called “fast-food English,” in their academic work (Lyons, 2008). This

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 393 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 394 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 394 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 394 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

isn’t usually received well by teachers expecting more formal prose (text- messaging

“rules of thumbs” don’t follow rules of accepted spelling and grammar). This is why it is important to proofread text messages for appropriateness (follow- ing rules) before sending them to those expecting more professional-looking communication.

▶ Conflict: Constructive and Destructive As discussed in Chapter 10, not all conflict is counterproductive for groups. Conflict

that is competently managed can promote important, positive changes. There are dif-

ferences, however, between virtual and face-to-face groups in conflict management.

Overall, virtual groups experience more task and relationship conflict than face-to-

face groups (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005). The Solomon (2010) study found that 73%

of respondents considered managing conflict to be more challenging in virtual teams

than in face-to-face teams, and more challenging than any other virtual group dif-

ficulty. When conflict arises, face-to-face groups engage in significantly more con-

structive conflict management than virtual groups. Virtual groups are more likely to

move in the direction of destructive conflict than are face-to-face groups (Zornoza

et al., 2002). Overall, face-to-face is a more suitable medium for constructive conflict

management than technological alternatives (Zornoza et al., 2002).

Transactions among virtual group members are more likely to become incendiary

than in face-to-face groups (Holahan et al., 2008), especially in text-only formats

(Driskell et al., 2003). “Emotional incontinence”—incompetent outbursts of anger

called “flaming”—is more likely (Locke, 1998). The absence of normal constraints

on incivility and insults found in face-to-face transactions (such as implicit norms

discouraging nasty public displays of rage), coupled with the ease and swiftness of

text-only communication, encourage more negative interactions. As Brin (1998)

explains:

Electronic conversations seem especially prone to misinterpretation, sud-

denly and rapidly escalating hostility between participants, or else triggering

episodes of sulking silence. When flame wars erupt, normally docile people

can behave like mental patients. . . . Typing furiously, they send impul-

sive text messages blurting out the first vituperation that comes to mind,

abandoning the editing process of common courtesy that civilization took

millennia to acquire. (p. 166)

Communication filters that operate in face-to-face communication to short- circuit emotional incontinence are less apparent when communicating electron- ically. Nonverbal indicators of disapproval, such as a glance, a frown, or an eye roll, are missing from text-only and audio-only group interactions. What you wouldn’t

say to a member’s face you might say in an e-mail or cell phone text message.

Research shows that members of virtual groups are more inclined to offer negative,

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 394 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 395 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

BenefiTs and Challenges of VirTual groups 395 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 395 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

even extreme, evaluations, disapproval, and censure of other members (Walther,

1997). Software has even been developed that automatically warns e-mailers about

potential flames. One such version displays an ice cube icon as a group member

composes an e-mail, indicating that no flame has been detected. The instant that the

e-mailer slips into flame territory, however, a chili pepper icon appears on screen.

An extremely incendiary message receives three chilies with the warning, “Your

message is the sort of thing that might get your keyboard washed out with soap”

(Weber, 2000).

Misunderstandings can be a big problem for virtual teams because perceived

slights, insults, or a negative tone in e-mails may not be quickly cleared up. Members

may have to stew over a perceived insult for a day, even a week, if an e-mail response

is not accessed right away. Differences that emerge from virtual group member- ship representing several diverse cultures can also lead to misunderstandings and perceived insults (Baba et al., 2004; Kayworth & Leidner, 2002). Establishing group norms can be difficult in virtual groups when cultural differences create clashes

about approaches to addressing conflicts, directness of communication, and respect

for high-power group members. Cultural differences are often challenging to ad-

dress in face-to-face groups, but they can be doubly so when text-only or sometimes

even audio-only communication is available. The ambiguity of language discussed in

Chapter 1 is not easily recognized or clarified when the communication media limit

nonverbal contextual cues that help with understanding messages.

Virtual groups, however, don’t always have greater difficulty with conflict than face-to-face groups. One study showed that virtual groups have less tendency to transform task conflicts into relationship conflicts than face-to-face groups when

conflict is escalated by a member using personal attacks, trivialization of issues, and

disagreements about policies (Dorado et al., 2002). Text-only communication in

particular may tend to focus members on the task and less on personality clashes and

interpersonal hostilities than in-your-face, in-person clashes might ignite.

Text-only communication may also be appropriate when face-to-face commu-

nication among members has a history of being awkward or intimidating (Markus,

1994). Sometimes we can be more honest and assertive in an e-mail than in person.

Words can also be more carefully chosen, and messages can be edited for tone more

judiciously than a group member may be able to do when feeling angry and com-

municating face to face. How often have you replayed a hostile conversation in your

mind and wished you hadn’t made certain statements or had cushioned negative

comments? In some instances, setting aside an angry e-mail response to a perceived

insult or slight by another group member and deciding, upon reflection, to delete it

entirely, is a wise choice. E-mail allows you to edit intemperate messages, but only if you resist firing a flame in the heat of the moment by adopting a standard prac- tice of never responding heatedly to an e-mail until you have had time to reflect, simmer down, and edit offensive remarks.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 395 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 396 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 396 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 396 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Member Participation: Motivation to Perform Motivating group members to participate actively and constructively is one of the

common complaints about group work and a frequent reason for grouphate. Virtual

groups can enhance participation in some instances and diminish it in others.

Social Anxiety: Reticence to Participate Text-only group discussions encour- age low-status members to participate in discussions and to stand their ground more

firmly on controversial or contentious issues (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). In-person

discussions can be intimidating, especially if some participants are dominating and

aggressive when expressing their points of view. Typing responses on a computer

keyboard can embolden reticent group members to be assertive. In one study of so-

cial anxiety that compared face-to-face communication to Internet chat room inter-

actions, highly anxious individuals (shy, reticent to communicate) reported feeling

extremely uncomfortable in the face-to-face condition; during chat room, text-

only communication, however, highly anxious individuals reported feeling almost

as comfortable as nonanxious individuals in the face-to-face condition (Green &

McKenna, 2002). In addition, these same anxious individuals were perceived by

other group members to be confident, likable, and outgoing—exactly the opposite

perception group members reported when anxious individuals engaged in face-to-

face communication. There is even some evidence that after two years of active participation in chat room group discussions, socially anxious individuals ex- perience diminished social anxiety in face-to-face interactions (McKenna et al., 2002). These results suggest that text-only group communication can encourage

greater constructive participation from reticent members, thereby potentially en-

riching the discussions and producing greater overall satisfaction with the group ex-

perience, with the added potential bonus of diminished social anxiety in face-to-face

interactions.

Videoconferencing, however, may be more intimidating for reticent group members. The surest way to discourage reticent group members from participating is to conduct meetings electronically when members feel intimidated by the hard-

ware and unskilled in the use of software alternatives. Appearing on camera may

increase anxiety for reticent members. The mere presence of a camera can cause

some individuals to freeze or appear unnatural in their movements, speaking rate,

tone of voice, and overall appearance. Looking like a deer in headlights or showing

color draining from your face when speaking to a camera doesn’t inspire confidence

from other virtual group members, and it can be embarrassing for all parties. Gain-

ing experience and skill with videoconferencing will likely diminish such anxiety.

Social Loafing: Virtually Unproductive Social loafing can be a maddening problem for face-to-face groups because all parts in a system are interconnected.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 396 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 397 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

BenefiTs and Challenges of VirTual groups 397 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 397 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Although little research has been conducted on social loafing in virtual groups (Piezon & Ferree, 2008), the potential is real for this to be an even more serious problem than it is in face-to-face groups (Driskell et al., 2003; Geister et al., 2006). In the Solomon (2010) study, 75% of respondents reported that social loafing was a

significant challenge for virtual teams, and 77% of student respondents at public uni-

versities in a study of online learning groups reported social loafing occurred (Piezon &

Ferree, 2008). My wife, Marcy, has taken almost a dozen online university courses

relevant to her employment as a computer program analyst at Cabrillo College. In

every instance, she has expressed enormous frustration with social loafers—virtual

group members whose lackluster motivation leaves the bulk of group projects to

members who are more motivated to excel.

The nature of virtual groups makes addressing this problem particularly dif- ficult (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of methods to address social loafing). Developing cohesiveness, one method of reducing social loafing, is challenging be-

cause strangers are often thrown together in online classes and told by an instruc-

tor to magically become a team. Holding members accountable, another method

to combat social loafing, is especially challenging because face-to-face appraisal of

members’ efforts and production is an effective deterrent to social loafing (Druskat &

Wolff, 1999). Unless virtual group members meet in person from time to time, how-

ever, this option is not available when conducted by e-mail or audioconferences, and

delivering a negative appraisal of a virtual group member in a videoconference will

likely seem awkward at best. Confronting the loafer about lackluster participation is

one promising approach in face-to-face groups, but text-only formats can easily be

ignored by loafers when their lethargic effort is addressed directly. Marcy and other

online group members confronted loafers on several occasions, and almost every

time loafers responded with prolonged silence. They simply ignored the direct con-

cerns of more motivated members. In a couple of instances, loafers were contacted

by phone and asked why the anemic performance occurred, and they were encour-

aged to participate in the group project more enthusiastically. This approach worked

well in some instances, especially in one case in which sporadic participation was

actually the result of a family crisis. Members who don’t respond to e-mails are often

assumed to be uncommitted to the group when other factors such as technological

problems or emergencies may be the reason for not responding (Panteli, 2004). The

direct approach, however, didn’t work in every case.

In one especially troublesome example of loafing faced by one of Marcy’s on-

line groups, the course instructor was contacted (a higher power was consulted) and

asked to intervene, which she did. The loafer dropped the course. No loafer was ever

officially booted out of any of Marcy’s online course groups for loafing. Ultimately,

the most flagrant cases of loafing required motivated members to sidestep the loafer.

They engaged in social compensation (discussed in Chapter 3), bailing out the group

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 397 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 398 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 398 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 398 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

by doing far more than their share of the work, so that the group didn’t perform

poorly. Social compensation is clearly not a perfect solution to social loafing. It places

an undue burden on the most motivated members.

The ideal solution to social loafing is to choose virtual group members who find the group task challenging and interesting, and who all seem motivated to excel. This is often the result when virtual teams are formed within organizations. Those most interested in the task and members whose skills are

complementary (overlapping but not redundant) are chosen to become part of

a team. Nevertheless, because group membership for online courses is usually

haphazard (little opportunity is provided to choose members knowledgeably in

a virtual environment), social loafing is likely to be a serious problem in most

online classes that require group work. Social compensation is frequently the best

alternative unless the course instructor takes a very active role in monitoring

group participation.

▶ Conversational Documentation: Transactional Transcripts

Reconstructing group conversations is easier and the message fidelity can be bet-

ter than what is usual in face-to-face group communication when using text-only,

computer-mediated communication. When group members communicate by e-

mail, there is a transcript of conversations that can be accessed by all team members

at any time. Arguments concerning what one member actually said can be settled

by consulting previous e-mailed messages for the exact wording. It’s untenable for

a group member to insist that he or she said one thing when the e-mail transcript

clearly indicates a different message.

This potential advantage of an e-mail transcript, however, could also be a disadvantage in some circumstances. Proving a member wrong by consulting the e-mail record may provoke contentious communication within the group. Settling

an issue may stir up hostile, defensive communication patterns. E-mail communica-

tion can also pose potential problems for groups because of its transcript availability

(Rocheleau, 2002). Teams operating in organizations could experience a loss of co-

hesiveness if members forward e-mails to team leaders or outside supervisors in an

attempt to present a member in a negative light. “Ratting” on a team member may

bring issues of social loafing or disruption to everyone’s attention, but constructively

addressing such issues only by e-mail is enormously difficult. Therapy groups offer-

ing support and advice to members by e-mail also raise legal issues of confidentiality.

Inappropriate jokes, comments, and gossip e-mailed to group members have a way

of leaking beyond the group and igniting legal concerns about sexual harassment

(creating a hostile group environment) and bias. Caution should also be employed

when directing group members to social networking sites for personal profiles used to cre-

ate group connection and cohesiveness. Your Facebook or LinkedIn profile can result

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 398 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 399 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

VirTual group effeCTiVeness 399 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 399 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

SECOND LOOK

in some serious privacy concerns and resulting harm “like the denial or loss of em-

ployment, shame and embarrassment, denigration of reputation, or merely exposure

to an unwanted light” (Abril, 2008) if your profile presents a controversial image

(provocative photos, offensive language, etc.). A good rule to follow is don’t type anything in an e-mail to any group member or include anything on your social networking site that would cause you shame or embarrassment, or necessitate an apology, if it were seen by individuals other than those whom you intended to see it. Private revelations can become public record.

Virtual Group Effectiveness

Virtual groups experience the same challenges and have the same capacity for suc-

cess as face-to-face groups (Tullar & Kaiser, 2000). Making virtual groups effective

is often more difficult, however, than producing successful face-to-face groups.

“Misunderstandings are more likely to arise and more things are likely to go wrong”

Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Virtual Groups Advantages Disadvantages

Distance not a problem—

members connected across

many time zones

Learning unfamiliar, complicated

technologies

Cost savings on travel,

lodging, food

Decision quality jeopardized under

time pressure

Initial status equalization Difficulty developing positive social

relations among group members

Greater assertiveness

from reticent members

Greater likelihood of destructive conflict

Decreased social anxiety

(text-only and audio-only media)

Cultural misunderstandings difficult

to address

Settling arguments by consulting

text transcripts (e-mail)

Increased social anxiety

(videoconferencing—camera-shy)

Embarrassment from private e-mails and

sites becoming public records

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 399 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 400 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 400 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 400 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

(Lipnack & Stamps, 1997, p. xxi). Integrating different technologies into the group

process complicates both the task and social dimensions of virtual groups. In this

section, general factors influencing virtual group success are discussed, and specific

suggestions for virtual group effectiveness are offered.

▶ General Factors: Getting Set for Success There are three general factors that need to be considered as fundamental underpin-

nings of potential success in virtual groups. They are temporality, media richness,

and media synchronicity.

Temporality: Long-Term versus Short-Term Virtual Groups Most research studies on virtual groups use ad hoc groups of strangers (usually college students)

that meet for short periods of time, then disband. Relatively few studies have been

conducted on virtual groups whose members have worked together extensively in a

computer-mediated communication environment. This fact requires caution when

interpreting research that compares virtual groups to face-to-face groups (Driskell

et al., 2003). Groups that gain experience in the virtual world likely have fewer dif-

ficulties than those unfamiliar with new technologies. Even a technology as simple as

the teleconference can pose initial difficulties when group members are unfamiliar

with each other. Identifying who is speaking when you haven’t matched the voices

with the group members can be quite perplexing. Messages can get garbled when

two or more members speak at once. When group members have a shared history

developed in long-term transactions, virtual group effectiveness improves (Alge

et al., 2003). When virtual group members work together long enough to receive

training in media use, effectiveness also improves (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001; Van

der Kleij et al., 2009). Finally, when time together permits the development of per-

sonal relationships in a virtual environment, effectiveness improves (Pauleen &

Young, 2001). Along this line, e-mail messages may pose fewer problems of misin-

terpretation and confusion when exchanged between virtual group members who

know each other well (Mennecke et al., 2000). Virtual group members may have

opportunities to meet in person, talk on the phone, and see each other in videocon-

ferences when working together long-term. Combining several media can provide a

richer group environment.

Media Richness: The Lean and Meaty Theory Daft and Lengel’s (1986) media richness theory (MRT) posits that communication media vary along a continuum of richness—the information-carrying capacity of each form of communication.

Determinations of richness are based on the inherent capacity of each medium to

show nonverbal cues, provide rapid feedback, present personality traits, and per-

mit language variety. Media richness varies from high to low as you move, in or- der, from face-to-face transactions, to video, to audio, and finally to text-only

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 400 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 401 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

VirTual group effeCTiVeness 401 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 401 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

communication (Zornoza et al., 2002). Communication media with high richness are presumed to be personal and warm, and communication media with low rich-

ness (“lean”) are impersonal (detached) and cold (factual) (Rasters et al., 2002). MRT

predicts that lean media, such as text-only varieties, are most effective for group dis-

cussions of simple, unambiguous topics and tasks (e.g., text-only brainstorming al-

lows transmission of specific ideas and avoids “richer” emotional, personal responses

that might interfere with task accomplishment). Rich media (especially face-to-face

communication) are predicted to be most effective for complex, uncertain topics and

tasks, such as conflicts of interest that require information about attitudes, feelings,

expectations, commitment to resolving disagreements, and so forth (Zornoza et al.,

2002).

MRT has some intuitive appeal. Virtual group members may view e-mail as a

godsend when quick transmission of factual information to all members simultane-

ously is advantageous, but they may feel constrained by text-only communication

when cultural misunderstandings emerge. In fact, there appears to be a strong need

to enrich virtual group technology when it seems too lean. Emoticons (such as B for

happy; J for very sad or frowning; =:O for screaming in fright with hair standing on

end; and <Y> for yawning and <G> for grinning) have been created to provide more

enriched feedback when nonverbal cues are unavailable. Facebook and LinkedIn

profiles include visual images along with text to enrich the virtual group experience.

Despite the intuitive appeal of MRT, research supporting it has been mixed

(Straub & Karahanna, 1998). The theory is well supported when applied to tradi-

tional media (face-to-face communication, letters, and memos), but when newer

electronic media are considered, such as e-mail and videoconferencing, the research

results are inconsistent (Dennis & Kinney, 1998). Many researchers argue, however,

that MRT has not been appropriately tested because media choices by virtual groups

and members’ perceptions of those choices have received emphasis, but actual vir-

tual group performance related to these choices has received comparatively little at-

tention (Rasters et al., 2002). One study of 98 virtual teams, however, concluded that

when teams choose “media that facilitate connectedness to others” they are more

likely to achieve team objectives (Timmerman & Scott, 2006).

Although MRT isn’t an overarching theory of effective media use in virtual groups,

it is one explanatory piece of the virtual group puzzle. MRT draws attention to the

richness of face-to-face communication and to the challenges posed by leaner tech-

nological media. E-mail, for instance, is often a poor choice for addressing complex

conflicts and issues. Its constricted richness, however, makes resolving complex rela-

tional conflicts difficult but certainly not impossible.

Media Synchronicity: Extending MRT Media synchronicity theory (MST) extends media richness theory by providing a dynamic, time-changing quality to

the richness of each communication medium (Dennis & Valacich, 1999; see also

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 401 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 402 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 402 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 402 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Schiller & Mandviwalla, 2007). MST suggests that no communication medium can

be designated “richest” or “leanest” based on an inherent, unchangeable information

transmission capacity. Instead, the richest media are those that best meet the com- munication needs of the group. Sometimes this means using synchronous media and other times asynchronous media. Synchronous media are those that permit simultaneous, same-time interactions among group members, modeled after face-

to-face meetings. Teleconferences, videoconferences, and chat rooms are examples of

synchronous media. Asynchronous media are those that permit anytime/ anyplace communication among group members without interruption. Messages are posted

and read at the convenience of other group members. Standard e-mail, bulletin

boards, blogs, and cell phone text-messaging are examples.

Media synchronicity theory is appealing and potentially insightful, but little re-

search has been conducted on it. Nevertheless, it offers some help in making media

choices for virtual groups. For example, one study of computer-mediated Alcoholics

Anonymous (AA) meetings found that “Asynchronous AA groups, in some ways,

appear to be the prototypical supportive environment” (VanLear et al., 2005). Asyn-

chronous AA meetings were characterized by highly personal communication, and

they were more supportive (exhibited more frequent empathic responses) and less

defensive (fewer negative evaluations) than synchronous AA meetings. Asynchro-

nous support groups permit delayed, thoughtful responses, so hair-trigger criticisms

may be squelched before they are ever sent (this is probably true more for support

groups, given their empathic purpose, than work groups). Individuals too shy to

share intensely private revelations during in-person AA meetings are more inclined

to share in virtual groups, especially asynchronous bulletin boards. Consider one

such bulletin board exchange between a newcomer just joining the virtual group and

old-timer AA members (VanLear et al., 2005):

BB: I’ve gone 12 days [sober]. . . . I’m realizing my incredible shyness is gonna get me drunk. I went to a mtg [meeting] to meet ppl [people] but I left;

didn’t talk to anyone. . . . I wish I could force myself not to be shy . . .

thanks for letting me share.

DD: Glad you’re here BB. KCB [Keep coming back]. EE: Thanks BB, I’m shy too. I learned to ask open-ended questions. (p. 23)

BB wasn’t able to share her personal revelation about shyness during face-to-face

AA meetings, but she shared this almost effortlessly in her new virtual asynchro-

nous group. The impersonal nature of text-only, asynchronous media can permit

the communication of highly personal revelations by blunting the awkwardness of

face-to-face public disclosure of private information. Text-only asynchronous media

may make embarrassing or uncomfortable disclosures less awkward by removing the

intimidating and immediate presence of some who might communicate judgment

(eye rolling).

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 402 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 403 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

VirTual group effeCTiVeness 403 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 403 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

▶ Specific Suggestions: Tentative Advice Any suggestions offered to meet the unique challenge of integrating technologies

into the group process are necessarily tentative until much more is learned about

virtual groups. Nevertheless, some suggestions can be made that will likely prove

helpful should you have an opportunity to participate in a virtual group.

Choosing Media: Richness and Synchronicity Because the use of electronic media is the principal distinction between virtual groups and standard, face-to-face

groups, choosing media wisely is a key consideration. Groups that choose communi-

cation media haphazardly are likely to regret their casual decision. Of course, media

choice may be out of your hands. Students doing group projects for online courses

are usually told by the instructor to use certain media to accomplish the task (usually

what is affordable).

Enriching the virtual group environment is especially important during the initial stages of group development (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Most virtual teams, recognizing the importance of an enriched media environment during initial

group development, tend to rely heavily on face-to-face communication to build

cohesiveness (Kerber & Buono, 2004). In-person contact and socializing builds trust

and improves group success (Creighton & Adams, 1998; Furst et al., 2004). In or-

ganizations, this usually involves travel. The in-person, meet-and-greet process is highly recommended, if possible, during group formation (Oertig & Buegri, 2006). Online courses often have an initial face-to-face meeting at the beginning of

the course, and some (such as public-speaking classes) usually have several inter-

spersed throughout the term. If face-to-face meetings are not feasible, teleconfer-

ences or videoconferences are suitable compromises for enriching the online group

environment. One respondent in a virtual teams survey reported, “We have created

a virtual lunch once a month that co-workers can voluntarily attend . . . This has

helped in building rapport with co-workers” (quoted in Solomon, 2010). Simply so-

cializing via Skype, for instance, can enrich the virtual experience. As virtual groups mature in development, media richness is not as critical because members learn to function effectively based on member familiarity and acquired knowledge (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994).

Nevertheless, as Solomon (2010) suggests, “It is valuable for virtual teams to have

periodic face-to-face meetings” (p. 13). Referring to survey findings to support this

recommendation, she notes, “Again and again, respondents voiced a desire for more

face-to-face meetings among virtual team members” (p. 13). One study found that

using computer-mediated communication in groups more than 90% of the time

“was detrimental to team outcomes” (Johnson et al., 2009, p. 623). This means that

groups that are 100% virtual may have more difficulty remaining effective than vir-

tual groups that mix in at least some face-to-face contact.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 403 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 404 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 404 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 404 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

As indicated previously, sometimes virtual groups are more effective using syn-

chronous media and other times asynchronous, depending on the communication

needs of the group. Real-world support for this is provided by a study of 54 highly

successful teams whose members represented 26 companies from a wide variety of

industries and cultures spread across many time zones (Majchrzak et al., 2004). De-

tailed reports and interviews from leaders and members of these successful teams

noted that when projects require complementary competencies and diverse perspec-

tives and the tasks can be performed using electronic technologies, virtual groups are

a better choice than face-to-face groups.

Teams generally had a negative view of asynchronous e-mail and synchro- nous videoconferences, but they had a positive view of synchronous teleconfer- ences and asynchronous, text-only postings. E-mailing in one-to-one exchanges inevitably caused other members to feel left out of the conversational loop, eroding

trust and producing dysfunctional behavior. To rectify this, some teams copied all

members on every e-mail message. This produced information overload. Members

resorted to deleting e-mails without reading them. This produced confusion. Dis-

satisfaction with videoconferencing mostly involved poor-quality video production.

Returning to the videoconferencing facility at work after normal business hours, es-

pecially when working with members located in vastly different time zones, was also

an unwelcome inconvenience. (Every member having access to Skype, however,

removes this as a potential problem since such videoconferences can be conducted

at home if necessary.) Teleconferences were easy to conduct (often from home)

and they functioned well to discuss disagreements. Text-only postings worked well

to prepare members for teleconferences. Successful teams adapted technology to meet their communication needs (see Closer Look: “ComCorp Case Study”).

Conducting Virtual Meetings: Special Challenges The specific steps for conducting productive group meetings discussed in Chapter 8 all apply well to

virtual groups. Review these steps before your first virtual meeting. There are several additional concerns that you should address as the group leader or meeting chair.

1. Choose the appropriate technology for the meeting. Sophisticated technologies are just complicated toys if they are not matched properly with the purposes and objec-

tives of the group. If videoconferencing equipment is old and of poor quality, a tele-

conference may be a better choice. Trial and error will eventually indicate what works

best for the group given group goals and restrictions on equipment and facilities.

2. Limit the size of the group. It is more difficult to recognize when a group has grown too large for an effective meeting to take place when there are no rooms to

get stuffy and no seating capacity concerns. Keep the group size as small as pos-

sible so the technology does not complicate the discussion process.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 404 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 405 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

VirTual group effeCTiVeness 405 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 405 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

CLOSER LOOK

ComCorp Case Study

For a year and a half, Kerber and Buono (2004) studied the launch and development of a vir-tual team in the corporate training and de- velopment section of a company they refer to as ComCorp. ComCorp is a $3 billion company with about 8,000 employees. The team was composed of 11 members spread across many time zones and four countries (United States, England, Ireland, and Australia). A teleconfer- ence, for example, would begin at 1:00 p.m. for some members, 9:00 p.m. for others, and 6:00 a.m. for still other members. The challenge facing this newly developed team was to design training and development solutions that would work well for a large global company experienc- ing a significant restructuring.

Fostering strong social relations among team members was a challenge for the ComCorp team. The team leader (not identified by name) immediately recognized the need for a rich com- munication environment. His immediate goal was “to establish, develop, and sustain lavish information flow among all team members, de- spite their geographic distance and virtual pres- ence” (Kerber & Buono, 2004, p. 12). This was accomplished by using a combination of syn- chronous communication (such as teleconfer- ences, one-on-one phone calls, and in-person meetings between members who were able) and asynchronous communication media (such as e-mail, fax, and voice-mail messages). The team leader established a routine to solidify group co- hesiveness and build social relationships among members. This routine consisted of exchanging photographs during the forming stage and later updating personal events in members’ lives to help cement social bonds; conducting weekly

group teleconferences; having person-to-person phone meetings between the leader and each member every two weeks; engaging in “ice- breaker” exercises during teleconferences (such as each member describing his or her most em- barrassing experience); and encouraging social conversation during a designated part of the teleconferences. The leader remained accessible to all members.

Team performance was also monitored rou- tinely. Teleconference agendas routinely con- sisted of open discussions that reviewed the team purpose and relevant results attained by the group at that point, possible modifica- tion of objectives, recognition of breaking issues, brainstorming possibilities for achieve- ment, making decisions in a collaborative pro- cess, and implementing decisions by assigning members to the implementation process (in other words, the Standard Agenda was mostly followed). Ongoing evaluations of team prog- ress on training projects were conducted during teleconferences. Quarterly reports were issued on team accomplishments. Team members were supported through coaching, frequent feedback, recognition of accomplishments, and an emphasis on personal development. This approach has the effect of reducing social loaf- ing and increasing commitment to the team’s challenging goals.

Team leaders must work harder to sustain strong member satisfaction in virtual groups than in face-to-face groups (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). Group members reported strong satis- faction with the virtual group experience and the

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 405 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 406 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 406 Chapter 11: TeChnology and VirTual groups

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 406 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

overall team leader and group performance. As one member explained, “Our team leader did an excellent job of leading while respecting the wealth of expertise and experience in the team. We did not feel stifled . . . We really worked well as a team, particularly when [the team leader]

had us continually focus on our major priorities and strategies” (p. 11). A variety of measures indicated that the ComCorp virtual group was highly successful, due in no small part to the team leader’s attention to media richness and synchronicity.

Questions for Thought 1. Is the success of this virtual team the result of unique circumstances or can the results be generalized to all

virtual groups?

2. Would videoconferencing have improved the group cohesiveness?

3. Plan for scheduling difficulties. If your virtual group is composed of members spread across multiple time zones, don’t schedule a meeting at 6:00 p.m. San

Francisco time, for example. Members living in London would have to meet at

2:00 a.m. “Time zones presented the greatest general challenge to virtual teams”

according to one study (Solomon, 2010).

4. Check all technological equipment before each meeting to be sure that everything is in top working order. Technological glitches can disrupt the flow of a meeting,

even destroy it. Have someone available at short notice who can correct techno-

logical problems during a virtual meeting.

5. Make certain each group member is well versed in the technology used to conduct the meeting. Remind members that sensitive microphones may pick up whispers

between members during videoconferences. This could cause embarrassment or

create cross-talk that interferes with the fidelity of message transmission. Virtual

meetings, at first, may seem stilted and difficult to manage, but with practice the

technology can almost seem to disappear (Van der Kleij et al., 2009).

This concludes my discussion of communication competence in small groups. One

of the central points that I hope has come through loudly and clearly is that one person

can make an enormous difference in the quality of the group experience. What you

individually do or don’t do may be the difference between a successful and a less-than-

successful group. Competent communication begins with you. The We-orientation is

the core of group effectiveness. Don’t look to others to make groups work. Take the

knowledge you’ve garnered from this textbook and the skills that you will develop as you

put this knowledge into practice and focus them on improving the group experience.

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 406 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 407 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

VirTual group effeCTiVeness 407 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 407 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

IN MIXED COMPANY

ONLINE Now that you’ve read Chapter 11, access the online resources that accompany In Mixed Company at http://login.cengage.com. Your online resources include:

1. Multiple-choice and true-false chapter practice quizzes with automatic correction

2. Digital glossary

3. InfoTrac College Edition research tool

4. Flashcards

Questions for Critical Thinkers

1. As technology continues to improve, is it likely that virtual groups will ever seem exactly like face- to-face groups?

2. As technology becomes more sophisticated and complicated, which challenges presented by vir- tual teams might become more problematic? Will any become less so?

3. What challenges and potential benefits might arise from virtual groups comprised of older and younger members?

Citing movies, even recent ones, that involve virtual groups can seem quickly outdated, even quaint, because technology changes so rapidly. Nevertheless, there are movies that can be analyzed and applied to chapter material on technology.

Firewall (2006). Drama, PG-13; Live Free or Die Hard (2007). Drama, PG-13; Tron Legacy (2010). Sci-Fi, PG Consider these movies. Are there examples of virtual groups? Identify synchronous and asynchronous communication media. How does either affect communication?

VIDEO Case Studies

46850_ch11_ptg01_hr_382_407.indd 407 25/10/11 5:40 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 408 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 408

A P P E N D I X A

Group Oral Presentations

Groups sometimes have public-speaking responsibilities. In some cases the group

has been formed to present information orally before an audience of interested peo-

ple. To assist those with little or no training or experience in public speaking, I am

including this brief appendix, which covers some of the basics of oral presentation.

I discuss types of group oral presentations, speech anxiety, attention strategies, orga-

nization, and use of visual aids.

Typical Types of Group Oral Presentations There are three main types of oral group presentations. They are panel discussions,

symposiums, and forums.

Panel Discussions: Free Exchange of Ideas

Panel discussions assemble a small group of participants, usually experts, to engage in a free exchange of information and ideas on a specific issue or problem before an

audience. Purposes of a panel discussion include solving a difficult problem, inform-

ing an audience on an issue or topic of interest, or stimulating audience members to

think about the pros and cons of a controversial issue.

Panel discussions require a moderator. The moderator usually organizes the group

presentation by soliciting panel members who represent different points of view on

the topic or issue. Panel members should be informed in advance of the topic to be

discussed and major issues that should be addressed by panelists. The moderator should follow several steps to make the panel discussion successful.

1. Suitable physical arrangements for the panel discussion should be organized in advance. Usually, the number of panelists should be no fewer than three and no

more than seven. Panelists should be seated at a long table in front of the audi-

ence, normally on a stage overlooking audience members. When group discus-

sions involve more than four or five participants, seating panelists at two tables

formed in a slight V-shape to the audience helps panelists address each other

during discussions without closing off the audience. Name cards placed on the

table in front of each speaker will help the audience become familiar with each

panelist. If the room where the panel discussion takes place is relatively large, a

microphone at the table should be available for each speaker. If panelists request a

DVD player and monitor, computer hook-up, easel, whiteboard, or other means

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 408 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 409 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Typical Types of Group oral presenTaTions 409 ▶

of presenting visual aids, provide these and place them in a location where access

to them is easy and will not block the audience’s view.

2. The moderator usually begins by welcoming the audience, providing a brief background on the topic or issue to be discussed, and introducing each panel

member, citing specific background and qualifications of each speaker.

3. Panelists should be encouraged to bring notes, but discouraged from reading a prepared manuscript.

4. Begin the discussion with a question posed to the panel (e.g., What is the extent of the problem of binge drinking on college campuses?). The opening question

can be posed to the entire panel, or a specific panelist can be asked to begin the

discussion. The moderator identifies who has the floor during the discussion.

5. The moderator acts as a discussion guide. If a panelist has been left out of the dis- cussion, the moderator may direct a question to him or her. If a panelist begins

to dominate discussion, the moderator should step in and request participation

from other panelists. Controversy should be encouraged, but polite conversation

should be the norm. It is the responsibility of the moderator to keep the conver-

sation civil. If it begins to turn ugly, the moderator should remind panelists to

disagree without being disagreeable. Move the discussion along so that all major

issues are discussed in the allotted time (usually about 45 minutes to an hour).

6. The moderator closes discussion by summarizing main points made by panelists and identifying new issues raised during the discussion to be further explored.

Symposium: Structured Group Presentations

A symposium is a relatively structured group presentation to an audience. It is com- posed of several individuals who present uninterrupted speeches with contrasting

points of view on a central topic. Unlike a panel discussion, speakers do not engage

in a discussion with each other. Each speaker presents a relatively short speech (usu-

ally 4 – 6 minutes apiece) addressing a separate segment of the overall topic. The

primary purpose of a symposium is to enlighten an audience on a controversial issue

or to inform audience members on a subject of interest.

A symposium also benefits from having a moderator. The moderator should fol- low a few important steps to ensure a successful symposium.

1. Physical arrangements made for a panel discussion, just discussed, should also be used for a symposium.

2. To avoid redundancy, speakers should be chosen who represent different points of view.

3. The moderator should provide a brief background on the subject, introduce the speakers, and identify the speakers’ order of presentation.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 409 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 410 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 410 appendix a Group oral presenTaTions

Forum Discussion: Audience Participation

A forum discussion allows members of an audience listening to a public speech, panel discussion, symposium, or debate to participate in a discussion of ideas pre-

sented. The primary purpose of a forum is to engage the audience in the discussion

of issues raised. The moderator’s role is critical to the success of a forum discussion.

Some suggestions for the moderator who directs the forum include:

1. Announce to the audience that an open forum will occur after a panel discussion or symposium has concluded. Audience members can prepare questions or short

remarks as they listen to speakers.

2. Rules for forum participation should be clearly articulated before any discussion occurs. Rules may include: raise your hand to be recognized or stand in a line

where a microphone has been placed and wait your turn; keep remarks and ques-

tions very brief (about 30 seconds); only one follow-up question for each person.

3. Set a time limit for the forum (usually about 30 minutes). Indicate when there is time for only one or two more questions. Accept questions until the dead-

line has been reached, then conclude the forum by thanking the audience for its

participation.

4. Encourage diverse points of view from the audience. A pro and con line might be established. The moderator could move back and forth, recognizing audience

members on both sides so a balanced series of questions and comments will be

presented.

5. If a question cannot be heard by all members of the audience, the moderator should repeat the question. If a question is confusing, the moderator may ask for

a restatement or try to paraphrase the question so panelists or forum speakers

can answer.

Speech Anxiety Virtually everyone experiences some anxiety about having to make a public presenta-

tion. In one survey, 85% of the respondents reported that speech anxiety (also re-

ferred to by some as stage fright or performance anxiety) was a major and serious

fear in their lives (Motley, 1995). With any four individuals, odds are that two will

feel at least an occasional butterfly in the stomach before giving a speech. The third

person will suffer nervousness that can be bothersome, but not incapacitating. The

fourth person will be so anxiety-ridden that he or she will avoid classes that require

oral presentations, skip meetings, refuse job promotions, or even change jobs or oc-

cupations to escape public speaking.

Even college instructors experience speech anxiety. In one study, 87% of psychol-

ogy instructors confessed that they had experienced speech anxiety associated with

some aspect of teaching (Gardner & Leak, 1994). Sixty-five percent of these same

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 410 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 411 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

speech anxieTy 411 ▶

subjects rated their most intense case of speech anxiety between “definitely unpleas-

ant” and “severe or extreme.” You’re not alone if you are anxious about having to

make an oral presentation in your class.

You can “cure” speech anxiety with heavy doses of tranquilizers, but, aside from

the physiological dangers associated with them (they’re potentially addictive), they

will make you appear witless in front of an audience because they deaden mental

acuity. So if you’re concerned about appearing lobotomized in front of groups, avoid

drugs used as a cure for anxiety.

Speech anxiety, however, is not necessarily a demon to be exorcised. The degree of anxiety, not the anxiety itself, requires attention. A moderate amount of anxiety can enhance performance and energize a speaker. You can present a more dynamic,

forceful presentation when energized than when you feel so comfortable that you

become almost listless and unchallenged by the speaking experience.

When the intensity of your fear about speaking in front of people gets out of control,

however, it becomes debilitative and detracts from your performance. Intense anxiety

can be cause for real concern if ignored. It will congest your thought pathways, thereby

clogging your free flow of ideas. In such a condition, every speaker’s nightmare— going

blank—will likely occur. Also, a terror-stricken speaker feels an urge to escape.

Consequently, a 7-minute speech is compressed into 3 minutes by a staccato, hyper-

speed delivery. The quicker the speech presentation, the quicker the escape.

The causes of speech anxiety are complex and varied. Space does not permit a

thorough discussion of these causes. Generally speaking, the causes of speech anx- iety are self-defeating thoughts and situational factors.

Self-defeating thoughts include negative thoughts that predict failure, desire for

complete approval from an audience, and an awareness that audience members will

evaluate your speaking performance. Negative thoughts about your speaking perfor-

mance can wildly exaggerate potential problems and thus stoke the furnace of anxiety.

Those harboring negative thoughts predict not just momentary lapses of memory,

but a complete meltdown of mental functions (“I know I’ll forget my entire speech

and I’ll just stand there like an idiot”). Minor problems of organization are magni-

fied into graphic episodes of total incoherence and nonstop babbling. Perfectionists

also anguish over every flaw in their speech and overgeneralize the significance of

even minor defects. A flawless public-speaking performance is a desirable goal, but

why beat up on yourself when it doesn’t happen? Perfectionists make self-defeating

statements to themselves such as “I’m such a fool. I mispronounced the name of one

of the experts I quoted”; “I must have said ‘um’ at least a dozen times. I sounded

like a moron”; and “My knees were shaking. The audience must have thought I was

afflicted with a disorder of my nervous system.” Ironically, the imperfections so

glaringly noticeable to perfectionists usually go unnoticed by most people in the

audience. Even the most talented and experienced public speakers make occasional

errors in otherwise riveting performances.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 411 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 412 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 412 appendix a Group oral presenTaTions

Another self-defeating thought that triggers speech anxiety is the desire for com-

plete approval from your audience, especially from those whose opinion we value. It

is irrational thinking, however, to accept nothing less than complete approval from

an audience. You cannot please everyone, especially if you take a stand on a con-

troversial issue. When you set standards for success at unreachable heights, you are

bound to take a tumble.

The fact that an audience evaluates you every time you give a speech, even if no

one is formally grading your performance, will usually trigger some anxiety. Human

beings are social creatures who dislike, even fear, disapproval from others. Even if

you aren’t seeking complete approval or adulation from your listeners, you would be

a rare individual if you were completely immune to the judgments of others hearing

you speak. Public speaking becomes doubly intense when formal grades are given for

each speech performance.

There are many situational causes of speech anxiety. Two prominent ones are

novel situations and conspicuousness. Novel situations— ones that are new to you—

create uncertainty, and uncertainty can easily make you tense. For most students,

public speaking is a novel situation. Few students have given many speeches in their

lifetime, and some have never given a formal public address. Fortunately, as you gain

experience speaking in front of audiences, the novelty wears off and your anxiety will

diminish.

The conspicuousness of the public-speaking situation increases most people’s anxi-

ety. Most students tell me that speaking to one or two persons is usually not very

difficult, but speaking in front of an entire class or an auditorium filled with a thou-

sand people really makes them want to toss their lunch. Here the interaction of con-

spicuousness and approval can be easily seen. Standing alone before a few people and

possibly failing is not nearly as big a deal as possibly failing in front of a huge crowd.

In the former situation, your potential failure would likely remain an isolated event,

but in the latter situation the entire school might be in on your humiliation—so goes

the logic.

So how do you manage your speech anxiety, given the variety of causes that in-

duce it? Numerous individuals have suggested to me that picturing your audience

nude, or clothed only in underwear or in diapers, can be helpful (assuming you

can stifle your laughter when the image pops into your mind). Breathing deeply is

also a favorite tidbit of wisdom offered by many as a quick-fix coping strategy for

stage fright. These remedies have some merit, especially if they work for you. None

of them, however, offers a reliable solution to speech anxiety. There are many more

effective methods.

First, there is no substitute for adequate preparation. Conducting proper research

on your speech topic, organizing your speech clearly and carefully, and practicing it

several times are all essential if you hope to manage your anxiety effectively. Adequate

preparation also must include physiological preparation, such as ensuring proper

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 412 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 413 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

speech anxieTy 413 ▶

nutrition just prior to the speech event. Ignoring your physiological preparation for

a speech may cancel out the benefits of other methods used to manage your speech

anxiety. Consequently, do not deliver a speech on an empty stomach, but also do

not fill your stomach with empty calories. You need high-quality fuel such as com-

plex carbohydrates to sustain you while you’re speaking. Simple sugars (doughnuts,

Twinkies), caffeine (coffee, colas, chocolate), and nicotine (cigarettes) should be

avoided or ingested in very small quantities. Adequate preparation will reduce un-

certainty and the fear of failure.

Second, gain perspective on your speech situation. Consider the difference between

rational and irrational speech anxiety. A colleague of mine, Darrell Beck, worked out

a simple formula for determining the difference between the two. The severity of the feared occurrence times the probability of the feared occurrence provides a rough approximation of how much anxiety is rational and when you have crossed the line

into irrational anxiety. Severity is approximated by imagining what would happen

to you if your worst fears came true—you bombed the speech. Would you leave the

state? Would you drop out of school? Probably not, since even dreadful speaking

performances do not warrant such drastic steps. You might consider dropping the

class, but even this is unlikely since fellow students are very understanding when a

classmate delivers a poor speech. So even a poor speech does not rationally warrant

joining the monastic life or making any significant life changes. The probability that

your worst nightmare will come true and you will give a horrible speech, however,

is extremely unlikely if you have adequately prepared. Thus, working yourself into

a lather over an impending speech lacks proper perspective if you follow the advice

given here.

Third, refocus your attention on your message and your audience and away from

yourself (Motley, 1995). You cannot concentrate on two things at the same time. If

you dwell on your nervousness, you will be distracted from presenting your message

effectively. Focus on presenting your message clearly and enthusiastically. View the

speaking experience as a challenge to keep your audience interested, maybe even an

opportunity to change their minds on an issue.

Fourth, make coping statements to yourself as you give your speech, especially

when you momentarily stumble. When inexperienced speakers make mistakes dur-

ing a speech, they tend to make negative statements to themselves. You forget a point,

momentarily lose your train of thought, or stammer. Immediately, the tendency is

for you to say to yourself “I knew I would mess up this speech” or “I told everybody

I couldn’t give a decent speech.” Instead, try making coping statements while you’re

delivering the speech. When problems arise say “I can do better” or “I’m getting to

the good part of my speech.” Talk to yourself during your speech in positive ways to

counteract self-talk that defeats you. When parts of your speech go well, compliment

yourself on a job well done (to yourself, of course, not out loud). This sustains and

energizes you as you proceed through the speech.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 413 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 414 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 414 appendix a Group oral presenTaTions

Gaining and Maintaining Attention Audience interest doesn’t just happen magically. Interest is garnered by carefully

planning and utilizing strategies of attention. Although gaining and maintaining

attention throughout your speech is an important goal for any speaker, attention

strategies should enhance a speech, not detract from it. A disorganized speech gains

attention but in a negative way. Frequent verbal and vocal fillers such as “you know,”

“um,” and “ah” draw attention to inarticulateness.

Some attributes of stimuli, by their very nature, attract attention. Consider just a

few of these attributes and how they can become attention strategies.

First, intensity is a concentrated stimulus that draws attention. Intensity is an ex-

treme degree of emotion, thought, or activity. Relating a story of a woman fleeing

for her life from a stalker can be intense, especially for those who fear such an occur-

rence. Don’t be too graphic when describing emotionally charged events, however,

or you may offend and alienate your audience.

There are several basic stylistic techniques that promote intensity and rivet an

audience’s attention. Direct, penetrating eye contact is a useful technique. How does

a daydreamer continue to ignore you when you are zeroing in on the daydreamer?

The lack of eye contact so typical of manuscript speeches, in which every word of your speech is written on the paper in front of you, underlines the importance of not reading a speech to an audience because you break connection with your listeners. Direct eye contact is an attention builder, but lack of eye contact is an at- tention destroyer.

Variation in vocal volume is a second technique for provoking intensity. A

raised voice can be quite intense. It punctuates portions of your speech much as an

exclamation point punctuates a written sentence. The use of a raised voice, how-

ever, can be a rather shattering experience for an audience. Incessant, unrelenting,

bombastic delivery of a message irritates and alienates an audience. Punctuate

with a raised voice only those points that are especially significant and deserve

closer attention lest your speech sounds like a rant.

Silence can also be intense. A pregnant pause—silence held a bit longer than

usual if you were merely taking a breath—interjects drama into your speech and

spotlights significant points.

A second stimulus attribute that induces attention is startling. You try to stun,

surprise, and shake up your audience. A startling statement, fact, or statistic can

do this quite effectively. Startling statements such as “AIDS clearly has the poten-

tial to decimate the human population”; “Calories can kill you”; and “You may be

living next door to a terrorist” can make an audience sit up and take notice. That

it costs more to feed and house a criminal in prison than it does to send him or

her to the most expensive university in the country is a startling fact. Of course,

you do not want to startle your audience if you can’t support your claims with

evidence.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 414 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 415 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

GaininG and MainTaininG aTTenTion 415 ▶

Every startling stimulus does not produce constructive attention from an au- dience. Speakers can startle and offend at the same time. A few examples from my own experience and those of my colleagues make this point. One student (during

a speech on food poisoning) gained attention by vomiting scrambled eggs into his

handkerchief, raising serious doubts about the speaker’s good taste. Another stu-

dent punched himself so hard in the face that he momentarily staggered himself (the

speech was on violence in America). Yet another student fired a pistol at his audience

(blanks only). After classmates dusted themselves off, they showed no inclination to

listen to the rest of his speech on gun control.

All of these examples have one thing in common: the speakers startled their au-

dience but lost credibility in the process. Tasteless jokes, ethnic slurs, and offensive

language will also startle an audience and gain attention, but at a substantial cost to

the speaker. The general rule applies—attention strategies should enhance the ef- fectiveness of your speech, not detract from it.

Making a problem or issue appear vital to an audience is a third attention strategy.

There are two principal ways to do this. First, the problem must be made vital not in

some abstract or general sense, but in a specific, immediate, and meaningful sense.

An audience’s primary question when told that a problem exists is “How does it affect

me?” The problem becomes vital and therefore meaningful when listeners can see

how the consequences of inaction directly affect their interests and well-being. “One

out of every 10 women in this audience will contract breast cancer and a similar num-

ber of men listening to me will contract prostate cancer. Those of you who escape the

disease will likely know one or more friends or relatives who will die from these forms

of cancer” is an example of how to personalize a problem and make it seem vital to an

audience. Be careful, however, not to overstate your case by depicting relatively trivial

concerns as vital. For an issue to be accepted as vital, it must have the ring of truth.

Credible evidence must substantiate your claim that the problem is vital.

Using novelty is a fourth attention strategy. Audiences are naturally drawn to the

new and different. Unusual examples, clever quotations, and uncommon stories at-

tract attention because they are new and different. Beginning your speech with a

novel introduction is especially important. Do not begin by telling the audience what

your topic is. That is very unoriginal and boring. Create interest in your topic with

a novel opening—an unusual news event, story, or human interest example related

to your subject. For instance, notice how the following introduction grabs attention

by using novelty:

Acting as his own attorney, an Oklahoma City robbery suspect became agitated when a witness identified him in court as the guilty party. “I should have blown your head off,” he screamed, adding on quick reflection, “if I’d been the one that was there.” The verdict? Guilty. Lesson to be learned? Acting as your own attorney is a foolish idea.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 415 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 416 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 416 appendix a Group oral presenTaTions

Novelty can be a very effective attention strategy, especially for the introduction to

your speech, but also throughout your presentation.

Finally, using humor is a superior attention strategy if used adroitly. You should be

able to incorporate humorous anecdotes, quotations, and personal stories through-

out your speech. There are several important guidelines, however, for using hu- mor effectively as an attention strategy. First, don’t force humor. If you aren’t a particularly funny person and have never told a joke without omitting crucial details

or flubbing the punch line, then don’t try to be a comedian in front of your audience.

Humorous quotations, funny stories, and amusing occurrences can be used without

setting them up as jokes. Simply offer them as illustrations of key points, and, if the

audience members are amused, they will laugh.

Second, use only relevant humor. Unrelated stories and jokes may be suitable for

a comic whose principal purpose is to make an audience laugh, but a formal speech

requires you to make important points. Your use of humor needs to make a relevant

contribution to the advancement of the speech’s purpose.

Third, use good taste. Coarse vulgarities, obscenities, and sick jokes invite anger

and hostility. Humor that rests on stereotypes and put-downs may alienate vast

sections of your audience. Sexist, racist, and homophobic jokes that denigrate groups

exhibit bad taste and poor judgment.

Fourth, don’t overuse humor. Don’t become enamored with your own wittiness.

Telling joke after joke or telling one amusing story after another will likely produce

laughter, but the audience will also be dissatisfied if you substitute humor for substance.

Humor can be risky but very satisfying when it works. Using humor is probably

the most effective attention strategy when used appropriately and skillfully.

Organizing and Outlining Presenting a well-organized speech is critical to your success as a speaker. This sec-

tion, by necessity, will be a cursory treatment of organization and outlining.

Perhaps the easiest way of developing the organization of your speech is to think of

your speech as an inverted pyramid. The base of your upside-down pyramid repre-

sents the most general part of your speech, namely, the topic. Moving down toward

the tip of the pyramid, you fill in the purpose statement, then the main points that

flow from the purpose statement, then elaborate on each main point with subpoints

and sub-subpoints, and so forth. You begin with the abstract and work toward the

concrete and specific.

Let’s say that your group has chosen for its symposium topic the problem of vio-

lence in America. First, your group must divide this general topic into manageable

subtopics so each group member will have about a 4- to 6-minute speech. Subtopics

might include violence on television, violence in the movies, guns and violence, gang

violence, social and economic causes of violence, and potential solutions to violence

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 416 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 417 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

orGanizinG and ouTlininG 417 ▶

(which could be divided even further into specific proposals such as “three strikes

and you’re out,” outlawing handguns, prison reform, and social programs). Each

group member would then be given his or her subtopic.

Once you have your subtopic for the symposium, each group member must con-

struct a specific purpose statement. A purpose statement is a concise, precise, de- clarative statement phrased in simple, clear language that provides both the general

purpose (to inform or to persuade) and the specific purpose (exactly what you want

the audience to understand, believe, feel, or do). A purpose statement ordinarily con-

siders the interests and knowledge level of a particular audience. Your group presen-

tation should always be mindful of audience interest, depth of understanding, and

experience of audience members.

TOPIC: Guns and violence

PURPOSE STATEMENT: To inform you that handgun violence is a serious problem

in America.

Your purpose statement becomes the blueprint for your entire speech. You deter- mine your main points from your purpose statement.

MAIN POINT I: Death from handguns is a serious problem.

MAIN POINT II: Serious injury from handguns also poses a serious problem for

America.

Each main point is then divided into subpoints, sub-subpoints, and so on.

MAIN POINT I: Death from handguns is a serious problem.

SUBPOINT A: There are more than 16,000 murders from handguns every year in

America; Japan has fewer than 100.

SUBPOINT B: More than 1,400 American youths between the ages of 10 and 19

commit suicide with a handgun each year.

Each subpoint is then broken down further with more detail, examples, and supporting evidence.

SUBPOINT A: There are more than 16,000 murders from handguns every year in

America; Japan has fewer than 100.

SUB-SUBPOINT 1: Teenage homicide from handguns has almost doubled in

the last decade to more than 5,000 annually.

SUB-SUBPOINT 2: The teenage handgun death rate now exceeds the mortality

rate for young people from all natural causes combined.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 417 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 418 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 418 appendix a Group oral presenTaTions

SUB-SUBPOINT 3: Three times more American young men are killed by

handguns every 100 hours than were killed during the 100-hour Persian

Gulf War.

SUB-SUBPOINT 4: Provide examples of teenagers gunned down in street

violence.

SUBPOINT B: More than 1,400 American youths between the ages of 10 and 19

commit suicide with a handgun each year.

SUB-SUBPOINT 1: Nearly two-thirds of suicides are from handguns.

SUB-SUBPOINT 2: Handguns put at risk large numbers of young people who

consider suicide.

SUB-SUB-SUBPOINT a: More than one in four high school students seriously

contemplate suicide.

SUB-SUB-SUBPOINT b: Sixteen percent of high schoolers make a specific

plan to commit suicide, and half of these actually try to kill themselves.

SUB-SUB-SUBPOINT c: Ready availability of handguns makes teen suicide

more likely.

SUB-SUB-SUBPOINT d: Tell the story of 14-year-old Paul Hoffman.

The resulting outline for your first main point would look as follows:

PURPOSE STATEMENT: To inform you that handgun violence is a serious problem

in America.

I. Death from handguns is a serious problem. A. There are more than 16,000 murders from handguns every year in America;

Japan has fewer than 100. 1. Teenage homicide from handguns has almost doubled in the last decade to

more than 5,000 annually.

2. The teenage handgun death rate now exceeds the mortality rate for young people from all natural causes combined.

3. Three times more American young men are killed by handguns in 100 hours than were killed during the 100-hour Persian Gulf War.

4. Provide examples of specific teenagers gunned down in street violence. B. More than 1,400 American youths between the ages of 10 and 19 commit

suicide with a handgun each year. 1. Nearly two-thirds of suicides are from handguns. 2. Handguns put at risk large numbers of young people who consider suicide.

a. More than one in four high school students seriously contemplate suicide. b. Sixteen percent of high schoolers make a specific plan to commit suicide,

and half of these actually try to kill themselves.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 418 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 419 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

orGanizinG and ouTlininG 419 ▶

c. Ready availability of handguns makes teen suicide more likely. d. Tell the story of 14-year-old Paul Hoffman.

You follow the same procedure for outlining your second main point. (For ex- amples of complete outlines, see those preceding each chapter in this text.) Note that

every subpoint must relate specifically to the main point and likewise every sub-

subpoint must relate specifically to the subpoint above it.

The form used in the sample outline follows a standard set of symbols composed

of Roman numerals, capital letters, and Arabic numbers. Indent all subdivisions of a

more general point. This will help you follow the development of your points as you

speak. Every point that is subdivided has at least two subpoints. Preparing the body of your speech is your most difficult and primary organiza-

tional task. The introduction, however, creates the all-important first impression

with an audience. Your introduction should satisfy the following objectives, usu- ally in this order:

1. Gain the attention of the audience. 2. Provide your purpose statement. 3. Relate the topic and purpose statement to the needs and interests of the audience

(answering the question “Why should the audience care about your topic and

purpose?”).

4. Preview the main points of your speech (state them exactly as they appear in your outline).

The conclusion of your speech should strive to accomplish two objectives:

1. Wrap up the speech with a brief summary of your main points. 2. End the speech with an effective attention strategy that brings closure to the

speech.

Once you have prepared your speech outline composed of your introduction,

body, and conclusion, practice your speech several times. Speaking from an out-

line instead of a written manuscript is called the extemporaneous style of speaking (extemp, for short). When you have prepared your full-sentence outline as already

explained, you may want to condense full sentences into terse words or phrases for your actual speaking outline. Under pressure of performing before an audience, it is usually easier to speak extemporaneously when you do not have to read whole

sentences. Glancing at a few words or a phrase to remind you of a point allows you to

maintain strong eye contact with your listeners without losing your train of thought.

Finally, as you present your speech, signpost your primary points. Signposts indicate exactly where you are in your speech so the audience can follow along easily.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 419 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 420 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 420 appendix a Group oral presenTaTions

Restating your main points as you get to each one is an example of signposting. If

you had “three causes of gun violence in America” you would signpost each one as

you addressed them in turn, such as “the first cause of gun violence is poverty,” “the

second cause of gun violence is the ready availability of guns,” and “the third cause of

gun violence is the breakdown of the criminal justice system.” In this way, signpost-

ing underscores your important points as you present your speech.

Using Visual Aids Visual aids can add interest, clarify complex material, make points memorable, and

enhance the credibility of the speaker. There are many types of visual aids, and with

the advent of computer graphics and technologies still being developed, the pos-

sibilities are almost limitless. For inexperienced speakers, however, it is best to keep

visual aids simple. Photographs, diagrams, charts, graphs, physical models, video

clips, and PowerPoint slides are the standard types of visual aids.

Poorly designed and clumsily used visual aids will detract from your speech.

The following guidelines will assist you in preparing and displaying visual aids effectively:

1. Keep visual aids simple. Visual aids that work well in books, magazines, or news- papers rarely work well in a speech. In printed material a visual aid can be studied

carefully. A complicated visual aid used in a speech will distract audience mem-

bers from listening to the speaker while they try to figure out the complex graph,

chart, or diagram.

2. Visual aids should be large enough to be seen easily. The general rule of thumb here is that a person in the back of the room should be able to see the visual aid

easily.

3. Visual aids should be neat and attractive. Sloppy, hastily constructed visual aids are worse than no visual aids at all. Long lists of bulleted points on PowerPoint

slides are boring. Remember, PowerPoint slides are supposed to be visual aids.

Make slides visually attractive and attention getting.

4. Display the visual aid where it can be seen easily by all members of the audience. Audience members should not have to stand up or elongate their necks to see the

visual aid. A PowerPoint presentation shown on a small computer screen instead

of projected on a large screen is inadequate in almost all group presentations.

5. Practice with the visual aids. Remember Murphy’s law: whatever can go wrong likely will go wrong. Make certain that any equipment used is in proper working

order. Do not attempt to use electronic technology without practicing with it

first.

6. Talk to the audience, not the visual aid. Don’t turn your back on your audi- ence while explaining your visual aid (a common practice even by professional

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 420 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 421 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

usinG Visual aids 421 ▶

speakers when referring to projected PowerPoint images). Stand facing your au-

dience, point the toes of your feet straight ahead, and imagine that your feet have

been nailed to the floor. Stand beside the visual aid when referring to it and use

your finger or a laser pointer to guide the audience.

7. Keep the visual aid out of sight when it is not in use. Audience members may be distracted by the visual aid when you are talking about an unrelated point. I once

had a symposium group, whose topic was surfing, play a surfing movie during

all members’ speeches. Not surprisingly, the audience was far more attentive to

the wave riders than the speakers. If showing a series of PowerPoint slides, insert

blank slides in places where you won’t be referring to a slide for some time.

8. Do not circulate a visual aid among the audience members. Passing around pic- tures or other visual aids while you’re still speaking will distract listeners.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_408-421.indd 421 25/10/11 5:20 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 422 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 422

A P P E N D I X B

Critical Thinking Revisited: Arguments and Fallacies

Chapters 7 and 8 have already delved substantially into the process of critical think-

ing in small group decision making and problem solving. Group members must be

able to recognize and deal effectively with problems of information overload and

underload, confirmation bias, false dichotomies, collective inferential error, group

polarization, and groupthink. In addition, critical thinking is involved in every step

of the Standard Agenda, especially when information is gathered and evaluated, cri-

teria for decision making are developed and applied, and final decisions are made by

the group.

This bonus appendix is included because in classrooms in some parts of the coun-

try, heavier emphasis is placed on reasoning and use of evidence in the small group

context than is true of other parts of the country. This appendix is divided into two

segments: the structure of arguments and types of fallacies.

The Structure of Arguments An argument or “train of reasoning” is composed of several constituent parts

(Toulmin et al., 1979). These parts are: the claim—that which is asserted and re- mains to be proven; data—the grounds (support /evidence) for the claim, such as statistical evidence, expert testimony, documents, objects, exhibits, conclusions from

test results, verifiable facts, and conclusions previously established; warrant—the reasoning used to link the data to the claim, usually assumed (implied), not stated

directly; backing—additional evidence and reasoning used to support the inference made in the warrant; reservations—exceptions or rebuttals that diminish the force of the claim; and qualifier—degree of truth of the claim (such as highly probable, plausible, possible, and so forth).

Consider the following example of all six parts of an argument:

Claim: Jim Davis should be given antibiotics.

Data: Davis suffered severe cuts and injuries on his arms and legs in an auto

accident.

Warrant: There is a risk of infection in such injuries.

Backing: Hospital reports and numerous studies indicate that risk of infection is

serious and that antibiotics can prevent infection from occurring.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_422-426.indd 422 25/10/11 5:19 PM

Fallacies 423 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 423 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Reservations: Overuse of antibiotics can produce superbugs. Antibiotics should

be used only when absolutely necessary, or they will eventually be useless to fight

disease.

Qualifier: “Probable.” This is a strong claim based on solid evidence and reasoning.

Fallacies Understanding fallacies will help you determine the validity of your claim, the

strength of your data, and the solidity of your warrant and backing. The list of falla-

cies below is not exhaustive. I have chosen only those specific fallacies that seem to

occur frequently and that students are likely to encounter almost daily. I am dividing

this list of fallacies into three types: material fallacies—errors in the process of us- ing supporting materials as proof; logical fallacies—errors in the process of reason- ing; and psychological fallacies—claims that rest on emotional appeal rather than logic and evidence.

Material Fallacies: Misuse of Statistics

There are two primary material fallacies: misuse of statistics and misuse of authority.

Misuse of statistics fallacies are numerous. I cover five common ones.

Manufactured or Questionable Statistic: Making Them Up This fallacy consists of statistics that have been fabricated, or statistics whose validity is highly

questionable because there is no reasonable method for compiling such statistics, or

that which is quantified is too trivial to warrant the time, effort, and resources neces-

sary to compile accurate statistics. Every year the claim is made during the Academy

Awards that the presentation of Oscars is viewed by 1 billion people worldwide.

Considering that about 44 million viewers in the United States watch it, according

to Nielsen ratings surveys, and that the Academy Awards is of greater interest to

Americans than to other countries because most movies nominated for Oscars are

American made, and further considering that the program is aired in English, which

is not the language of most other countries, the 1 billion viewers claim is almost cer-

tainly a preposterously inflated statistic of pure fabrication (Radosh, 2005).

Irrelevant Statistic: Does Not Apply These are statistics that do not directly prove the implied or stated claim yet they are offered as evidence supporting the claim.

For example, “The United States spends a trillion dollars a year on health care, more

than any other nation. Clearly, our health care system is the world’s best.” The amount

of money spent doesn’t prove money was spent wisely, efficiently, or effectively.

Sample Size Inadequate or Unspecified: Not Nearly Enough This fallacy occurs when the sample size is very small, resulting in a margin of error in excess of

46850_em_ptg01_hr_422-426.indd 423 25/10/11 5:19 PM

◀ 424 appendix B critical thinking revisited: arguments and Fallacies

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 424 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

plus or minus 3%, or when you are left guessing what the sample size might have

been. For example, “Eighty percent of those surveyed support the cable TV legisla-

tion.” How many were surveyed? Ten people, eight of whom favored the legislation?

Self-Selected Sample: Not Exactly Random Call-in polls by local television stations, and surveys or questionnaires printed in magazines asking readers to re-

spond, are examples. Those who are angry or have a vested interest in the outcome

are most likely to participate. MSNBC had an Internet poll that solicited responses

on the question whether George W. Bush should be impeached. Typically, 89% fa-

vored impeachment (the poll ran for years). No other major reputable poll using a

random sample, not a self-selected sample, showed even a slight majority favoring

impeachment.

Dated Statistics: Lack of Currency Statistics should be as up to date as pos- sible, especially if the event, phenomenon, or situation is volatile and likely to

change quickly (such as number of unemployed, long-term interest rates on mort-

gages, murder rates in various cities, and international monetary exchange rates).

Some phenomena change very slowly, if at all, over time (such as percentage of U.S.

population who call themselves Catholics, Protestants, and other denominations).

They require less attention to recency of statistics. “According to the Department of

Housing and Urban Development in a 2000 report to Congress, the median price of

a new home in the United States is $120,000” is a statistic that hardly qualifies as cur-

rent in today’s volatile housing market.

Material Fallacies: Misuse of Authority

Testimony of experts and authorities is useful as supporting material for claims be-

cause experts draw on a larger data and knowledge base than do nonexperts. Experts

are not always correct, but they are more reliable than someone who is uninformed

or only marginally knowledgeable, especially about a highly technical subject.

Incomplete Citation: Reference Is Neither Specific nor Complete Minimum requirements for a complete citation include the qualifications of the authority (if not

obvious), place of publication, and date of reference. For example, “The President’s

Commission on Mental Health, in its January report of this year entitled ‘Mental

Health, Mental Illness,’ concludes, ‘The biggest stigma in America is the mental ill-

ness label.’” “Research indicates” (unless offered by an expert interpreting the latest

results in his or her field), “studies show,” and the like are incomplete citations.

Biased Source: Ax Grinders Special-interest groups or individuals who stand to gain money, prestige, power, or influence simply by taking a certain position on

46850_em_ptg01_hr_422-426.indd 424 25/10/11 5:19 PM

Fallacies 425 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 425 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

an issue, or crusaders for a cause, are all biased even though they may have expertise.

An example is quoting R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company on the safety of cigarette

smoking.

Authority Quoted Out of His/Her Field: Expertise Is Not Generic Quote experts in their area of specialization. “Professor of Biology, Dr. Ernhard Bousterhaus,

claims that electric cars are impractical and will remain so for at least the next

50 years” is quoting an expert in one field that has little to do with the claim regard-

ing electric cars.

Logical Fallacies: Reasoning Gone Awry

Reasoning is the basis of warrants for arguments. Sometimes our logic is faulty.

Hasty Generalization: Overgeneralizing Drawing conclusions (generaliza- tions) from too few or atypical examples is called a hasty generalization. Testimonials

exalting cancer cures, faith healings, and so on are generalizations based on too few

and probably atypical experiences of individuals. Audience members at a talk show

generalizing on the basis of their individual experiences is another example.

False Analogy: Bogus Comparison A false analogy occurs when two items, events, or phenomena with superficial similarities are viewed as identical, even when

a significant point or points of difference exist between the two things compared.

“In Turkey, farmers grow poppies (source of heroin) as a cash crop. In the United

States, farmers grow corn and soybeans for cash crops. Why outlaw poppies when

we don’t outlaw corn and soybeans?” This is a false analogy because the poppy crop

is not a critical food source capable of feeding the hungry of the world, but corn and

soybeans are. Also, poppies are grown as a source of drugs. Although corn can be

made into alcohol, that is not its primary purpose.

Correlation Mistaken for Causation: Covariation Fallacy When two phe- nomena vary at the same time, a causal linkage is often incorrectly asserted. “I ate a

lot of chocolate this week and now my face has acne. I guess I’ll have to stop eating

chocolate so I can get rid of these blasted pimples.” This is an example of correlation

incorrectly asserted as causation.

Single Cause: Complexity Oversimplified Attributing only one cause to a complex phenomenon with many causes is a single-cause fallacy. “Poor communica-

tion is the reason for the alarming increase in the divorce rate” is an example. Poor

communication is probably a cause of some divorces, but not necessarily the most

important or the only cause.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_422-426.indd 425 25/10/11 5:19 PM

◀ 426 appendix B critical thinking revisited: arguments and Fallacies

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 426 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Psychological Fallacies: Emotion Disguised as Logic

Pretending that an emotional attack is logical steps into fallacious territory. Consider

two primary examples: ad hominem and ad populum.

Ad Hominem: Personal Attack Attacking the messenger to divert attention away from the message is an ad hominem fallacy. Not all attacks on a person’s cred-

ibility, character, and qualifications, however, are fallacious. If character or cred-

ibility is the real issue, then it is relevant argumentation (for example, attacking Bill

Clinton’s integrity during the impeachment proceedings was not a fallacious per-

sonal attack). “Why are you always on my back for not studying? Last semester your

GPA fell nearly a full point” is an ad hominem fallacy.

Ad Populum: Popular Opinion A claim based on popular opinion rather than reasoning and evidence is an ad populum fallacy. “Go ahead and smoke marijuana.

More than a third of all college students do” is an example.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_422-426.indd 426 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 427 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

427 ▶

Glossary

A glossary of terms does not substitute for clear understanding of the concepts represented. You can memorize a definition without knowing what it means. Clear understanding requires a context for the terms. By reading the following terms in the context of this book, you will see the interconnections between and among the terms. All terms included in the glossary appear in boldfaced type in the body of the text (see the index for location).

Accommodating Style of conflict management that yields to the concerns and desires of others. Active listening Focused listening in which you make a concerted effort to focus your attention on the speaker and his or her message. Activities groups Groups that engage in specific activities such as chess teams and sports teams. Ad hoc teams Teams that are assembled to solve an immediate problem, then are dissolved once the solution has been implemented. Adaptability The adjustment of group bound- aries in response to changing conditions. Aggregation A collection of individuals who do not interact with each other or influence each other to achieve common goals. Aggression Any physical or verbal behavior in- tended to hurt or destroy a person. Alliances Associations in the form of subgroups entered into for mutual benefit or a common objective.

Ambushing Biased listening in which the lis- tener focuses on attacking a speaker’s points in- stead of striving to comprehend them. Analysis paralysis Bogging down decision making by analyzing a problem too extensively. Appropriateness Complying with rules and their accompanying expectations. Argot Private vocabulary peculiar to a specific group. Artistic groups Groups that form to perform artistic endeavors such as choirs, bands, and quilting circles. Assertiveness The ability to communicate the full range of your thoughts and emotions with confidence and skill. Asymmetry Behaving opposite to how oth- ers behave, especially when others are angry or enraged. Asynchronous media Those forms of com- municating that permit anytime/anyplace interaction among group members without interruption. Autocratic style A style of leadership that ex- erts control over group members. Autonomy (and empowerment) The degree to which team members experience substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in their work. Avoiding Style of conflict management in which a group member withdraws from poten- tially contentious and unpleasant struggles.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 427 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 428 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 428 Glossary

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 428 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 428 Glossary

Backing Additional evidence and reason- ing used to support the inference made in the warrant. BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) A fallback position if a negotiated settlement fails to occur. Beliefs What we think is true or probable. Boundary control Regulation that determines the amount of access a group has to input and thus influence from outsiders in a system. Brainstorming A creative problem-solving technique that promotes plentiful, even zany, ideas in an atmosphere free from criticism and encourages enthusiastic participation from all group members. Bridging An integrative problem-solving tech- nique that offers a new option devised to satisfy all parties on important conflicting issues. Bypassing When we assume that everyone has the same meaning for a word and fail to check for any differences.

Charge The task of a team, such as to gather information, to analyze a problem and make recommendations, to make decisions and im- plement them, or to tackle a specific project from inception to completion. Charisma A constellation of personal attri- butes that people find highly attractive in an in- dividual and strongly influential. Charismatic leaders All leaders are transfor- mational to some degree, but charismatic lead- ers are thought to be highly transformational. Claim That which is asserted and remains to be proven. Cliques Small, narrowly focused subgroups that create a competitive atmosphere. Coalitions Temporary alliances. Cohesiveness The degree to which members feel a part of a group, wish to stay in the group, and are committed to each other and to the group’s work.

Collaborating Style of conflict management that recognizes the interconnection between the task and social components of groups and deals directly with both requirements; win–win cooperative approach to conflict management. Collective effort model (CEM) It suggests that group members are strongly motivated to per- form well in a group if they are convinced that their individual effort will likely help in attain- ing valued results. Commitment The conscious decision to invest time, energy, thought, and feeling to improve oneself or one’s relationships with others. Communication A transactional process of sharing meaning with others. Communication climate The emotional atmo- sphere, the enveloping tone that is created by the way we communicate in groups. Communication competence Communicating effectively and appropriately in a given context. Communication style of conflict management An orientation toward conflict; predisposition or tendency regarding the way conflict is man- aged in groups. Competing (power/forcing) Win–lose style of conflict management that attempts to force one’s will on another group member. Competition A mutually exclusive goal attain- ment process. Compliance The process of consenting to the dictates and desires of others. Compromising Style of conflict management that gives up something to get something. Confirmation bias A strong tendency to seek information that confirms our beliefs and at- titudes and to ignore information that contra- dicts our currently held beliefs and attitudes. Conflict The expressed struggle of intercon- nected parties who perceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in attaining those goals.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 428 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 429 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 429 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 429 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 429 ▶

Conflict spirals The escalating cycle of nega- tive communication that produces destructive conflict. Conformity The adherence to group norms by group members. Confrontation A collaborative component of conflict management characterized by the overt recognition that conflict exists in a group and the direct effort to manage it effectively. Consensus A state of mutual agreement among members of a group in which all legitimate con- cerns of individuals have been addressed to the satisfaction of the group. Constructive competition Occurs when com- petition produces positive, enjoyable experi- ences and generates increased effort to achieve without jeopardizing positive interpersonal re- lationships and personal well-being. Constructive conflict Conflict that is charac- terized by communication that is We-oriented, cooperative, de-escalating, supportive, and flexible. Contempt The verbal or nonverbal expression of insult that emotionally abuses others. Content dimension (of messages) The infor- mation transmitted. Context An environment in which mean- ing emerges, consisting of who communicates to whom, why the communicator does it, and where, when, and how it is done. Cooperation A mutually inclusive goal attain- ment process. Correlation A consistent relationship between two or more variables. Credibility A composite of competence (knowledge, skills), trustworthiness (honesty, consistency, character), and dynamism (confi- dence, assertiveness). Criteria Standards by which decisions and so- lutions to problems can be evaluated.

Critical thinking Analyzing and evaluating ideas and information to reach sound judg- ments and conclusions. Cyberostracism A remote form of ostracism that occurs in virtual groups. Cynics They focus on the negative, predicting failure and looking for someone or something to criticize, sapping the energy from a team with their negativity.

Data The grounds (support/evidence) for the claim, such as statistical evidence, ex- pert testimony, documents, objects, exhibits, conclusions from test results, verifiable facts, and conclusions previously established as credible. Deep diversity Substantial variation among members in task-relevant skills, knowledge, abilities, beliefs, values, perspectives, and problem-solving strategies. Defensive communication Patterns of com- munication characterized by evaluation, con- trol, indifference, manipulation, superiority, and certainty. Defensiveness A reaction to a perceived attack on our self-concept and self-esteem. Defiance An overt form of communicating noncompliance; unmitigated, audacious rebel- lion against attempts to induce compliance. Delegating style (of situational leadership) Nondirective leadership that has low task, low relationship emphasis; lets other group mem- bers shoulder the burdens once the leader deems them ready. Democratic style A style of leadership that en- courages participation and responsibility from group members. Description A first-person report of how an individual feels, what the individual perceives to be true, and what behaviors have been observed in a specific context.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 429 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 430 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 430 Glossary

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 430 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 430 Glossary

Destructive conflict Conflict that is charac- terized by domination, escalation, retaliation, competition, defensiveness, and inflexible com- munication patterns. Devil’s advocate A group role, sometimes as- signed to a specific member, that requires the individual “for the sake of argument” to critique and question ideas and proposals that emerge during group discussion. Dialectical inquiry A subgroup develops a counterproposal and defends it side by side with the group’s initial proposal. Directive style (of leadership) Leadership be- havior that puts most of the emphasis on the group task with little concern for the social rela- tionships among members. Disruptive roles Informal group roles that serve individual needs or goals while impeding attainment of group goals. Diverse membership Proportional representa- tion by culture, ethnicity, gender, and age. Dogmatism The belief in the self-evident truth of one’s opinion. Dominance A form of power in which indi- viduals attempt to gain power over others. Dyad Academic term for a two-person transaction. Dynamic equilibrium A range in which sys- tems can manage change effectively to promote growth and success without pushing the system to disaster.

Effectiveness How well we have progressed to- ward the achievement of goals. Electronic brainstorming Occurs when group members sit at computer terminals and brain- storm ideas using a computer-based, file- sharing procedure. Emoticons Typed icons or combinations of punctuation marks meant to indicate emotional

tone; a substitute for nonverbal communication in written text messages. Empathy Thinking and feeling what you per- ceive another to be thinking and feeling. Empowerment The process of enhancing the ca- pabilities and influence of individuals and groups. Entropy A measure of a system’s movement to- ward disorganization and eventual termination. Equifinality Accomplishment of similar or identical goals in highly diverse ways by differ- ent groups. Ethics A set of standards for judging the moral correctness of our behavior. Ethnocentrism A system for judging the moral correctness of human behavior by weighing that behavior against an agreed upon set of stan- dards of what constitutes right and wrong. Expanding the pie An integrative problem- solving technique in which creative means of increasing resources as a solution to a problem are generated. Expert A person who not only has valuable and useful information for a group but also un- derstands the information and knows how to use it to help the group. Explicit norms Rules in groups that expressly identify acceptable behavior. Extrinsic reward An external inducement such as money, grades, praise, recognition, or prestige that motivates us to behave or perform.

False dichotomy The tendency to view the world in terms of only two opposing possibili- ties when other possibilities are available, and to describe this dichotomy in the language of extremes. Fantasies Prime element of symbolic conver- gence theory; dramatic stories that provide a shared interpretation of events that bind group members and offer them a shared identity.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 430 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 431 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 431 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 431 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 431 ▶

Fantasy chain A string of connected stories that amplify fantasy; a fantasy theme. Fantasy theme A consistent thread that runs through the stories that create a shared group identity. Force field analysis A process for group imple- mentation of decisions by anticipating the driv- ing forces (those that encourage change) and restraining forces (those that resist change). Formal role A position assigned by an organi- zation or specifically designated by the group leader. Forum discussion Permits members of an au- dience listening to a public speech, panel dis- cussion, symposium, or debate to participate in a discussion of ideas presented. Frame The way in which language shapes our perception of choices.

Gender similarities hypothesis Claims that most gender differences in communication are small. Glass ceiling An invisible barrier of subtle dis- crimination that excludes women and minori- ties from top jobs in corporate and professional America. GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension reduction) A technique of de- escalating cycles of conflict. Group A human communication system composed of three or more individuals interact- ing for the achievement of some common goal(s), who influence and are influenced by each other. Group climate The emotional atmosphere, the enveloping tone that is created by the way we communicate in groups. Group endorsement The acceptance by the group of a member’s bid to play a specific role. Grouphate The hostility people harbor from having to work in groups.

Group polarization The group tendency to make a decision after discussion that is more extreme, either riskier or more cautious, than the initial preferences of group members. Group potency (and empowerment) The shared belief among team members that they can be effective as a team. Group socialization The communication pro- cess in which new and established group mem- bers adjust to one another. Groupthink A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, and members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

Hazing Any humiliating or dangerous activ- ity expected of individuals to join a group, re- gardless of their willingness to participate in the activity. Hidden agendas Personal goals of group mem- bers that are not revealed openly and that can interfere with group accomplishments. High-context communication style Cultural tendency to emphasize the cultural context of a message when determining meaning. Hindsight bias The tendency to overestimate our prior knowledge once we have been told the correct answers. Hit-and-run confrontations Confronting con- tentious issues but leaving just enough time to make your point and not enough time for other group members to respond adequately. Hypercompetitiveness An excessive emphasis on defeating others to achieve one’s goals.

Impact (and empowerment) The degree of sig- nificance that is given by those outside of the team, typically the team’s organization, to the work produced by the team.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 431 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 432 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 432 Glossary

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 432 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 432 Glossary

Impervious response Failure to acknowledge another person’s communication effort either verbally or nonverbally. Implicit norms Rules in groups that are indi- rectly indicated by uniformities in the behavior and expressed attitudes of members. Individual accountability An established minimum standard of effort and performance for each team member to share the fruits of team success. Individual achievement The attainment of a personal goal without having to defeat another person. Individualism– collectivism dimension (of cultures) The degree to which cultural values emphasize either the individual or the group as paramount. Inferences Conclusions about the unknown based on what is known. Informal role A role that emerges in a group from the group transactions; it emphasizes functions, not positions. Information bulimia A binge-and-purge cycle of information processing. Information overload The rate of information flow into a system and/or the complexity of that information exceeds the system’s processing ca- pacity; excessive input. Information underload The amount of infor- mation available to a group for decision- making purposes is insufficient (input is inadequate). Input Resources that come from outside a system, such as energy (sunlight, electricity), in- formation (Internet, books), and people (a new group member). Integrative problem solving Creative ap- proach to conflicts of interest that searches for solutions that benefit everyone. Interdependence When all group members work together to achieve a desirable goal.

Interests The intangible motivations such as needs, desires, concerns, fears, and aspirations that lead a party in a conflict to take a position. Interpersonal communication Communica tion between two people (dyads). Intrinsic reward Enjoying what one does for its own sake; an inner motivation to continue doing what brings us pleasure.

Knowledge Learning the rules for and under- standing what is required to be appropriate and effective in one’s communication.

Laissez-faire style A do-nothing style of lead- ership; nonleadership. Language A structured system of symbols for sharing meaning. Leader as completer (functional leadership viewpoint) Leaders are thought to perform those essential functions within a group that other members have failed to perform. Leadership An influence process between leader and followers directed toward change that reflects mutual purposes of group mem- bers and is largely achieved through competent communication. Learning groups Groups that enhance mem- bers’ knowledge, such as college seminar groups and class study groups. Linguistic barriers (for group boundary control) The use of private vocabulary, or ar- got, peculiar to a specific group to create an in-group/out-group division. Logical fallacies Errors in the process of reasoning. Low-context communication style Cultural tendency to emphasize the explicit content of a message when determining meaning.

Maintenance roles Informal group roles that fo- cus on social relationships among group members.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 432 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 433 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 433 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 433 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 433 ▶

Material fallacies Errors in the process of us- ing supporting materials as proof. Meaningfulness (and empowerment) A team’s perception that its tasks are important, valuable, and worthwhile. Media richness The information-carrying ca- pacity of each form of communication. Mentors Knowledgeable individuals who have achieved some success in their profession or jobs and who assist individuals trying to get started in a line of work. Metasearch engines An Internet tool that sends a keyword request to several search en- gines at once. Mindsets Psychological and cognitive predis- positions to see the world in a particular way, such as biases, preconceptions, and assump- tions; they interfere with effective group deci- sion making and problem solving. Mixed message Positive verbal and nega- tive nonverbal communication, or vice versa; contradictory verbal and nonverbal communication. Multiple sequence model (of group decision emergence) Groups move along three activity tracks—task, relational, and topic—and take three principal paths to reaching decisions— unitary sequence, complex cyclic, and solution orientation. Murphy’s law Anything that can go wrong likely will go wrong, somewhere, sometime. Music groups Type of group that provides a creative outlet for members who participate in choirs, bands, and the like.

Negative climate Group members do not feel valued, supported, and respected; trust is mini- mal; and members perceive that they are not treated well. Negative reciprocation A form of retaliation for perceived wrongs from group members.

Negative synergy Group members working together produce a worse result than expected based on perceived individual skills and abilities of members. Negotiation A process by which a joint deci- sion is made by two or more parties. Neighborhood groups Groups that provide a sense of community, such as homeowners asso- ciations and PTAs. Network A structured pattern of information flow and personal contact. Networking A form of group empowerment in which individuals with similar backgrounds, skills, and goals come together on a fairly regu- lar basis and share information that will assist members in pursuing goals. Nominal group technique Individuals work by themselves generating lists of ideas on a problem, then convene in a group where they merely record the ideas generated and interac- tion occurs only to clarify ideas. Rankings of each member’s five favorite ideas are averaged with the highest average ideas selected by the group. Nonconformity Violation of a group norm. Nonroutine task Work to be accom- plished that requires problem solving, has few set procedures, and has a high level of uncertainty. Nonverbal communication Sharing meaning with others without using words. Norm of group interest A collective prescrip- tion that group members should pursue maxi- mum group outcomes (winning at all costs), even if this means acting hypercompetitively against other groups when members may pri- vately not wish to do so. Norms Rules that regulate behavior in groups.

Openness Degree of continuous interchange with the environment outside of a system.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 433 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 434 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 434 Glossary

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 434 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 434 Glossary

Output The continual results of the group’s throughput (the transformation of input), such as decisions made, solutions created, and proj- ects completed.

Panel discussion A small group of participants who engage in an exchange of information and ideas on a specific issue or problem before an audience. Paraphrasing A concise response to a speaker that states the essence of the speaker’s content in the listener’s own words. Parliamentary procedure A set of hundreds of rules for conducting meetings. Participant-observer A self-monitoring pro- cess whereby you assume a detached view of yourself communicating in groups. Participating style (of situational leadership) Nondirective leadership that has low task, high relationship emphasis. Participative style (of leadership) Leadership behavior that puts a balanced emphasis on both task and social dimensions of the group. Pattern recognition A means of coping with information overload; one way to narrow the search for information by noticing pat- terns that indicate relevant versus irrelevant information. PERT (Program Evaluation Review Technique) A systematic process for group implementation of decisions. Physical barriers (of group boundary control) Includes walls, locked doors, an inconvenient location in a building, and partitions and cu- bicles in offices to restrict input. Positions Concrete things that one party wants in a negotiation. Positive climate Group members perceive that they are valued, supported, and treated well. Power The ability to influence the attainment of goals sought by yourself or others.

Power distance dimension (of cultures) Degree to which different cultures vary in their attitudes concerning the appropriateness of power imbalances. Power indicators Ways in which relative de- grees of power are communicated in groups. Power resource Anything that enables indi- viduals to move toward their own goals or to interfere with another’s actions. Prevention A form of power in which group members resist or defy attempts to dominate them by other group members. Primary groups Groups that provide a sense of belonging and affection such as family and friends. Primary tension The initial jitters and uneasi- ness felt by individuals when they first join a group. Principled negotiation Interest-based bar- gaining process that uses a collaborative ap- proach to negotiating conflicts of interest, focusing on merits of arguments, not on hard bargaining strategies. Probing Seeking additional information from a speaker by asking questions. Productivity The result of the efficient and effective accomplishment of a group task. Project groups Groups that work on specific tasks such as self-managing work teams and task forces. Provisionalism Qualifying statements and avoiding absolute claims. Pseudo-teams Small groups that only half- heartedly exhibit the several criteria that con- stitute a true team. They give the appearance of being teams and of engaging in teamwork with- out exhibiting the substance of teams. Psychological barriers (for group boundary control) Anything that makes an individual feel that he or she is not a true member of a group.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 434 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 435 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 435 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 435 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 435 ▶

Psychological fallacies Claims that rest on emotional appeal rather than logic and evidence. Psychological reactance The more someone tries to control us by telling us what to do, the more we are inclined to resist such efforts, even to do the opposite. Public speaking Communication in a formal setting between a clearly identified speaker and an audience of listeners. Purpose statement A concise, precise, declara- tive statement phrased in simple, clear language that provides both the general purpose (to in- form or persuade) and the specific purpose (exactly what you want the audience to under- stand, believe, feel, or do).

Qualifier Degree of truth of the claim (such as highly probable, plausible, possible, and so forth). Quality circles Teams composed of workers who volunteer to work on a similar task and at- tempt to solve a particular problem. Question of fact Asks whether something is true and to what extent. Question of policy Asks whether a specific course of action should be undertaken to solve a problem. Question of value Asks for an evaluation of the desirability of an object, idea, event, or person.

Rationalization of disconfirmation Inventing superficial, glib alternative explanations for in- formation that contradicts beliefs. Readiness How ready a person is to perform a particular task; determined by ability and will- ingness of the person. Reflective thinking A set of logical steps that incorporate the scientific method of defining, analyzing, and solving problems.

Reformed sinner strategy Negotiating strategy in which one party initially competes or acts tough, then cooperates and relaxes demands. Reframing A creative process of breaking a mindset by placing the problem in a different frame of reference. Relationship dimension (of messages) How messages define or redefine the relationship be- tween group members. Reminder role A formally designated role in which the individual assigned the role raises questions in a nonaggressive manner regarding collective inferential error, confirmation bias, false dichotomies, and any of the myriad symp- toms of groupthink that may arise during group discussions. Reservations Exceptions or rebuttals that di- minish the force of the claim. Resistance A covert form of communicat- ing noncompliance, often duplicitous and manipulative. Ripple effect A chain reaction that begins in one part of a system and spreads across an en- tire system. Role A pattern of expected behavior associated with parts that members play in groups. Role conflict When group members play roles in different groups that contradict each other. Role fixation The acting out of a specific role, and only that role, no matter what the situation might require. Role reversal Stepping into a role distinctly dif- ferent from or opposite of a role one usually plays. Role specialization When an individual group member settles into his or her primary role. Role status The relative importance, prestige, or power accorded a particular role. Routine task Work to be accomplished in which the group performs processes and proce- dures that have little variability and little likeli- hood of change.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 435 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 436 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 436 Glossary

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 436 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 436 Glossary

Rule Prescription that indicates what you should or shouldn’t do in specific contexts.

Search engine An Internet tool that computer- generates indexes of web pages that match, or link with, keywords typed in a search window. Secondary tension The stress and strain that occurs within a group when disagreements and conflicts emerge and decisions must be made. Self-help groups Groups that provide social support. Self-justification Providing excuses that ab- solve us of blame. Self-managing work teams Teams that com- plete an entire task under self-regulation. Selling style (of situational leadership) Direct- ive leadership that is high task, high relationship in emphasis. Sensitivity Receptive accuracy whereby you can detect, decode, and comprehend signals sent in groups. Servant leadership A perspective on leader- ship that places the emphasis on the needs of followers and helps them to become more knowledgeable, freer, more autonomous, and more like servants to the group. Service groups Groups that provide social ser- vice to others, such as fraternities and sororities and Rotary and Lions clubs. Shift response An attention-getting initiative by listeners in which the listeners attempt to shift the focus of attention from others to them- selves by changing the topic of discussion. Signposts A speech organizational tech- nique that indicates exactly where you are in your speech so the audience can follow along easily. Skill (in communicating) The successful per- formance of a communication behavior and the ability to repeat such a behavior.

Smoothing Collaborative component of con- flict management characterized by acting to calm agitated feelings during a conflict episode. Social compensation A group member’s in- creased motivation to work harder on a group task to counterbalance the lackluster perfor- mance of other members. Social dimension (of groups) The relation- ships that form among members in a group and their impact on the group as a whole. Social groups Groups that provide social con- nections and whose goal is to help others. Social loafing The tendency of a group mem- ber to exert less effort on a task when working in a group than when working individually. Social networks Groups that communicate via Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites. Stand aside A team member continues to have reservations about the group decision but, when confronted, does not wish to block the group consensus. Structuration theory Explains that systems, such as groups, establish structures for discus- sion and problem solving by creating rules, roles, norms, and power distribution to permit the sys- tem to function effectively and sustain itself. Structure The systematic interrelation of all parts to the whole, providing form and shape. Style shift A flexible adaptation of one’s com- munication to the changes in a system. Superordinate goals A specific kind of cooper- ative goal that overrides differences that mem- bers may have because the goal supersedes less important competitive goals. Support groups Groups that provide social support to address life problems. Supportive communication Patterns of com- munication characterized by description, problem orientation, empathy, assertiveness, equality, and provisionalism.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 436 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 437 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 437 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 437 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

Glossary 437 ▶

Support response An attention-giving pro- cess in which listeners focus their attention on another group member, not on themselves, dur- ing discussion. Symbolic convergence theory Focuses on how group members communicating with each other develop and share stories (fantasies) to create a convergence or group identity that is larger and more coherent than the isolated ex- periences of individual group members. Symbols Representations of referents (what- ever the symbol refers to). Symposium A relatively structured group pre- sentation to an audience composed of several individuals who present uninterrupted speeches with contrasting points of view on a central topic. Synchronous media Those forms of commu- nicating that permit simultaneous interactions among group members modeled after face-to- face meetings. Synergy Group performance from joint action of members exceeds expectations based on per- ceived abilities and skills of individual group members. System A set of interconnected parts work- ing together to form a whole in the context of a changing environment.

Task dimension (of groups) The work to be performed by a group. Task roles Informal group roles that move the group toward attainment of its goals. Team A small number of people with comple- mentary skills who act as an interdependent unit, are equally committed to a common mis- sion, subscribe to a cooperative approach to accomplish that mission, and hold themselves accountable for team performance. Team accountability The team, rather than individual members, assumes responsibility for success and failure.

Technology A tool to accomplish some purpose. Telling style (of situational leadership) Directive leadership that is high task, low rela- tionship in emphasis. Throughput The process of transforming in- put into output to keep a system functioning. Traits Relatively enduring characteristics of an individual that highlight differences be- tween people and that are displayed in most situations. Transaction A process in which each person communicating is both a sender and a receiver simultaneously, not merely a sender or receiver, and all parties influence each other. Transactional leadership Leadership often as- sociated with management that typically strives to maintain the status quo efficiently. Transformational leadership Leadership of- ten associated with changing the status quo; fre- quently linked to charisma. Twenty percent rule The minimum standard to combat gender and ethnic bias in groups; when no less than 20 percent of group mem- bers are composed of women and minorities, discrimination against these groups drops substantially.

Values The most deeply felt views of what is deemed good, worthwhile, or ethically right. Verbal dominance A verbal form of dominance characterized by competitive interrupting, con- tradicting, berating, and high quantity of speech. Virtual group/team A small group whose members rarely interact face-to-face, and who mostly communicate by means of electronic technologies. Virtual library A search tool that combines Internet technology and standard library tech- niques for cataloging and evaluating information. Vital functions (functional leadership view- point) Sees leaders performing a list of vital

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 437 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 438 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 438 Glossary

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 438 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 438 Glossary

group functions different in kind and/or degree from other members. Vividness effect A graphic, outrageous, shock- ing, controversial, dramatic event draws our at- tention and sticks in our minds, prompting us to overvalue such events and undervalue statis- tical information that shows patterns and trends that often contradict the sensational event.

Warrant The reasoning used to link the data to the claim; usually assumed, not stated directly. Wikipedia Online encyclopedia that allows almost anyone to contribute. Workplace bullying A persistent form of bad- gering, abuse, and “hammering away” at targets who have less power than their bullies.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_427-438.indd 438 25/10/11 5:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 439 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

References

Abell, G. (1981). Astrology. In G. Abell & B. Singer (Eds.), Science and the paranormal. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (1998). Deter- minants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. In N. Burkowski (Ed.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

About high school: The Minority Achieve- ment Committee (MAC scholars). (2010, November 12). Shaker Heights Schools. [Online]. Available: http://www.shaker.org/ about/schools/high/about/macscholars.htm

Abrams, D., Weick, M., Thomas, D., Colbe, H., & Franklin, K. M. (2010). On-line ostracism affects children differently from adolescents and adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.

Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury. New York: Basic Books.

Abril, P. S. (2008). A (My)Space of one’s own: On privacy and online social networks. North- western Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. [Online]. Available: http://www.law .northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v6/n1/4

Acuff, F. L. (1997). How to negotiate anything with anyone anywhere around the world. New York: American Management Association.

Adkins, M., & Brashers, D. E. (1995). The power of language in computer-mediated groups. Man- agement Communication Quarterly, 8, 289–322.

Adler, N. J. (2001). From Boston to Beijing: Man- aging with a world view. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Adler, R. (1977). Confidence in communication: A guide to assertive and social skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2008). Com- municating at work: Principles and practices for business and the professions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Adler, R. B., & Proctor, R. F. (2007). Look- ing out/looking in. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Aglionby, J. (2002, November 2). Singapore’s fine culture keeps people in line. Guardian Unlim- ited. [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian .co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,824569,00.html

Aguayo, R. (1990). Dr. Deming: The American who taught the Japanese about quality. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Alge, B. J., Wietfhoff, C., & Klien, H. J. (2003). When does medium matter? Knowledge-building ex- periences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26–37.

Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2008, March 11). Hazing in view: College students at risk; initial findings from the National Study of Student Hazing. The University of Maine. [Online].

439 ▶

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 439 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 440 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 440 references

Available: http://www.umaine.edu/hazingstudy/ hazinginview1.htm

Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: For- mal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470.

Allen, V., & Levine, J. (1971). Social support and conformity: The role of independent assess- ment of reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 48–58.

Altman, L. K. (2001, December 11). The wrong foot, and other tales of surgical error. New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www .nytimes.com/2001/12/11/health/policy/ 11DOCS.html

AMA 2010 critical skills survey. (2010). American Management Association. [Online]. Available: http://www.p21.org/documents/critical%20 Skills%20Survey%20Executive%20Sum- mary.pdf

America’s best colleges. (2009, August 5). Forbes .com. [Online]. Available: http://www.forbes .com/lists/2009/94/colleges-09_University- of-Wisconsin-Madison_94518.html

America’s best colleges. (2010, August 11). Forbes .com. [Online]. Available: http://www.forbes .com/lists/2010/94/best-col leges-10_ Americas-Best-Colleges_Rank.html

Andersen, J. (1988). Communication compe- tency in the small group. In R. Cathcart & L. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communica- tion: A reader. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Andersen, P. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Andersen, P. A. (2006). The evolution of bio- logical sex differences in communication. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differ- ences and similarities in communication. Mah- wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L., & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Handbook of group communica- tion theory & research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116–132.

Anderson, K., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta- analyses of gender effects on conversational interrup- tion: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225–252.

Andersson, L. L. (2010). Leadership 2.0 through Web 2.0. International Leadership Associa- tion Conference. [Online]. Available: http:// www.ila-net.org/conferences/Program3 .asp?ProgramDBID=96

Anti-hazing law and jail terms in Fla. may spur other states, expert says. (2007, January 31). Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/ news/article/1587/anti-hazing-law-and- jail-terms-in-fla-may-supr-other-states- expert-says

Appleby, J., & Davis, R. (2001, March 1). Team- work used to be a money saver, now it’s a life- saver. USA Today, pp. 1B–2B.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The rules of relationships. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An in- terdisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

Arnett, J. (1995). The young and the reckless: Ad- olescent reckless behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 67–71.

Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal. New York: Worth.

Arrow, H., & Crosson, S. (2003). Musical chairs: Membership dynamics in self-organized group formation. Small Group Research, 34, 523–556.

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 19, 31–35.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 440 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 441 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 441 ▶

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integra- tive strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Axelrod, R., Riolo, R., & Cohen, M. (2002). Be- yond geography: Cooperation with persistent links in the absence of clustered neighbor- hoods. Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 341–346.

Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: Natu- ral history of a globally distributed team. Jour- nal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 547–587.

Babcock, L. (2002). Do graduate students ne- gotiate their job offers? Carnegie Mellon University. Unpublished manuscript.

Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princ- eton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bach, G., & Goldberg, H. (1974). Creative aggres- sion. New York: Avon.

Bailey, B. (2011, January 28). LinkedIn sets IPO; will others follow? San Jose Mercury News, pp. A1, A8.

Baker, G. (2002). The effects of synchronous col- laborative technologies on decision making: A study of virtual teams. Information Re- sources Management Journal, 15, 79–93.

Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., & Michael, J. H. (2009). Unlocking the influence of leadership net- work structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Research, 40, 301–322.

Ball, A. L. (2010, May 28). Are 5,001 Facebook friends one too many? The New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2 0 1 0 / 0 5 / 3 0 f a s h i o n / 3 0 FA C E B O O K .html?pagewanted=print

Banaji, M. R. (2010, December). Presidential col- umn: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that any- body can edit. But have You? Observer. [Online].

Available: http://www.psychologicalscience .org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/ december-10/anyone-can-edit-wikipedia- have-you.html

Barge, J., & Hirokawa, R. (1989). Toward a communication competency model of group leadership. Small Group Behavior, 20, 167–189.

Barinaga, E. (2007). “Cultural diversity” at work: “National culture” as a discourse organizing an international project group. Human Rela- tions, 60, 315–340.

Barker, V. E., Abrams, J. R., Tiyaamornwong,V., Seibold, D. R., Duggan, A., Park, H. S., & Sebastian, M. (2000). New contexts for rela- tional communication in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 470–503.

Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality: Is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32, 158–205.

Barnes, S. B. (2003). Computer-mediated commu- nication. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

BarNir, A. (1998). Can group- and issue-related factors predict choice shift? Small Group Re- search, 29, 308–338.

Baron, R. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict self-efficacy and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 73, 199–207.

Baron, R. (1990). Countering the effects of de- structive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235–243.

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915–927.

Barron, L. A. (2003). Ask and you shall receive: Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 441 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 442 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 442 references

about requests for a higher salary. Human Re- lations, 56, 635–662.

Barry, D. (1991). Dave Barry’s guide to life. New York: Wings Books.

Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Effects of train- ing on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39, 523–541.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.

Bass, M. (1960). Leadership, psychology and or- ganizational behavior. Westport, CT: Green- wood Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interper- sonal attachments as a fundamental hu- man motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bazeley, M. (2005, August 7). Brave new Web. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 26A.

Bazerman, M., & Neale, M. (1983). Heuristics in negotiation: Limitations to dispute resolution effectiveness. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

BBC Two Programmes - How Violent Are You? (2009). [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc .co.uk/programmes/b00kk4bz

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLen- don, C. I. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 88, 989–1004.

Bechler, C., & Johnson, S. (1995). Leadership and listening: A study of member perceptions. Small Group Research, 26, 77–85.

Becker, J. A. H., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & O’Hair, H. D. (2005). Defensive communication and burnout in the workplace: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Communication Research Reports, 22, 143–150.

Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team out- comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170–180.

Belbin, R. (1996). Team roles at work. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bell, M. (1974). The effects of substantive and affective conflict in problem-solving discus- sions. Speech Monographs, 41, 19–23.

Benenson, J. F., Gordon, A. J., & Roy, R. (2000). Children’s evaluative appraisals of competi- tion in tetrads versus dyads. Small Group Re- search, 31, 635–652.

Benenson, J. F., Nicolson, C., Waite, A., Roy, R., & Simpson, A. (2001). The influence of group size on children’s competitive behavior. Child Development, 72, 921–934.

Benenson, J. F., Roy, R., Waite, A., Goldbaum, S., Linders, L., & Simpson, A. (2002). Greater discomfort as a proximate cause of sex differ- ences in competition. Merrill-Palmer Quar- terly, 48, 225–248.

Benne, K., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.

Bennett, G. (1961). By human error: Disaster of a century. London: Seeley Service.

Bennis, W. (1976). The unconscious con- spiracy: Why leaders can’t lead. New York: AMACOM.

Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist, 62, 2–5.

Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strate- gies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 442 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 443 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 443 ▶

Berg, D. (1967). A descriptive analysis of the dis- tribution and duration of themes discussed by task-oriented small groups. Speech Mono- graphs, 34, 172–175.

Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of in- terpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The hand- book of social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Best colleges: Top public schools: National uni- versities. (2009, August 19). U.S. News and World Report. [Online]. Available: http:// www.usnews.com/articles/education/best- colleges/2009/08/19/how-we-calculate-the- college-rankins_print.htm

Bettinghaus, E., & Cody, M. (1987). Persuasive communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Black, K. (1990, March). Can getting mad get the job done? Working Woman, pp. 86–90.

Blacks lost ground on Fortune 500 boards over past four years, study finds. (2009, August 3). The Louisiana Weekly. [Online]. Available: http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php? viewStory=1612

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to authority: Cur- rent perspectives on the Milgram paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blenko, M. W., Mankins, M. C., & Rogers, P. (2010). Decide & deliver: 5 steps to break- through performance in your organization. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Bock, R., & Miller, M. G. (2005, August 24). Teens’ driving riskier with male passenger.

NIH News. [Online]. Available: http://www .nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nichd-24a.htm.

Bodard, G. (2008, January 20). Information be- haviour of the researcher of the future (report). The Stoa Consortium. [Online]. Available: http://www.stoa.org?p=767

Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Random House.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). What makes a team work? Organizational Dynamics, 21, 34–44.

Bolton, R. (1979). People skills: How to assert yourself, listen to others and resolve conflicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bond, M., Wang, K., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R. (1985). How are responses to verbal insults related to cultural collectivism and power dis- tances? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 111–127.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies us- ing Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.

Boog, J. (2009, December 23). Seattle named America’s most literate city in 2009. Galleycat. [Online]. Available: http://www.mediabistro .com/galleycat/trends/seattle_named_ americas_most_literate_city_in_2009_ 146930.asp

Borden, M., Breen, B., Chu, J., et al. (2008, February 14). The world’s most innovative com- panies. FastCompany.com. [Online]. Available: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/123/ the-worlds-most-innovative-companies.html.

Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. (1989). Conflict man- agement: A communication skills approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bormann, E. G. (1986). Symbolic convergence theory and group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communi- cation and group decision making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 443 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 444 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 444 references

Bormann, E. G. (1990). Small group commu- nication: Theory and practice. New York: Harper & Row.

Bormann, E. G., & Bormann, N. (1988). Effec- tive small group communication. Edina, MN: Burgess Publishing.

Bostrom, R. (1970). Patterns of communicative interaction in small groups. Speech Mono- graphs, 37, 257–263.

Boudreau, J. (2007, August 12). Beijing brushes up on its English skills. San Jose Mercury News, p. 17A.

Boudreau, J. (2011, January 4). Facebook’s value: $50 billion. San Jose Mercury News, p. D1, D2

Bower, S., & Bower, G. (1976). Asserting yourself. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Boyd, R. (1996, June 9). Survival of the most co- operative? New insights into Darwin’s theory. San Jose Mercury News, p. 1C.

Brannigan, M. (1997, May 30). Why Delta Air Lines decided it was time for CEO to take off. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.

Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussion. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1014–1029.

Brehm, J. (1972). Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological resistance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Brescoll, V. L., Dawson, E., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2011). Hard won and easily lost: The fragile sta- tus of leaders in gender-stereotype- incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21.

Brett, J. (1990). Designing systems for resolving disputes in organizations. American Psycholo- gist, 45, 162–170.

Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotia- tions. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410–425.

Brin, D. (1998). The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influ- ence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Brock, T. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foun- dations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schultz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dis- semination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The effects of pre- discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 35–56.

Brown, H. (2010, January 22). Business schools sweeten lures for women. WeNews. [Online]. Available: http://womensenews.org/ s t o r y / b u s i n e s s / 1 0 0 1 2 1 / b u s i n e s s - schools-sweeten-lures-women

Brownlow, S. (2003). Gender-linked linguistic behavior in television interviews. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. [Online]. Available: http://www.findarticles.com/

Bruess, C. J., & Pearson, J. C. (1996). Gendered patterns in family communication. In J. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryant, M., & Higgins, V. (2010). Self-confessed troublemakers: An interactionist view of de- viance during organizational change. Human Relations, 63, 249–277.

Buchanan, J. (2010, December 1). Merck names first black CEO. DiversityInc. [Online]. Available: http://www.diversityinc.com/article .8170/Merck-Names-First-Black-CEO/

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 444 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 445 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 445 ▶

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. W. (2002a, Spring). Item 9: Doing quality work. Gallup Management Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.gallupjournal.com/q12Center/ articles/19990517.asp

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. W. (2002b, Spring). Recognition or praise. Gallup Man- agement Journal. [Online]. Available: http:// www.gallupjournal.com/q12Center/articles/ 19990412.asp

Buckley, M., Laursen, J., & Otarola, V. (2009). Strengthening physician-nurse partnerships to improve quality and patient safety. Physi- cian Executive Journal, 35, 24–28.

Burfeind, M., & Witkemper, T. (2010, July 14). TeleNav-commisioned survey suggests both genders have similar views on abiding by and breaking the rules of the road. TeleNav. [Online]. Available: http://www.telenav.com/ about/driving-behavior/

Burger, J. (2007, December). Replicating Mil- gram. APS Observer. [Online]. Available: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/ observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2264

Burggraf, C., & Sillars, A. (1987). A critical ex- amination of sex differences in marital com- munication. Communication Monographs, 54, 276–294.

Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Joyce, E. (2010). Member- ship claims and requests: Conversation- level newcomer socialization strategies in online groups. Small Group Research, 41, 4–40.

Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D. M (2005). Judge nonverbal communication on trial: Do mock trial jurors notice? Journal of Communication, 55, 209–224.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burrows, W. (1982, November). Psychology Today, p. 43.

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724–731.

Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., & Miller, N. (2005). Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of rumina- tion on triggered displaced anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 969–983.

Buzaglo, G., & Wheelan, S. (1999). Facilitating work team effectiveness: Case studies from Central America. Small Group Research, 30, 108–129.

Byrne, J. (1999). Chainsaw: The notorious career of Al Dunlap in the era of profit-at-any-price. New York: HarperBusiness.

Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: The trendspotter’s guide to new communications. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. New York: Harcourt.

Cameron, D. (2007). The myth of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak differ- ent languages? New York: Oxford University Press.

Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences in com- munication? Communication Quarterly, 41, 129–144.

Cappiello, D. (2011, January 11). Gulf oil spill commission report: Increased regulation, more liability needed. Huffington Post. [Online]. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2011/01/11/gulf-oil-spill-commission_n_ 807353.html

Carletta, J., Garrod, S., & Fraser-Krauss, H. (1998). Placement of authority and commu- nication patterns in workplace groups: The

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 445 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 446 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 446 references

consequences for innovation. Small Group Re- search, 29, 531–559.

Carnevale, P., & Probst, T. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solv- ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 74, 1300–1309.

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., &Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal dis- plays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21, 1363–1368.

Carpenter, D. (2000, August 2). Americans’ new hang-up: Cell phone rudeness. Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. D5.

Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Carreon, C. (2005, March 1). Internet sites caught up in gangs’ wars of words. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 9A.

Carroll, J. (2006, September 1). Americans pre- fer male boss to a female boss. Gallup Brain Website. [Online]. Available: http://brain .gallup.com.

Carron, A., & Spink, K. (1995). The group size- cohesion relationship in minimal groups. Small Group Research, 26, 86–105.

Carter, S., & West, M. (1998). Reflexivity, ef- fectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583–601.

Carton, J. (1996). The differential effects of tan- gible rewards and praise on intrinsic motiva- tion: A comparison of cognitive evaluation theory and operant theory. Behavior Analyst, 19, 237–255.

Caruso, E. M., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). The costs and benefits of undoing ego- centric responsibility assessments in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 857–871.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007, August 7). Community measures pre- vent deaths during pandemic, new study finds. CDC Division of Media Relations Press Release. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/od/ oc/media/pressrel/2007/r070807.htm

Chang, A., Duck, J., & Bordia, P. (2006). Under- standing the multidimensionality of group de- velopment. Small Group Research, 37, 327–350.

Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 90, 1128–1140.

Charnofsky, H., Cherny, R., DuFault, D., Kegley, J., & Whitney, D. (1998, December 16). Fi- nal report of Merit Pay Task Force, CSU Aca- demic Senate. [Online]. Available: http://www .academicsenate.cc.ca.us

Chatman, J., & Barsade, S. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: Evi- dence from a business simulation. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 40, 423–443.

Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 27–43.

Chen, G., & Starosta, W. (1997). Chinese conflict management and resolution. Overview and implications. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 1–16.

Chen, G., & Starosta, W. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chen, S., Geluykens, R., & Chong, J. C. (2006). The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic perspective. Management Interna- tional Review, 46, 679–695.

Chertkoff, J., & Esser, J. (1976). A review of- experiments in explicit bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 464–486.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 446 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 447 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 447 ▶

Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of so- cial loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16, 149–160.

Chin, P. (2000, January 24). The buddy system. People, pp. 98–105.

Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Re- search, 40, 382–420.

Choo, T. S. (2010, April 19). Need for a M’sian Ajay Banga. Sun2Surf. [Online]. Available: http:// www.sun2surf.com/articlePrint.cfm?id=45703

Chua, R. Y-J., & Iyengar, S. (2006). Empower- ment through choice? A critical analysis of the effects of choice in organizations. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behav- ior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. New York: Elsevier.

Citizen Kane holds its spot as AFI’s top American film. (2007, June 21). San Jose Mercury News, p. 2A.

Clark, C., & Meadows, B. (2010, June 21). Mr. King’s class goes to college. People, pp. 131–134.

Clark, N., & Stephenson, G. (1989). Group re- membering. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clark, R. D. (2001). Effects of majority defection and multiple minority sources on minority influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 57–62.

Clemetson, L. (1999, June 7). Trying to close the achievement gap. Newsweek, 36–37.

Coates, J. (1993). Women, men, and language. New York: Longman.

Cohen, M., & Davis, N. (1981). Medication errors: Causes and prevention. Philadelphia: G. F. Stickley.

Concerns raised over twittering jurors: St. Louis judge says additional warning needed about online communications. (2010, November 21). AllBusiness. [Online]. Available: http://www . a l l b u s i n e s s . c o m / p r i n t / 1 4 2 7 7 4 9 6 - 1-22eeq.html

Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multi- national and multicultural distributed teams: A review and future agenda. Small Group Re- search, 38, 387–412.

Conquergood, D. (1994). Homeboys and hoods: Gang communication and cultural space. In L. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in con- text: Studies of natural groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wari- ness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 658–668.

Cox, T., Lobel, S., & McLeod, P. (1991). Effects of ethnic groups’ cultural differences on coopera- tive and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827–847.

Crano, W. D., & Seyranian, V. (2009). How mi- norities prevail: The context/comparison– leniency contract model. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 335–363.

Crawford, M., & Kaufman, M. R. (2006). Sex differences versus social processes in the construction of gender. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Creighton, J. L., & Adams, W. R. (1998). The cy- ber meeting’s about to begin. Management Re- view, 87, 29–31.

Crown, D. F. (2007). The use of group and group- centric individual goals for culturally hetero- geneous and homogeneous task groups: An assessment of European work teams. Small Group Research, 38, 489–508.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 447 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 448 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 448 references

Crumley, B. (2010, March 17). The Game of Death: France’s shocking TV experiment. Time. [Online]. Available: http://www.time .com/time/printout/0,8816,1972981,00.html

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Com- petence in interpersonal conflict. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group Dy- namics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 66–79.

Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM, 31, 1268–1287.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organiza- tional informational requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

Darling, A. L., & Dannels, D. P. (2003). Practic- ing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communica- tion in the workplace. Communication Edu- cation, 52, 1–16.

Davidson, C. (2007, March 19). We can’t ignore the influence of digital technologies. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B20.

Davidson, J. (1996). The shortcomings of the in- formation age. Vital Speeches, pp. 495–503.

Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Hulbert, L., Chen, X., & Zarnoth, P. (1997). Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judg- ments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 73, 703–718.

Davis, J., Frechette, H. M., & Boswell, E. H. (2010). Strategic speed: Mobilize people,

accelerate execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

De Cremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac- tice, 7, 168–174.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Mi- nority dissent and team innovation: The im- portance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team perfor- mance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.

De Klerk, V. (1991). Expletives: Men only? Com- munication Monographs, 58, 156–169.

De Souza, G., & Kline, H. (1995). Emergent lead- ership in the group goal-setting process. Small Group Research, 26, 475–496.

De Waal, F. (2010). The age of empathy: Na- ture’s lessons for a kinder society. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Deal, J. J. (2000). Gender differences in the inten- tional use of information in competitive nego- tiations. Small Group Research, 31, 702–723.

Dean, C. (2005, February 1). For some girls, the problem with math is that they’re good at it. New York Times, p. F3.

DeChurch, L. A., Hamilton, K. L., & Haas, C. (2007). Effects of conflict management strat- egies on perceptions of intragroup conflict. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac- tice, 11, 66–78.

Delbecq, A., et al. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Delevett, P. (2011, August 4). Is Twitter king of the mountain—or over the hill? San Jose Mer- cury News, pp. A1, A8.

Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Assertiveness. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 448 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 449 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 449 ▶

Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leader- ship, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denison, D., & Sutton, R. (1990). Operating room nurses. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback and task equivocal- ity. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274.

Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media syn- chronicity. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.

Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of attention: Power and individualism in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.

DeStephen, R., & Hirokawa, R. (1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group rela- tionships. Small Group Behavior, 19, 227–239.

Deutsch, M. (1979). Education and distributive justice: Some reflections on grading systems. American Psychologist, 34, 391–401.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social- psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

DeVito, J. (1990). Messages: Building inter- personal communication skills. New York: Harper & Row.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Dezenhall, E. (2010, June 9th). Why BP didn’t plan for this crisis. The Daily Beast. [Online]. Available: http://www.the dailybeast.com/ blogs-and-stories/2010-06-09/bp-pr-eric- dezenhall-on-oil-spill-crisis-management/2/

Di Biase, R., & Gunnoe, J. (2004). Gender and cultural differences in touching behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 49.

Dindia, K. (2006). Men are from North Dakota, women are from South Dakota. In K. Dindia and D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Domagalski, T. (1998). Experienced and expressed anger in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.

Donnellon, A. (1996). Team talk. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Donohue, W., & Kolt, R. (1992). Managing inter- personal conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dorado, M. A., Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Cisneros, I. F. J., & Euwema, M. (2002). Computer mediated negotiations of an es- calated conflict. Small Group Research, 33, 509–524.

Dorfman, P. W. (2004). International and cross- cultural leadership research. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leader- ship profiles. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dorsey, A., Miller, K., & Scherer, C. (1999). Com- munication, risk behavior, and perceptions of threat and efficacy: A test of a reciprocal model. Journal of Applied Communication Re- search, 27, 377–395.

Dotan-Eliaz, O., Sommer, K. L., & Rubin, Y. S. (2009). Multilingual groups: Effects of lin- guistic ostracism on felt rejection and anger, coworker attraction, perceived team potency, and creative performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 363–375.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 449 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 450 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 450 references

Dovidio, J. F., Saguy, T., & Shnabel, N. (2009). Co- operation and conflict within groups: Bridg- ing intragroup and intergroup processes. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 429–449.

Dowd, E. T., Hughes, S., Brockbank, L., Halpain, D., Seibel, C., & Seibel, P. (1988). Compli- ance-based and defiance-based intervention strategies and psychological reactance in the treatment of free and unfree behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 363–369.

Drecksel, G. (1984). Interaction characteristics of emergent leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.

Dressler, C. (1995, December 31). Please! End this meeting madness! Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. ID.

Drew, J. (1994). Mastering meetings: Discovering the hidden potential of effective business meet- ings. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dreyfuss, I. (1999, August 30). Sports parents need to keep cool. Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. A9.

Driskell, J., & Salas, E. (1992, June). Collective behavior and team performance. Human Fac- tors, 34, 277–288.

Driskell, J., Radtke, P., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 297–323.

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (1999). Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 58–74.

Dubrin, A. J. (2010). Leadership: Research find- ings, practice, and skills. Mason, OH: South- Western Cengage Learning.

Dubrin, A. J., Ireland, R. D., & Williams, J. C. (1989). Management and organization. Cin- cinnati, OH: South-Western.

Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brain- storming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 722–735.

Dunlap, A. (1997). Mean business: How I save bad companies and make good companies great. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Durand, D. (1977). Power as a function of office space and physiognomy: Two studies of influ- ence. Psychological Reports, 40, 755–760.

Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psy- chologist, 50, 145–158.

Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradic- tions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congru- ity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, trans- actional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.

Early, C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 555–581.

Efron, S. (1999, October 8). Samples point to wider radioactive impact. San Jose Mercury News, p. 6A.

Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance with- out reducing intrinsic creative interest? Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652–663.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detri- mental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.

Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing “Generation Y.” Advanced Management Journal, 70, 13–17.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 450 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 451 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 451 ▶

Elias, P. (2010, March 6). Courts now barring jurors’ use of social media, blogs and Internet while serving on trials. The Examiner. [On- line]. Available: http://www.printthis.click- ability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Courts

Elley, N. (2001, November/December). Big benefits in small classes. Psychology Today, p. 28.

Ellingson, L. L. (2008). Interdisciplinary health care. In L. C. Lederman (Ed.), Beyond these walls: Readings in health communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, A. P. J., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollen- beck, J. R. , & Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An evalu- ation of generic teamwork skill training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill- based outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 641–672.

Ellison, S. (2009). Taking the war out of our words. Deadwood, OR: Wyatt-MacKenzie Publishing.

Emmons, M. (2002, October 12). Winning isn’t everything. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 14A.

Emmons, M. (2003, January 6). Giants’ snap- per: “I screwed it up.” San Jose Mercury News, p. 7D.

Emmons, M. (2005, April 10). Scholarship pres- sure changes youth sports. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 12A–13A.

Employers rank communication skills first among job candidate skills and qualities. (2010). National Association of Colleges and Employees. [Online]. Available: http://www. naceweb.org/Press/Releases/Employers_ Rank_Communication_...ob_Candidate_ Skills_and_Qualities.aspx?referal=pressroo m&menuid=104

En-Lai, Y. (2003, July 13). Singapore loosens up to shed its dull image. San Jose Mercury News, p. 18A.

Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egotism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 872–889.

Epstein, R. (2010, January/February). How science can help you fall in love. Scientific American Mind, 26–33.

Espo, D. (2004, March 28). Social issues split Congress. San Jose Mercury News, p. 7A.

Facebook factsheet. (2011). Facebook. [Online]. Available: http://www.facebook.com/press/info .php?factsheet

Fackler, M. (2011, June 1). Report finds Japan un- derestimated tsunami danger. The New York Times. [Online]. Available at: http://www . nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/ 02japan.html?ref5world

Fadiman, C. (Ed.). (1985). The Little, Brown book of anecdotes. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

Fairhurst, G., & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of fram- ing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fandt, P. (1991). The relationship of accountabil- ity and interdependent behavior to enhancing team consequences. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 300–312.

Farace, R., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Feeney, M. K., & Bozeman, B. (2008). Mentor- ing and network ties. Human Relations, 61, 1651–1676.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the bar- rel: Negative group members and dysfunc- tional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222.

Fenton, B. (2005, June 5). “Chainsaw” to the res- cue? Think again! Fenton Report. [Online].

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 451 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 452 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 452 references

Available: http://www.fentonreport.com/wealth_ articles/news/chainsaw_al_dunlap.htm

Fernald, L. (1987). Of windmills and rope danc- ing: The instructional value of narrative struc- tures. Teaching Psychology, 14, 214–216.

Fernet, C., Gagne, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 31, 1163–1180.

Fiechtner, S. S., & Davis, E. A. (1992). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learn- ing: A sourcebook for higher education. Syra- cuse, NY: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment at Syracuse University.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effective- ness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F., & House, R. (1988). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress. In C. Coo- per & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Filkins, D. (2001, November 13). Letting their hair down. San Jose Mercury News, p. 14A.

Finkelstein, K. E. (2001, August 3). Tempers seem to be growing shorter in many jury rooms. New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/03/ nyregion/03JURY.html?ex_997841696&

Firestein, R. (1990). Effects of creative problem solving training on communication behaviors in small groups. Small Group Research, 21, 507–521.

Fisher, B. A. (1986). Leadership: When does the difference make a difference? In R. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fisher, B. A., & Ellis, D. (1990). Small group de- cision making: Communication and the group process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, C., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta- analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320–333.

Fisher, K. (2000). Leading self-directed work teams: A guide to developing new team leader- ship skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building a relationship that gets to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fisher, R., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond reason: Using emotions as you negotiate. New York: Penguin Books.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Nego- tiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.

Fishkin, J. S. (1997). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 155–194.

Fitzhenry, R. (Ed.). (1993). The Harper book of quotations. New York: HarperPerennial.

Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talking: The re- lationship between leadership and commu- nication competence. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 86–97.

Flinn, R. (2010, November 23). Silicon Valley de- sign firm IDEO aims to rethink books, cars. Bloomberg. [Online]. Available: http://www .bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-11-23/ silicon-valley-design-firm-ideo-s-employees- aim-to-rethink-books-cars.html

Flippen, A. (1999). Understanding groupthink from a self-regulatory perspective. Small Group Research, 30, 139–165.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 452 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 453 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 453 ▶

Florida jury convicts 2 fraternity members in first test of state’s anti-hazing law. (2006, Decem- ber 18). Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle .com/news/article/1421/florida-jury-convicts- 2-fraternity-members-in-first-test-of-state’s- anti-hazing-law.

Flory, J. A., Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. (2010, November). Do competitive work places deter female workers? A large-scale natural field ex- periement on gender differences in job-entry decisions. National Bureau of Economic Re- search. [Online]. Available: http://www.nber .org/papers/w16546

Foderaro, L. W. (2003, September 15). Death in frat’s hazing ritual shakes a SUNY cam- pus. New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/ nyregion.15HAZI.html?th

Folger, J., Poole, M., & Stutman, R. (1993). Work- ing through conflict: A communication perspec- tive. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Ford, H. (2003). My life and work. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Forsyth, D., Heiney, M., & Wright, S. (1997). Bi- ases in appraisals of women leaders. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 98–103.

Foushee, H., & Manos, K. (1981). Information transfer within the cockpit: Problems in in- tracockpit communications. In C. Billings & E. Cheaney (Eds.), Information transfer problems in the aviation system (NASA Report No. TP-1875). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.

Foust, D. (2009, May 14). How Delta climbed out of bankruptcy. Bloomberg Business- week. [Online]. Available: http://www

.bus inessweek .com/pr int /magaz ine/ content/09_21_b4132036798289.htm

Franz, T. M., & Larson, J. R. (2000). The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion. Small Group Research, 33, 383–411.

Freed, A. (1992). We understand perfectly: A critique of Tannen’s view. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, & B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California.

Freed, M., Carbonell, J., Gordon, G., et al. (2008). RADAR: A personal assistant that learns to reduce email overload. Association for the Ad- vancement of Artificial Intelligence. [Online]. Available: http://iorgforum.org/articleindex.htm

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Friedman, R., Anderson, C., Brett, J., Olekalns, M., Goates, N., & Lisco, C. C. (2004). The pos- itive and negative effects of anger in dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically me- diated disputes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 369–376.

Frings, D., Hopthrow, T., Abrams, D., Hulbert, L., & Gutierrez, R. (2008). Groupdrink: The effects of alcohol and group process on vigi- lance errors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re- search, and Practice, 12, 179–190.

Fullinwider, R. K. (2006, February). Sports, youth and character: A critical survey. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. [Online]. Available: http://www .civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/ WP44Fullinwider.pdf

Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 453 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 454 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 454 references

teams. Academy of Management Executives, 18, 6–12.

Gabrenya, W., Wang, Y., & Latane, B. (1985). Social loafing on an optimizing task: Cross- cultural differences among Chinese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol- ogy, 16, 223–242.

Galanter, M. (1999). Cults: Faith, healing, and co- ercion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Galinsky, A. D., & Kray, L. J. (2004). From think- ing about what might have been to sharing what we know: The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 606–618.

Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of in- dividual effort. Small Group Research, 32, 3–18.

Gamson, W., Fireman, B., & Rytia, S. (1982). En- counters with unjust authority. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Gantz, J., & Reinsel, D. (2010, May). The digi- tal universe—are you ready? IDC. [Online]. Available: http://idcdocserv.com/925

Gardner, L., & Leak, G. (1994). Characteristics and correlates of teacher anxiety among col- lege psychology teachers. Teaching of Psychol- ogy, 21, 28–32.

Garrett, L. (1994). The coming plague: Newly emerging diseases in a world out of balance. New York: Penguin Books.

Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Re- search, 25, 384–410.

Gastil, J., Black, L. W., Deess, E. P., & Leighter, J. (2008). From group member to democratic citizen: How deliberating with fellow jurors

reshapes civic attitudes. Human Communica- tion Research, 34, 137–169.

Gastil, J., Burkhalter, S., & Black, L. W. (2007). Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction at a municipal courthouse. Small Group Research, 38, 337–359.

Gayle, B. (1991). Sex equity in workplace conflict management. Journal of Applied Communica- tion Research, 19, 152–169.

Gayle, B., Preiss, R., & Allen, M. (1994). Gender differences and the use of conflict strategies. In L. Turner & H. Sterk (Eds.), Differences that make a difference: Examining the assumptions in gender research. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Gebhardt, L., & Meyers, R. (1995). Subgroup influence in decision-making groups: Exam- ining consistency from a communication per- spective. Small Group Research, 26, 147–168.

Geier, J. (1967). A trait approach in the study of leadership in small groups. Journal of Com- munication, 17, 316–323.

Geis, F., et al. (1984). Sex vs. status in sex- associated stereotypes. Sex Roles, 11, 771–786.

Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Ef- fects of process feedback on motivation, sat- isfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37, 459–489.

Gelles, R., & Straus, M. (1988). Intimate vio- lence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 278–287.

Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). Psychol- ogy and life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Getter, H., & Nowinski, J. (1981). A free response test of interpersonal effectiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 301–308.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 454 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 455 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 455 ▶

Gibb, J. (1961). Defensive communication. Jour- nal of Communication, 11, 141–148.

Giles, H., & LePoire, B. A. (2006). The ubiquity and social meaningfulness of nonverbal com- munication. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal com- munication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gilovich, T., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social psychol- ogy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gilovich, T., Kruger, J., & Savitsky, K. (1999). Everyday egocentrism and everyday interper- sonal problems. In R. Kowalski & M. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glasner, B. (1999). The culture of fear. New York: Basic Books.

Glassman, J. K. (1998, May 29). Put shootings in proper perspective. San Jose Mercury News, p. B7.

Glazer, M., & Glazer, P. (1986, August). Whistle- blowing. Psychology Today, 37–43.

Gleick, J. (1999). Faster: The acceleration of just about everything. New York: Pantheon Books.

Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and ag- gression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 20–36.

Godar, S. H., & Ferris, S. P. (2004). Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies and practice. London: Idea Group Publishing.

Goethals, G., & Darley, J. (1987). Social com- parison theory: Self-evaluation and group life. In B. Mullen & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Goktepe, J., & Schneier, C. (1989). Role of sex and gender roles, and attraction in predicting emergent leaders. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 74, 165–167.

Goldhaber, G. (1990). Organizational commu- nication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than I.Q. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional in- telligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emo- tional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gomez, M. (2003, September 11). Three CCS teams are next to try the impossible. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1D, 9D.

Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176–1186.

Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., & Ward, D. (2008). Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 1555–1568.

Goodwin, E. (2010, February 21). Primary rea- sons why kids drop out of community sports programs. Youth Sports Quality Institute. [Online]. Available: http://ysqi4ed.wordpress .com/2010/02/

Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., & DeClaire, J. (2001). The rela- tionship cure: A five-step guide for building bet- ter connections with family, friends, and lovers. New York: Crown Books.

Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2006). 10 les- sons to transform your marriage. New York: Crown.

Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven prin- ciples for making marriage work. New York: Crown.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 455 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 456 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 456 references

Goudreau, J. (2010, April 26). What men and women are doing on Facebook. Forbes. [On- line]. Available: http://www.forbes.com/ 2010/04/26/popular-social-networking-sites- forbes-woman-time-facebook-twitter_print .html

Gould, S. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gouran, D. (1981). Cognitive sources of infer- ential error and the contributing influence of interaction characteristics in decision- making groups. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Second Annual Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Gouran, D. (1982a, April). A theoretical foun- dation for the study of inferential error in decision-making groups. Paper presented at the Conference on Small Group Research, Pennsylvania State University.

Gouran, D. (1982b). Making decisions in groups: Choices and consequences. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Gouran, D. (1983). Communicative influences on inferential judgments in decision- making groups: A descriptive analysis. In D. Za- refsky et al. (Eds.), Argument in transition: Proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Gouran, D. (1986). Inferential errors, interaction, and group decision-making. In R. Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gouran, D. (1988). Principles of counteractive influence in decision-making and problem- solving groups. In R. Cathcart & L. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication: A reader. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Gouran, D., & Baird, J. (1972). An analysis of dis- tributional and sequential structure in prob- lem solving and informal group discussions, Speech Monographs, 39, 16–22.

Grady, D. (2010, November 25). Study: Hospi- tals still not very safe. San Jose Mercury News, p. A6.

Grasz, J. (2011, January 12). Employers reveal outrageous and common mistakes made in job interviews, according to new CareerBuilder survey. CareerBuilder.com. [Online]. Available: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/ aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr614&s d=1/12/2011&ed=12/31/2011

Green, A. S., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2002). The Internet attenuates the effects of social anxiety. Manuscript submitted for publication, New York University.

Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology Journal, 6, 393–408.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist.

Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Manniz, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal in- vestigation of the relationship between dif- ferent types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39, 278–302.

Greitemeyer, T., & Schultz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of informa- tion in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 322–339.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 456 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 457 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 457 ▶

Greitemeyer, T., Schultz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., & Frey, D. (2006). Information sampling and group decision making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experi- ence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Ap- plied, 12, 31–42.

Grenny, J. (2009). Crucial conversations: The most potent force for eliminating disruptive behavior. Physician Executive Journal, 35, 30–33.

Griffin, E. (1994). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Group video calling. (2011). Skype. [Online]. Available: http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/ features/allfeatures/group-video-calls/

Grusky, O., Bonacich, P., & Webster, C. (1995). The coalition structure of the four-person family. Current Research in Social Psychology, 2, 16–28.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Johi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency and performance: In- terdependence and level of analysis as mod- erators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832.

Gully, S., Devine, D., & Whitney, D. (1995). A meta- analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on perfor- mance effectiveness. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 47, 307–338.

Habitat for Humanity fact sheet (frequently asked questions). (2011). Habitat for Human- ity. [Online]. Available: http://www.habitat .org/how/factsheet.aspx

Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Leader- ship: A communication perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Haleta, L. L. (1996). Student perceptions of teach- ers’ use of language: The effects of powerful and powerless language on impression forma- tion and uncertainty. Communication Educa- tion, 45, 16–28.

Hall, C. C., Ariss, L., & Todorov, A. (2007). The il- lusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 277–290.

Hall, E. (1981). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, E., & Hall, M. (1987). Understanding cultural difference. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Hall, J. A. (2006). How big are nonverbal sex dif- ferences? The case of smiling and nonverbal sensitivity. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communica- tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hall, J. A., & Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimen- sion of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psy- chological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.

Hall, J., & Watson, W. (1970). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision- making. Human Relations, 23, 299–317.

Halpern, D. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hamm, M. (1999). Go for the goal: A champion’s guide to winning in soccer and life. New York: HarperCollins.

Haney, W. (1967). Communication and organiza- tional behavior. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Hansen, R. S., & Hansen, K. (2005). What do employers really want? Top skills and values employers seek from job-seekers. [Online].

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 457 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 458 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 458 references

Available: http://www.quintcareers.com/job_ skills_values.html

Hardy, J., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2005). Ex- ploring the potential disadvantages of high cohesion in sports teams. Small Group Re- search, 36, 166–187.

Hare, A. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 433–448.

Harlan, D. (2001). The Shakers. [Online]. Available: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/ nrms/Shakers.html

Harmon, A. (2001, September 23). The search for intelligent life on the Internet. New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www . nytimes.com/2001/09/23/weekinreview/

Harris, C. L., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2003). Team- based organization: Creating an environment for team success. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing attitudes of surface and deep-level diversity on group function- ing. Academy of Management Journal, 445, 1029–1045.

Hart, J. W., Bridgett, D. J., & Karau, S. J. (2001). Coworker ability and effort as determinants of individual effort on a collective task. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 181–190.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Iden- tity, influence and power. New York: Psychol- ogy Press.

Haslett, B. B., & Ruebush, J. (1999). What dif- ferences do individual differences in groups make? The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L. R. Frey, D. S.

Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haslett, B., Geis, F. L., & Carter, M. R. (1992). The organizational woman: Power and paradox. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decision. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508.

Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hastie, R., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (2006). What really happened on deliberation day? Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago Law School.

Hawkins, K. (1995). Effects of gender and com- munication content on leadership emergence in small task-oriented groups. Small Group Research, 26, 234–249.

Hawley, J. (2010, September 7). School rankings: What’s really important? HigherEdMorning .com. [Online]. Available: http://www .higheredmorning.com/school-rankings- whats-really-important

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tam- kins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 89, 416–427.

Hellweg, S., Samovar, L., & Skow, L. (1994). Cultural variations in negotiation styles. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hendra, T. (Ed.). (1982). Meet Mr. Bomb. New London, NH: High Meadow Publishing.

Henley, N. (1995). Body politics revisited: What do we know today? In P. Kalbfleisch & M. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communi- cation in human relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 458 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 459 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 459 ▶

Henningsen, D. D., Cruz, M. G., & Miller, M. L. (2000). Role of social loafing in predelibera- tion decision making. Group Dynamics: The- ory, Research, and Practice, 4, 168–175.

Henry, J. (1963). Culture against man. New York: Random House.

Hensley, T., & Griffin, G. (1986). Victims of groupthink: The Kent State University Board of Trustees and the 1977 gymnasium con- troversy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 497–531.

Herbold, S. (1998, May 3). Venture capitalists’ slang puts the “go” into “argot.” San Jose Mer- cury News, pp. 1A, 26A.

Herek, G., et al. (1987). Decision making during international crises: Is quality of process re- lated to outcome? Journal of Conflict Resolu- tion, 31, 203–226.

Herrera, L. (2010, November 21). Street gangs take it to the tweets. Outloud. [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.outloud.com/2010/issue00/ gang.html

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behav- ior: Leading human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hickson, M., & Stacks, D. (1989). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Hightower, R. T., & Sayeed, L. (1995). The impact of computer mediated communication sys- tems on biased group discussion. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 33–44.

Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Under- standing conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared iden- tity, shared context, and spontaneous commu- nication. Organization Science, 16, 290–307.

Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, R. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among

U.S. college students ages 18–24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 63, 136–144.

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259–279.

Hirokawa, R. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision-making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communica- tion Research, 12, 203–224.

Hirokawa, R. (1987). Why informed groups make faulty decisions: An investigation of possible interaction-based explanations. Small Group Behavior, 18, 3–29.

Hirokawa, R. (1992). Communication and group decision-making efficacy. In R. Cathcart & L. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communica- tion: A reader. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Hirokawa, R., & Pace, R. (1983). A descriptive investigation of the possible communication- based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision-making. Communication Mono- graphs, 50, 363–379.

Hirokawa, R., & Scheerhorn, D. (1986). Commu- nication in faulty group decision-making. In R. Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communica- tion and group decision-making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zarate, M. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 56–70.

Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2003). Goal set- ting and team performance in innovative projects: On the moderating role of teamwork quality. Small Group Research, 34, 3–19.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 459 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 460 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 460 references

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effective- ness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493–504.

Hoigaard, R., & Ommundsen, Y. (2007). Per- ceived social loafing and anticipated effort reduction among young football (soccer) players: An achievement goal perspective. Psychological Reports, 100, 857–875.

Hoigaard, R., Safvenbom, R., & Tonnessen, F. E. (2006). The relationship between group cohe- sion, group norms, and perceived social loaf- ing in soccer teams. Small Group Research, 37, 217–232.

Holahan, P., Mooney, A., Mayer, R. C., & Paul, L. F. (2008, Fall). Current Issues in Technology Management, 12, 1–4.

Hollander, E. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York: Free Press.

Hollander, E. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 485–537). New York: Random House.

Hollander, E., & Offerman, L. (1990, February). Power and leadership in organizations. American Psychologist, 179–189.

Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., & Guzzo, R. (2004). Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team compo- sition, team training and team task design. Human Resource Management, 43, 353–366.

Hollingshead, A. (1998). Group and individual training: The impact of practice on perfor- mance. Small Group Research, 29, 254–280.

Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: In- dividual and cultural variability in conversa- tional indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624–637.

Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac- tice, 11, 79–94.

Hong, L. (1978). Risky shift and cautious shift: Same direct evidence on the cultural-value theory. Social Psychology, 41, 342–346.

Hoover, N. C., & Pollard, N. J. (2000, August). Initi- ation rites in American high schools: A national survey final report. [Online]. Available: http:// www.alfred.edu/news/html/hazing_study.html

Horn, L. (2011, Februry 8). Social network use up, e-mail down, especially among teens. PC- Mag.com. [Online]. Available: http://www .pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379677,00asp

Hornsey, M. J., Grice, T., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criti- cisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more defensiveness than old-timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1036–1048.

Hornsey, M. J., Robson, E., Smith, J., Esposo, S., & Sutton, R. M. (2008). Sugaring the pill: As- sessing rhetorical strategies designed to mini- mize defensive reactions to group criticism. Human Communication Research, 34, 70–98.

Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 499–518.

Hotz, R. (1999, October 1). “Dumb” math error blamed for death of Martian probe. San Jose Mercury News, p. 1A.

Houghton, M. (2006). Videoconferencing your way to cost savings. Enterprise IT Planet. [On- line]. Available: http://www.enterpriseitplanet .com/networking/features/article.php/ 3594756

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 460 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 461 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 461 ▶

House, R. J. (2004). Illustrative examples of GLOBE findings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Jour- nal of Management, 23, 409–473.

House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howard, J. W. (2008). “Tower, am I cleared to land?”: Problematic communication in avia- tion discourse. Human Communication Re- search, 34, 370–391.

Howell, W. S. (1982). The empathic communica- tor. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transforma- tional and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Re- search, 34, 678–715.

Huang, L., Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Guillory, L. E. (2011). Powerful postures ver- sus powerful roles: Which is the proximate correlate of thought and behavior? Psychologi- cal Science, 22, 95–102.

Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, J.-M. (1999). Productivity loss in performance groups: People who see themselves as average do not engage in social loafing. Group Dynam- ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 118–131.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross- cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248.

Husband, R. (1992). Leading in organizational groups. In R. Cathcart & L. Samovar (Eds.),

Small group communication (pp. 464–476). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Hyatt, J. (2010, May 21). Smarter, by design. Newsweek. [Online]. Available: http://www .newsweek.com/2010/05/21/smarter-by- design.print.html

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hy- pothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

Hyman, M. (2009). Until it hurts: America’s obses- sion with youth sports and how it harms our kids. Boston: Beacon Press.

Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and ben- efits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344.

Infante, D., Rancer, A., & Womack, D. (1997). Building communication theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

International workplace productivity survey: White collar highlights. (2010, October). LexisNexis. [Online]. Available: http://www .multivu.com/players/English/46619-LexisNexis- International-Workplace-Productivity- Survey/flexSwf/

Internet 2009 in Numbers. (2010, January 22). Royal Pingdom. [Online]. Available: http:// royal.pingdom.com/2010/01/22/internet- 2009-in-numbers/

Internet usage statistics: The big picture. (2005). [Online]. Available: http://www.internet- worldstats.com/stats.htm

Isaksen, S. G. (1988). Innovative problem solv- ing in groups. In Y. Ijiri & R. I. Kuhn (Eds.), New directions in creative and innovative management: Bridging theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Isaksen, S. G., & Gaulin, J. P. (2005). A reexami- nation of brainstorming research: Implica- tions for research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 315–329.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 461 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 462 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 462 references

Isenhart, M. W., & Spangle, M. (2000). Collabora- tive approaches to resolving conflict. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jaksa, J., & Pritchard, M. (1994). Communica- tion ethics: Methods of analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

James, D., & Clarke, S. (1993). Women, men, and interruptions: A critical review. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A criti- cal review of research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological stud- ies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Jehn, K. A., & Weldon, E. (1997). Managerial attitudes toward conflict: Cross-cultural dif- ferences in resolution styles. Journal of Inter- national Management, 3, 291–321.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimina- tion: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 71, 1222–1233.

Johnson, C. (2009). Bad blood: Doctor-nurse behavior problems impact patient care. Physi- cian Executive Journal, 35, 6–10.

Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58, 934–945.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Cooper- ation and competition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000, June). Teaching students to be peacemakers; Re- sults of twelve years of research. [Online]. Available: http://www.cooplearn.org/pages/ peacemeta.html

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Field testing integrative negotiations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9, 39–68.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Learn- ing groups. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The hand- book of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, S. K., Bettenhausen, K., & Gibbons, E. (2009). Realities of working in virtual teams: Affective and attitudinal outcomes of using computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 623–649.

Johnson, S., & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening effectiveness and leadership emergence: Perceptions, be- haviors, and recall. Small Group Research, 29, 452–471.

Jones, A. P., Rozelle, R. M., & Chang, W. C. (1990). Perceived punishment and reward values of supervisor actions in a Chinese sam- ple. Psychological Studies, 35, 1–10.

Jones, D. (2004, February 20). Contestant Amy Henry shines above the others. USA Today, p. 4B.

Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2007). Contributions to a group discussion and perceptions of leader- ship: Does quantity always count more than quality? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 15–30.

Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2002). The relationships of group process variables and team performance. Small Group Research, 33, 121–150.

Ju, L., & Cushman, D. (1995). Organizational teamwork in high-speed management. Albany: State University of New York Press.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 462 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 463 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 463 ▶

Judge, C. (1998, July 31). Rookie’s father would be proud. San Jose Mercury News, p. D8.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transforma- tional and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Herold, A. L. (2006). Sex, power, and communication. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and simi- larities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum.

Kameda, N. (2003). Miscommunication factors in Japanese-US trade relationships. [Online]. Available: http://www.rcwob.doshisha.ac.jp/ review/5_2/5_2_011.pdf

Kameda, N. (2007). Communicative challenges for Japanese companies: Strategies in the global marketplace. Proceedings of the As- sociation for Business Communication 7th Asia-Pacific Conference.

Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. P. (1999a). The effects of proportional representation and gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 84, 620–631.

Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. P. (1999b). The ef- fects of proportional representation on intragroup behavior in mixed-race decision- making groups. Small Group Research, 30, 259–279.

Karau, S. J., & Elsaid, A. M. M. K. (2009). Individ- ual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 1–13.

Karau, S. J., & Hart, J. W. (1998). Group cohe- siveness and social loafing: Effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual moti- vation within groups. Group Dynamics: The- ory, Research, and Practice, 2, 185–191.

Kassin, S. (1998). Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Katz, D. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication. Administrative Sci- ence, 27, 81–104.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychol- ogy of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993, March– April). The discipline of teams. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 111–120.

Katz-Havon, T. Y., & Erez, M. (2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team per- formance: The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36, 437–465.

Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Lead- ership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 7–40.

Keating, C. F., Pomerantz, J., Pommer, S. D., Ritt, S. J. H., Miller, L. M., & McCormick, J. (2005). Going to college and unpacking hazing: A functional approach to decrypting initia- tion practices among undergraduates. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 104–126.

Keller, J. (2010, July 14). Berkeley sees admis- sion of Latino students drop and nonresidents jump. The Chronicle of Higher Education. [On- line]. Available: http://chronicle.com/article/ Berkeley-Sees-Admissions-of/66287/

Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innova- tion. New York: Doubleday.

Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation. New York: Doubleday.

Kelly, R. (2010, May). Twitter study— August 2009. PearAnalytics. [Online]. Available: http://www .pearanalytics.com/blog/wp-content/2010/05/ Twitter-Study- August-2009.pdf

Keltner, D. (2007). The power paradox. Greatergood. [Online]. Available: http:// greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/ power_paradox/

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 463 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 464 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 464 references

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psy- chological Review, 110, 265–284.

Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kennedy, F. A., Loughry, M. L., Klammer, T. P., & Beyerlein, M. M (2009). Effects of organi- zational support on potency in work teams. Small Group Research, 40, 72–93.

Kerber, K. W., & Buono, A. F. (2004). Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: Lessons from the field. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69, 4–11.

Kerr, N., & Bruun, S. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.

Ketrow, S. M. (1999). Nonverbal aspects of group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Key news audiences now blend online and tra- ditional sources. (2008, August 17). The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. [Online]. Available: http://people-press.org/ report/?pageid=13538

Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2010). Examining laugh- ter functionality in jury deliberations. Small Group Research, 41, 386–407.

Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1998). Work teams: Selecting members for opti- mal performance. Canadian Psychology, 39, 23–32.

Killion, A. (2004, August 16). Yet another “wake- up call” won’t rouse this U.S. team. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1D, 3D.

Kilmann, R., & Thomas, K. (1977). Developing a force-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The MODE instrument. Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309–325.

King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., & Beal, D. J. (2009). Con- flict and cooperation in diverse workgroups. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 261–285.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Multicultural task groups: An account of the low contribution level of minorities. Small Group Research, 24, 127–148.

Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1992). Multicul- tural groups: Their performance and reactions with constructive conflict. Group and Organi- zation Management, 17, 153–170.

Kirka, D. (2009, July 19). Henry Allingham, world’s oldest man. San Jose Mercury News, p. B8.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Under- standing why team members won’t share: An examination of factors related to employee re- ceptivity to team-based rewards. Small Group Research, 31, 175–209.

Kirkman, B., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self- management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 42, 58–74.

Kirn, W. (1997, October 3). Drinking to belong. New York Times, p. A11.

Kirsner, S. (2007, May 27). On the Web, audience size matters. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1P, 6P.

Klapp, O. (1978). Opening and closing: Strate- gies of information adaptation in society. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kleiman, C. (1991, July 28). A boost up the corporate ladder. San Jose Mercury News, p. 1PC.

Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40, 181–222.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 464 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 465 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 465 ▶

Klein, S. (1996). Work pressure as a determinant of work group behavior. Small Group Re- search, 27, 299–315.

Kline, S. L., & Stafford, L. (2004). A comparison of interaction rules and interaction frequency in relationship to marital quality. Communica- tion Reports, 17, 11–26.

Kluger, J. (2009, March 2). Why bosses tend to be blowhards. Time, 48.

Knutson, T. J., & Posirisuk, S. (2006). Thai rela- tional development and rhetorical sensitivity as potential contributors to intercultural com- munication effectiveness. Jai Yen Yen. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 205–217.

Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P., & Smith, V. R. (2003). A cross-cultural com- parison of Thai and U.S. American rhetori- cal sensitivity: Implications for intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journal of Relations, 27, 63–78.

Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Kolata, G. (1999). Flu: The story of the Great In- fluenza Pandemic of 1918 and the search for the virus that caused it. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Kolb, J. (1997). Are we still stereotyping leader- ship? Small Group Research, 28, 370–393.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How lead- ership differs from management. New York: Free Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose; why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhanc- ing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public In- terest, 7, 77–124.

Kozlowski, W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007, June/ July). The science of team success. Scientific American Mind, 54–61.

Kramer, M. W., Kuo, C. L., & Dailey, J. C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes: Beyond generat- ing ideas. Small Group Research, 28, 218–242.

Kraul, C. (2006, December 20). Renowned for longevity, Ecuadoran town changing. San Jose Mercury News, p. 16A.

Krauss, R. M., Freyberg, R., & Morsella, E. (2002). Inferring speakers’ physical attributes from their voices. Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 38, 618–625.

Krieger, L. M. (2007, October 31). Stanford lures Harvard economist. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1B, 2B.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own competence lead to inflated self- assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.

Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict man- agement styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Hu- man Communication Research, 26, 558–590.

Kumar, J. (2006). Working as a designer in a global team. Interactions, 13, 25–26.

Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (2006). Revis- iting the different cultures thesis: An assess- ment of sex differences and similarities in supportive communication. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similari- ties in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kutner, L. (1994, February 20). Winning isn’t only thing that counts. Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. D2.

Kuznia, R. (2010, April 2). Senator Menendez sparks controversy with Fortune 500 di- versity survey. HireDiversity.com. [Online].

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 465 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 466 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 466 references

Available: http://www.hirediversity.com/news/ 2010/4/2/senator_menendez_sparks_contro- versy_with_fortune.htm

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. (2004). Marketing. Mason, OH: South-Western.

Landers, A. (1995, February 25). Low income families need fire protection too. Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. D5.

Landrum, R. E., & Harrold, R. (2003). What employers want from psychology graduates. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 131–133.

Langfred, C. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? Small Group Research, 29, 124–143.

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims and myths of beauty? A meta- analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Review, 126, 390–423.

Lardner, G. (1998, July 27). Violent crime stalks the workplace: A study by the Justice Depart- ment shows that there are 2 million victims each year. The Morning Call. [Online]. Available: http:// articles.mcall.com/1998-07-27/news/ 3215264_1_ national-crime-victimization- survey-workplace-violence-violent-crime/2

Larson, C., & LaFasto, F. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Larson, J. R. (2007). Deep diversity and strong synergy: Modeling the impact of variability in members’ problem-solving strategies on group problem-solving performance. Small Group Research, 38, 413–436.

Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-to-numbers

problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 90, 644–650.

Laughlin, P., & Adamopoulos, J. (1980). Social combination processes and individual learn- ing for six-person cooperative groups on an intellectual task. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 38, 941–947.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. New York: Free Press.

Le, P. (1995, October 23). Foundations give schools a growing shot in the arm. San Jose Mercury News, p. 1A.

Leana, C. (1985). A partial test of Janis’s group- think model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision making. Journal of Management, 11, 5–17.

Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-an- alytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363.

Leathers, D. (1970). The process effects of trust- destroying behaviors in the small group. Speech Monographs, 37, 180–187.

Leavitt, H. (1964). Managerial psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lederer, R. (1990). Crazy English: The ultimate joy ride through our language. New York: Pocket Books.

Lee, B. (1997). The power principle: Influence with honor. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lee, M. D., & Paradowski, M. J. (2007). Group decision-making on an optimal stopping prob- lem. The Journal of Problem Solving, 1, 53–73.

Lee, M., & Ofshe, R. (1981). The impact of behav- ioral style and status characteristics on influ- ence: A test of two competing models. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 73–82.

Lenhart, A. (2007, January 7). Social net- working websites and teens. Pew Research

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 466 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 467 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 467 ▶

Center Publications. [Online]. Available: http:// p e w r e s e a r c h . o r g / p u b s / 1 1 8 / s o c i a l - networking-websites-and-teens

Levin, M. (2010, July 13). It’s hard out here for a snitch. Mother Jones. [Online]. Available: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/ 07/osha-whist leblowers-protec t ion- retaliation

Levine, D. I. (2004, February 5). The wheels of Washington: Groupthink and Iraq. SF- Gate. [Online]. Available: http://www.sfgate. com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/ 02/05EDGV34OCEP1.DTL

Levine, J., & Moreland, R. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 41, 585–634.

Levine, S. (1984, August). Radical departures. Psychology Today, 20–27.

Lewallen, J. (1972, April). Ecocide: Clawmarks on the yellow face. Earth, 36–43.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5–42.

Lewin, K. (1953). Studies in group decision. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Pat- terns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psy- chology, 10, 271–299.

Lewis, R. (1996). When cultures collide: Managing successfully across cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Lipman-Blumen, J., & Leavitt, H. J. (1999). Hot groups. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organiza- tions with technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lippincott, S. M. (1999). Meetings: Do’s, don’ts, and donuts. Pittsburgh, PA: Lighthouse Point Press.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Liu, M. (2009). The intrapersonal and inter- personal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A cross-cultural investigation. Human Communication Research, 35, 148–169.

Locke, J. (1998). The de-voicing of society: Why we don’t talk to each other anymore. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lopez-Zafra, E., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Landa, J. M. A. (2008). The role of tranformational leadership, emotional intelligence, and group cohesiveness on leadership emergence. Jour- nal of Leadership Studies, 2, 37–49.

Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer- mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37, 631–661.

Lubman, S. (1999, October 13). Nation’s response to crisis belies its devotion to detail. San Jose Mercury News, p. 21A.

Lulofs, R. (1994). Conflict: From theory to action. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (1993). Communi- cating in groups and teams: Sharing leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of em- ployees. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 58–67.

Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An em- pirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38, 523–544.

Lustig, M., & Koester, J. (2003). Intercultural com- petence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. New York: Longman.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 467 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 468 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 468 references

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S., & Alberts, J. K. (2005, February). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: A first time study of U.S. prevalence and delineation of bullying “degree.” Paper presented at Western States Communication Association, San Francisco.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Sypher, B. D. (2009). Workplace bullying: Causes, consequences, and corrections. In P. Lutgen-Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication. New York: Routledge.

Lykken, D. T. (1997). The American crime fac- tory. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 261–270.

Lynch, J. J. (2000). A cry unheard: New insights into the medical consequences of loneliness. Baltimore: Bancroft Press.

Lyons, J. S. (2008, April 25). (Texting shorthand showing up in schoolwork. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 17A.

Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex Roles: A Jour- nal of Research, 53, 763–779.

MacIntyre, J. (2005, April 10). Liars at work. San Jose Mercury News, p. 3C.

Mackin, D. (2010, June 10th). BP oil spill, the Challenger and Columbia explosions, and the deaths on Mt. Everest: Key decisions making tragedies and what we can learn from them. [Online]. Available: http://www.newdirec- tionsconsulting.com/wordpress/2010/06/ bp-oil-spl. . .est-key- decision-making- tragedies-and-what-we-can-learn-from-them/

MacNeil, M., & Sherif, M. (1976). Norm change over subject generations as a function of arbi- trariness of prescribed norm. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 34, 762–773.

Mador, J. (2010, October 6). Jimmy Carter, local politicians chip in for Habitat. MPRNews. [On- line]. Available: http://minnesota.publicradio

. o r g / d i s p l a y / w e b / 2 0 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 6 / jimmy-carter-minnesota/

Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J., & Lipnack, J. (2004, May). Can absence make a team grow stronger? Harvard Business Review, pp. 131–137.

Mandel, J. (2010). Social life in middle and high school: Dealing with cliques and bul- lies. NYU Child Study Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.education.com/print/ bullying-in-middle-and-high-school/

Mankins, M. (2004, September). Stop wasting valuable time. Harvard Business Review.

Mannix, E. A., Thompson, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Negotiation in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 508–517.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What dif- ferences make a difference: The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55.

Manusov, V., & Patterson, M. L. (Eds.). (2006). The Sage handbook of nonverbal communica- tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marcus-Newhall, A., Miller, N., Holtz, R., & Brewer, M. B. (1993). Cross-cutting category membership in role assignment: A means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of So- cial Psychology, 32, 125–145.

Mariah “quote” spreads. (1999, February 21). San Jose Mercury News, p. 2A.

Marino, V. (2000, November 12). It’s all the rage at work, too. New York Times, Money & Busi- ness section, p. 3.

Mark, D., & Willacy, M. (2011, April 1). Crews “facing 100-year battle” at Fukushima. ABC News. [Online]. Available at: http://www.abc. net.au/news/stories/2011/04/01/3179487.htm

Markkula, P. (2009, June 2). Decision making in inter-corporate projects: A qualitative and

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 468 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 469 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 469 ▶

quantitative study of project workers in auto- mobile research and pre-development projects in Japan and Germany. [Online]. Available: http://www.essays.se/essay/a838b1e678/

Marklein, M. N. B. (2008, January 24). Study: Colleges shouldn’t fret over hands-on parents. USA Today, p. 8D.

Marks, M. (1986, March). The question of quality circles. Psychology Today, 36–46.

Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross train- ing on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13.

Markus, M. L. (1994). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 119–149.

Maroda, K. J. (2004). A relational perspective on women and power. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21, 428–435.

Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simula- tion. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.

Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (2008). Experiencing intercultural communication: An introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. L. U. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance on groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407–415.

Maxfield, D., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., Patter- son, K., & Switzler, A. (2005). Silence kills: The seven crucial conversations in healthcare. VitalSmarts. [Online]. Available: http://www .silencekills.com/UPDL/SilenceKillsExec- Summary.pdf

Maxwell, J. C. (2001). The 17 indisputable laws of teamwork: Embrace them and empower your team. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

May, M. (2005, February 3). Pledge dies in hazing at Chico fraternity: House was kicked off CSU campus in 2002 for infraction. San Francisco Chronicle. [Online]. Available: http://sfgate .com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f5/c/a2005/02/03/ BAGIGB497T1.DTL

May, P. (2002, March 30). Dog owner explains why he showed no remorse. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 18A.

May, P. (2007, May 26). Governor salutes rapid repair of Maze. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1B, 6B.

Mayk, V. (2010, November 29). Wilkes Univer- sity professors examine use of text messaging in the college classroom. Latest Wilkes News Archives. [Online]. Available: http://www .wilkes.edu/pages/194.asp?item=61477

McDaniel, E. (1993, November). Japanese non- verbal communication: A review and critique of literature. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL.

McEldowney, R. P., Bobrowski, P., & Gramberg, A. (2009). Factors affecting the next genera- tion of women leaders: Mapping the chal- lenges, antecedents, and consequences of effective leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 24–30.

McGinn, D. (2006, May 29). Building success. Newsweek, E9–E15.

McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Ideas, evi- dence, issues, and an agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enter- prise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGuinnies, E., & Ward, C. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 467–472.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 469 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 470 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 470 references

McGuire, P. A. (1998, August). Historic confer- ence focusing on creating a new discipline. APA Monitor, 29, 1–15.

McKay, M., Rogers, P., & McKay, J. (1989). When anger hurts: Quieting the storm within. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

McKenna, K. Y. A., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 116–127.

McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. (2002). Relationship formation on the Inter- net: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.

McLaughlin, K. (2004, December 24). Couple fulfill wish for a family many times over. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 19A.

McLeod, H., & Cooper, J. (1996, July 31). Politically unplugged. San Jose Mercury News, p. 7B.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248–264.

McMillan, J. J., & Harriger, K. J. (2002). College students and deliberation: A benchmark study. Communication Education, 51, 237–253.

McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.

McNutt, P. (1997, October/November). When strategic decisions are ignored. Fast Company, 17–22.

Mead, M. (1961). Cooperation and competition among primitive peoples. Boston: Beacon.

Medical mistakes. (2003, January 5). San Jose Mercury News, p. 4C.

Mehl, M., & Pennebaker, J. (2002). Mapping stu- dents’ natural language use in everyday conver- sations. Paper presented at the third annual meeting of the Society for Personality and So- cial Psychology, Savannah, GA.

Melton, J. G. (1992). Religious bodies in the United States: A directory. New York: Garland Press.

Member FAQs. (2011). Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. [Online]. Available: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/ memberfaq.html

Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hy- pothesis. Group Decisions and Negotiation, 9, 507–529.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implica- tions on companies and employees. New York: Lexington.

Michaelson, L., et al. (1989). A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 834–839.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.

Miller, C. (1989). The social psychological effects of group decision rules. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Miller, K., & Monge, P. (1986). Participation, sat- isfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727–753.

Miller, V. (2005, March 1). Recent Asian bird flu flies under most students’ health radars. [On- line]. Available: http://www.thehilltoponline .com/global_user_elements/printpage .cfm?storyid5880758

Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). The un- folding model of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a com- prehensive theory of attachment. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Or- ganizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 470 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 471 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 471 ▶

Mongeau, P. (1993, February 15). The brain- storming myth. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Confer- ence, Albuquerque, NM.

Moore, D. W. (2002, May 10). Americans more accepting of female bosses than ever. Gallup Poll News Service. [Online]. Available: http:// www.gallup.com/login/?URL_/poll/releases/ pr970829a.asp

Moorhead, G., & Montanari, J. (1986). An empir- ical investigation of the groupthink phenom- enon. Human Relations, 39, 399–410.

More than one in four college students take courses online. (2010, January 28). Education-Portal.com. [Online]. Available: http://educationportal.com/articles/More_ Than_One_in_Four_College_Students_ Take_Courses_Online.html

Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41, 251–267.

Moreland, R., & Levine, J. (1987). Group dynam- ics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In J. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Moriarty, T. (1975, April). A nation of willing vic- tims. Psychology Today, 43–50.

Mortensen, M., Caya, O., & Pinsonneault, A. (2009). Virtual teams demystified: An inte- grative framework for understanding virtual teams and a synthesis of research. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4738-09. [Online]. Avail- able: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1282095

Moscovici, S., & Mugny, G. (1983). Minority influence. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group pro- cesses. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Mosvick, R. K., & Nelson, R. B. (1987). We’ve got to start meeting like this! Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Motley, M. (1995). Overcoming your fear of pub- lic speaking: A proven method. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Moving forward, but still behind. (1999, June 7). Newsweek, 32–33.

Mudrack, P., & Farrell, G. (1995). An examina- tion of functional role behavior and its con- sequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research, 26, 542–571.

Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effects: Do language differences really make a difference? In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mulac, A., & Bradac, J. (1995). Women’s style in problem solving interaction: Powerless, or simply feminine? In P. Kalbfleisch & M. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mullen, B., Anthony, T, Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204.

Murnighan, J. (1978). Models of coalition for- mation: Game theoretic, social psychological, and political perspectives. Psychological Bulle- tin, 85, 1130–1135.

Murphy, D. (2010, October 31). Twitter: On- track for 200 million users by year’s end. PC- Mag.com. [Online]. Available: http://www .pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371826,oo.asp

Murphy, S. (2010, August 5). Teens lead the way in shift away from email. Tech News Daily. [On- line]. Available: http://www.technewsdaily .com/teens-lead-the-way-in-shift-away- from-email-0983/

Mydans, S. (2008, May 11). In Singapore, a gad- fly’s return. San Jose Mercury News, p. 17A.

Myers, D. G. (2002). Intuition: Its power and per- ils. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Myers, D. G. (2003). Psychology. New York: Worth.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 471 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 472 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 472 references

Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discus- sion effects on racial attitudes, Science, 169, 278–334.

Myers, R. (2003). Ensuring ethical effectiveness: New rules mean virtually every company will need a code of ethics. Questia. [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.questia.com/

Myers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1999). Influ- ence processes in group interaction. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005). A study of grouphate in a course on small group commu- nication. Psychological Reports, 97, 381–386.

Myerson, J. (2001). IDEO: Masters of innovation. New York: teNeues Publishing.

Narcisco, J., & Burkett, T. (1975). Declare yourself. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Fast Facts. [Online]. Available: http://nces .ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Ho- rizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. (2011, January 11). Deep water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. [Online]. Available: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/

National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs Geo- graphic Literacy Study (2006, May). Final Report. [Online]. Available: http://www .nationalgeographic.com/foundation/pdf/ NGSRoper2006Report.pdf

Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. (2007). Or- ganizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in the work- place. Human Relations, 60, 683–718.

Neale, M., et al. (1988). Joint effects of goal setting and expertise on negotiator behavior. Unpub- lished manuscript, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Needleman, S. E. (2009, January 26). Doing the math to find the good jobs. Wall Street Jour- nal. [Online]. Available: http://online.wsj .com/article/SB123119236117055127.html

Nelson, M. (1998). Embracing victory: Life lessons in competition and compassion. New York: William Morrow & Company.

Nelson, T. F., Xuan, A., Lee, H., Weitzman, E. R., & Wechsler, H. (2009). Persistence of heavy drinking and ensuing consequences at heavy drinking colleges. Journal of Studies on Alco- hol and Drugs, 70, 726–734.

Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Dev- il’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimu- lating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–720.

New forms of violence at work on the rise world- wide, says the ILO (2006, June 14). Work- place Bullying Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/ iloepidemic.html

New survey finds doctors and nurses behaving badly. (2009, November 3). E-releases. [On- line]. Available: http://www.ereleases.com/ pr/survey-finds-doctors-nurses- behaving- badly-27864

Newman, B. (2007, October 28). Jerry’s big buzz: Dreamworks’ “Bee Movie” is strictly a Seinfeld production. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1D; 5D.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Re- view of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.

Nicotera, A. M. (1995). Conflict and organiza- tions: Communicative processes. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Nicotera, A., & Rancer, A. (1994). The influence of sex on self-perception and social stereotyp- ing of aggressive communication predisposi- tions. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 283–307.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 472 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 473 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 473 ▶

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Noller, P. (1993). Gender and emotional com- munication in marriage: Different cultures or differential social power? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 132–152.

Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Notarius, C., & Markman, H. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense of marital conflict. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Nussbaum, B. (2004, May 17). The power of de- sign. Business Week, pp. 86–94.

Nye, J. L. (2002). The eye of the follower: Infor- mation processing effects on attributions re- garding leaders of small groups. Small Group Research, 33, 337–360.

O’Brien, T. (1995, November 5). No jerks al- lowed. West, pp. 8–26.

O’Leary, K., Curley, A., & Clark, C. (1985). Asser- tion training for abused wives: A potentially hazardous treatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 319–322.

Oates, J., & Cullen, D. (2005, February 9). Carly Fiorina quits. Register, p. 13.

Oberg, A. (2003, August 26). From Challenger to Columbia. San Jose Mercury News, p. 7B.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educat- ing the net generation. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Oertig, M., & Buegri, T. (2006). The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project teams. Team Performance Management, 12, 23–30.

Oglensky, B. D. (2008). The ambivalent dynamics of loyalty in mentorship. Human Relations, 61, 419–448.

Olson, L. N. (2002). “As ugly and painful as it was, it was effective”: Individuals’ unique assess- ment of communication competence during aggressive conflict episodes. Communication Studies, 53, 171–189.

Olympic basketball/2008 Olympics. (2008). In- sideHoops.com. [Online]. Available: http:// www.insidehoops.com/olympics.shtml

Onishi, N. (2007, July 16). Japanese wary as they prepare to join juries. San Jose Mercury News, p. 8A.

Orlick, T. (1978). Winning through cooperation: Competitive insanity, cooperative alternatives. Washington, DC: Acropolis Books.

Orlitzky, M., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (2001). To err is human, to correct for it divine: A meta- analysis of research testing the functional the- ory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Research, 32, 313–341.

Orlowski, A. (2005, October 18). Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems. Register. [Online]. Available: http://www.theregister .co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/

Osgood, C. (1959). Suggestions for winning the real war with communism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 295–325.

Osgood, C. (1966). Perspective in foreign policy. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.

Out of “Internet time.” (2005, February 12). San Jose Mercury News, p. 6B.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collec- tivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

Palomares, N. A. (2008). Explaining gender- based language use: Effects of gender identity salience on references to emotion and tentative language in intra-and intergroup contexts. Hu- man Communication Research, 34, 263–286.

Panteli, N. (2004). Discursive articulation of presence in virtual organizing. Information and Organization, 14, 59–81.

Park, H., & Antonioni, D. (2007). Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conflict resolution

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 473 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 474 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 474 references

strategy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 110–125.

Parks, C., & Vu, A. (1994). Social dilemma of in- dividuals from highly individualist and collec- tivist cultures. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 708–718.

Pauleen, D. J., & Young, P. (2001). Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary- crossing virtual teams: A facilitator’s perspec- tive. Journal of Information Technology, 16, 205–220.

Paulus, P., Dzindolet, M., Poletes, G., & Cama- cho, M. L. (1993). Perceptions of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78–89.

Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pavitt, C., & Curtis, E. (1994). Small group discus- sion. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effec- tiveness of change management teams: An ex- amination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader be- haviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking work- place incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1990). Practical implications of psychological research on ju- ror and jury decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 90–115.

Perrewe, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skills as an

antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 47, 141–152.

Perspective. (2000, December 18). Newsweek, 23. Pescosolido, A. T. (2001). Informal leaders and

the development of group efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 74–93.

Pettigrew, T., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for black American in- clusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41–78.

Pfeffer, J. (2010, July 16). Why predicting organizational disasters doesn’t prevent them. BNET. [Online]. Available: http://www .bnet.com/blog/business-psychology/ why- predicting-organizational-disasters- doesn-8217t-prevent-them/201

Phillips, E., & Cheston, R. (1979). Conflict reso- lution: What works? California Management Review, 21, 76–83.

Piezon, S. L., & Ferree, W. D. (2008). Percep- tions of social loafing in online learning groups: A study of public university and U.S. Naval War College students. The In- ternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9. [Online]. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/ article/view/484/1034

Pinkley, R. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (2000). Get paid what you’re worth. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Pitts, L. (2011, February 6). What is this thing called the Internet? San Jose Mercury News, p. A15.

PlaneBusiness Ron Allen airline management award. (2008, February). PlaneBusiness. [On- line]. Available: http://www.planebusiness .com/ronallen.shtml

Plantronics study reveals how global profes- sionals utilize new and traditional commu- nication technologies to succeed at work. (2010, September 30). Plantronics. [Online].

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 474 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 475 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 475 ▶

Available: http://press.plantronics.com/us/ plantronics-study-reveals-how-global- professionals-utilize-new-and-traditional- communication-technologies-to-succeed-at-work/

Playing havoc with hormones. (1996, June 7). San Jose Mercury News, p. 14A.

Plotz, D. (1997, August 30). Al Dunlap: The chainsaw capitalist. [Online]. Available: http://www.slate.com/Assessment/97-08-30/ Assessment.asp

Poliakoff, A. R. (2006, January). Closing the gap: An overview. ASCD. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascd.org/publications/ newsletters/infobrief/jan06/num44/toc.aspx

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds. (2006, January 24). MSNBC. [Online]. Available: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 11009379/.

Poll: College students feel pressure to drink. (2000, June 20). San Jose Mercury News, p. 9A.

Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 321–341.

Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989a). Decision de- velopment in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323–356.

Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989b). Decision de- velopment in small groups V: Test of a con- tingency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549–589.

Poole, M. S., Holmes, M., Watson, R., & DeSanc- tic, G. (1993). Group decision support systems and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and nonsupported groups. Communication Re- search, 20, 176–213.

Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1996). The structuration of group decisions.

In R. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Commu- nication and group decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Postman, N. (1976). Crazy talk, stupid talk. New York: Dell.

Poto, J. (2010, November 7). The world of hy- percompetitive graduate scholarships. The Stanford Review. [Online]. Available: http:// stanfordreview.org/article/the-world-of- hypercompetitive-graduate-scholarships

Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. (2006). Gender and leadership: Perceptions and realities. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Praise thy employee, survey says. (1994, September 13). San Jose Mercury News, p. 1E.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacrifice, cohesion, and conformity to norms in sports teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 231–240.

Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (2001). The age of propaganda. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.

Pre-employment drug tests ground almost 20% in state. (1990, May 24). San Jose Mercury News, p. 1A.

Preston, L. (2008). A space of our own: MySpace and feminist activism in the classroom. Radi- cal Teacher, 81, 14–19.

Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences. New York: HarperCollins.

Pruitt, D. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Pruitt, D., & Kimmel, M. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392.

Pruitt, D., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict: Es- calation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 475 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 476 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 476 references

Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M. C., & Mance, M. (2007). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Put enjoyment ahead of achievement. (1994, February 20). Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. D2.

Quattrone, G., & Jones, E. (1980). The percep- tion of variability within in-groups and out- groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141–152.

Raban, J. (1997, November 24). What the nanny trial tell us about transatlantic body language. New York Times, p. 55.

Rabbie, J. (1993). Determinants of ingroup co- hesion and outgroup hostility. International Journal of Group Tensions, 23, 309–328.

Rad, P. F., & Levin, G. (2003). Achieving project management success using virtual teams. Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross Publishing.

Radosh, D. (2005, February 28). The pictures: One billion. New Yorker, 32.

Rahim, M. (1985). Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Journal of So- cial Psychology, 12, 731–745.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of manag- ing organizational conflict. International Jour- nal of Conflict Management, 13, 206–235.

Rains, S. A., & Young, V. (2009). A meta-analysis of research on formal computer-mediated support groups: Examining group character- istics and health outcomes. Human Commu- nication Research, 35, 309–336.

Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. (2001). Trust us, we’re experts. New York: Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam.

Rasters, G., Vissers, G., & Dankbaar, B. (2002). An inside look: Rich communication through lean media in a virtual research team. Small Group Research, 33, 718–754.

Read, P. (1974). Source of authority and the le- gitimation of leadership in small groups. Soci- ometry, 37, 189–204.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007, August/September). The new psychol- ogy of leadership. Scientific American Mind, 22–29.

Results of the 2010 WBI U.S. workplace bullying sur- vey. (2010). Workplace Bullying Institute. [On- line]. Available at: http://www.workplacebullying .org/research/WBI-NatlSurvey2010.html

Riccillo, S., & Trenholm, S. (1983). Predicting managers’ choice of influence mode: The ef- fects of interpersonal trust and worker attri- butions on managerial tactics in a simulated organizational setting. Western Journal of Speech, 47, 323–339.

Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). Status in groups: The im- portance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47, 76–88

Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Strobe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A compar- ison of interactive and nominal brainstorm- ing groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 244–251.

Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

Riggio, R. E. (2006). Nonverbal skills and abili- ties. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook on nonverbal communica- tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C., & Cole, E. J. (2003). The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 83–103.

Riley, P. (1994). The winner within. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

Rinerip, M. (2005, December 14). How one sub- urb’s black students gain. New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2005/12/14/education/14education.html.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 476 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 477 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 477 ▶

Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (2000). Disrupting defensive family in- teractions in family therapy with delinquent adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 688–701.

Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rocheleau, B. (2002). E-mail: Does it need to be managed? Can it be managed? Public Admin- istration & Management: An Interactive Jour- nal, 7, 83–116.

Rodriguez, D., & Solomon, D. (2005). Leadership and innovation in a networked world. Innova- tions: Technology/Governance/Globalization, 2, 3–14.

Rodriguez, J. (2011, March 25). San Jose offi- cially a top-10 city. San Jose Mercury News, pp. B1, B5.

Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading Generation X: Do the old rules apply? Journal of Leadership & Organi- zational Studies, 9, 67–76.

Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burn- field, J. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 83–96.

Roland, N., & Mathewson, J. (2002, Septem- ber 4). Sunbeam ex-CEO “Chainsaw Al” Dun- lap settles SEC case. Bloomberg News, p. 1.

Romero, E., & Pescosolido, A. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness. Human Relations, 61, 395–418.

Romig, D. (1996). Breakthrough teamwork: Out- standing results using structured teamwork. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Ropeik, D. (2008, April 13). How risky is flying? NOVA. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs .org/wgbh/nova/planecrash/risky.html.

Rose, R. C., Suppiah, W. R. R. V, Uli, J., & Oth- man, J. (2007). A face concern approach

to conflict management from a Malaysian perspective. Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 121–126.

Rosenfeld, L. (1983). Communication cli- mate and coping mechanisms in the college classroom. Communication Education, 32, 169–174.

Rosenthal, N. (1997, July 15). How to prevent that “us vs. them” feeling within the family. San Jose Mercury News, p. 4E.

Rosin, H. (2010, July/August). The end of men. The Atlantic, 56–72.

Ross, L., Amabile, T., & Steinmetz, J. (1977). Social roles, social control and biases in the social perception process. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 37, 485–494.

Rossman, J. (1931). The psychology of the inven- tor. Washington, DC: Inventors’ Publishing Company.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Rothwell, J. D. (2010). In the company of others: An introduction to communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Kozub, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Lintunen, T. (2009). Can high group co- hesion be harmful? A case study of a junior ice-hockey team. Small Group Research, 40, 421–435.

Rubenstein, M. (1975). Patterns of problem solv- ing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ruggiero, V. R. (1988). The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought. New York: Harper & Row.

Ruining it for the rest of us. (2008, Decem- ber 19). This American Life. [Online]. Available: http:www.thisamericanlife.org /radio-archives/episode/370/ruining- it-for-the-rest-of-us

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 477 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 478 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 478 references

practical model. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23, 145–157.

Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema (1998). Regu- lating responses to anger: Effects of rumina- tion and distraction on angry mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 790–803.

Rutkowski, A-F, Saunders, C., Vogel, D., & van Genuchten, M. (2007). “Is it already 4 a.m. in your time zone?” Focus immersion and temporal dissociation in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38, 98–129.

Ruvolo, C. M., Petersen, S. A., & LeBoeuf, J. N. G. (2004). Leaders are made, not born: The critical role of a developmental frame- work to facilitate an organizational culture of development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56, 10–19.

Saint, S., & Lawson, J. (1997). Rules for reaching consensus. San Diego: Pfeiffer.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599.

Salazar, A. (1995). Understanding the synergis- tic effects of communication in small groups. Small Group Research, 26, 169–199.

Samovar, L., & Porter, R. (2004). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.

Scandura, R. A., Von Glinow, M. A., & Lowe, K. B. (1999). When East meets West: Leader- ship “best practices” in the United States and the Middle East. In W. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leader- ship. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and So- cial Psychology, 46, 190–207.

Scheer, R. (1983). With enough shovels: Reagan, Bush and nuclear war. New York: Vintage Books.

Schei, V., & Rognes, J. K. (2005). Small group negotiation: When members differ in motiva- tional orientation. Small Group Research, 36, 289–320.

Schiller, S. Z., & Mandviwalla, M. (2007). Virtual team research: An analysis of theory use and a framework for theory appropriation. Small Group Research, 38, 12–59.

Schittekatte, M., & Van Hiel, A. (1996). Effects of partially shared information and awareness of unshared information on information sam- pling. Small Group Research, 27, 431–449.

Schmidt, S., & Kipnis, D. (1987, November). The perils of persistence. Psychology Today, 32–34.

Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, S. A., et al. (2008). Learner empowerment and teacher evalua- tions as functions of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 57, 180–200.

Schultz, B., Ketrow, S., & Urban, D. (1995). Im- proving decision quality in the small group: The reminder role. Small Group Research, 26, 521–541.

Schultz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group deci- sion making in hidden profile situations: Dis- sent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 918–930.

Schwartz, J. (2009, March 18). As jurors turn to Web, mistrials are popping up. The New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www .nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18juries. html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Schwartz, S. (1990). Individualism–collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139–157.

Seeding innovation in the water sector. (2010). Ripple Effect. [Online]. Available: http://www .rippleeffectglobal.com/

Segers, D. (2011, April 1). The five longest work stoppages in professional sports history.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 478 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 479 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 479 ▶

YahooSports. [Online]. Available at: http://sports .yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug5ycn-8170603

Sell, J., Lovaglia, M. J., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research, 35, 44–72.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2004). U.S. intelligence community’s prewar intelli- gence assessments on Iraq: Conclusions. Re- port of the 108th Congress. [Online]. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant lead- ership: Its origin, development, and applica- tion in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9, 57–64.

Serena Williams interview (2005, May 13). [On- line]. Available: http://urbanlegends.about .com/library/bl_serena_williams.htm

Shaffner, G. (1999). The arithmetic of life and death. New York: Ballantine Books.

Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule. Business Week, pp. 75–84.

Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psy- chology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sheldon, K. M. (1999). Learning the lessons of tit-for-tat: Even competitors can get the mes- sage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 77, 1245–1253.

Shenk, D. (1997). Data smog: Surviving the infor- mation glut. New York: HarperCollins.

Sherblom, J. C., Withers, L. A., & Leonard, L. G. (2009). Communication challenges and op- portunities for educators using Second Life. In J. Kingsley & C. Wankel (Eds.), Higher educa- tion in virtual worlds: Teaching and learning in Second Life. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Sheridan, C., & King, R. (1972). Obedience to authority with an authentic victim. Proceed- ings of the 80th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association, 7, 165–166.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Sherif, M., et al. (1988). The Robbers Cave Experi- ment. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Shermer, M. (2008, February/March). Don’t be evil: Enron, Google and the evolutionary psy- chology of corporate environments. Scientific American Minds, 59–65.

Shih, C. (2010). The Facebook era: Tapping online social networks to market, sell, and innovate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shilling, D. (2000, September). How to find and keep top talent in today’s tight labor market. Medical Marketing & Media, 35, 125.

Shimanoff, S. (1992). Group interaction via communication rules. In R. Cathcart & L. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication: A reader. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Company.

Shimanoff, S. (1980). Communication rule: The- ory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Shimanoff, S., & Jenkins, M. (1996). Leader- ship and gender: Challenging assumptions and recognizing resources. In R. Cathcart, L. Samovar, & L. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory and practice. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Shirky, C. (1995). Voices of the Net. Emeryville, CA: ZD Press.

Shirley, D. (1997). Managing creativity: Invent- ing, developing, and producing innovative products. [Online]. Available: http://www .managingcreativity.com

Shollen, S. L. (2010). The value of collab- orative leadership: Leadership approach and leader emergence in virtual work groups. International Leadership Associa- tion Conference. [Online]. Available: http:// www.ila-net.org/conferences/Program3 .asp?ProgramDBID=96

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 479 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 480 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 480 references

Sieburg, E., & Larson, C. (1971). Dimensions of interpersonal response. Paper presented to the International Communication Associa- tion, Phoenix, AZ.

Simons, L., & Zielenziger, M. (1996, March 3). Culture clash dims U.S. future in Asia. San Jose Mercury News, p. 1A.

Simpson, G. G. (1994). Alternative medicine: Expanding medical horizons; A report to the National Institutes of Health on Alternative Medical Systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office.

Sims, R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 651–662.

Smelser, N. J., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.) (2002). Terror- ism: Perspectives from the behavioral and social sciences. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press.

Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U there? Ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 291–301.

Smith, H. (2010, July 14). The goof, the whole goof and nothing but the goof. Metro, p. 1.

Smith, M. (1982). Persuasion and human interac- tion: A review and critique of social influence theories. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Smith, P. (1990). Killing the spirit: Higher educa- tion in America. New York: Viking.

Smith-Hefner, N. (1988). Women and politeness: The Javenese example. Language in Society, 17, 535–554.

Solomon, C. (2010). The challenge of working in virtual teams: Virtual teams survey report-2010. RW3 Culture Wizard. [Online]. Available: http://rw3.com/VTSReportsv7.pdf

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying mul- tiple efffects of racial composition on jury

deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597–612.

Sorensen, S. (1981, May). Grouphate. Paper pre- sented at the International Communication Association, Minneapolis, MN.

Spears, M., Russell, L., & Lee, S. (1990). De- individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. A. Samo- var & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural commu- nication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spitzberg, B., & Hecht, M. (1984). A compo- nent model of relational competence. Human Communication Research, 10, 575–599.

Stahel, P. F., Sabel, A. L., Victoroff, M. S., et al. (2010). Wrong-site and wrong-patient proce- dures in the universal protocol era: Analysis of a prospective database of physician self-reported occurrences. Archives of Surgery, 145, 978–984.

Stahelski, A., & Tsukada, R. (1990). Predictors of cooperation in health care teams. Small Group Research, 21, 220–233.

Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Does competition enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 125, 133–154.

Stanovich, K. (1992). How to think straight about psychology. New York: HarperCollins.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of infor- mation load and percentage of shared infor- mation during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.

Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 480 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 481 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 481 ▶

distributed among group members. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 82, 102–116.

Stasson, M., & Bradshaw, S. (1995). Explanations of individual-group performance differences: What sort of bonus can be gained through group interaction? Small Group Research, 26, 296–308.

State anti-hazing laws. (2005, February 3). [On- line]. Available: http://www.stophazing.org/ laws.html

State anti-hazing laws. (2010). StopHazing.org. [Online]. Available: http://www.stophazing .org/laws.html

Stelter, B. (2010, April 4). Debunkers of fic- tions sift the Net. The New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes .com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes .html?pagewanted=print

Stephens, K. K., Houser, M. L., & Cowan, R. L. (2009). R U able to meat me: The impact of stu- dents’ overly casual email messages to instruc- tors. Communication Education, 58, 303–326.

Stern, A. (1992, May). Why good managers approve bad ideas. Working Women, 104.

Stevens trial jurors warned after “violent out- bursts.” (2008, October 24). San Jose Mercury News, p. 3A.

Stewart, L., Cooper, P. J., Stewart, A. D., & Fried- ley, S. (1996). Communication and gender. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Stewart, M. (2009). The management myth: De- bunking modern business philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Stockman, D. (1986). The triumph of politics: The inside story of the Reagan revolution. New York: Avon.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26–43.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Stone, B. (2003, October 27). Reinventing every- day life. Newsweek, 90–92.

Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York: Viking Press.

Stone, F. (1997, February). We’ve got to stop meeting like this. Getting Results . . . for the Hands-on Manager, 42, 5.

Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997). Enhancing teamwork in complex envi- ronments through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 169–182.

Straub, D., & Karahanna, E. (1998). Knowledge worker communications and recipient avail- ability: Toward a task closure explanation of media choice. Organizational Science, 9, 160–175.

Straus, M. A. (2007). Dominance and symme- try in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children & Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275.

Straus, W., & Howe, N. (2006). Millennials and the pop culture. Great Falls, VA: Lifecourse Associates.

Street, M. (1997). Groupthink: An examination of theoretical issues, implications, and future research suggestions. Small Group Research, 28, 72–93.

Striking numbers. (2008, February 13). Newsweek. [Online]. Available: http://www.newsweek .com/id/110892/

Sugarmann, J. (2001). Every handgun is aimed at you: The case for banning handguns. New York: New Press.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 481 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 482 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 482 references

Sulek, J. P. (2004a, November 8). A nod means “I agree” . . . or does it? San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 9A.

Sulek, J. P. (2004b, December 14). Peterson verdict: Death. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 16A.

Sundell, W. (1972). The operation of confirming and disconfirming verbal behavior in selected teacher–student interactions. Doctoral disser- tation, University of Denver.

Sundstrom, E., et al. (1990, February). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. Ameri- can Psychologist, 120–133.

Sunstein, C. R. (2000). Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. Yale Law Journal, 110, 71–119.

Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sunstein, C., & Zeckhauser, R. (2009). Overre- action to fearsome risks. In E. Michel-Kerjan and P. Slovic (Eds.), The irrational economist: Future directions in behavioral economics and risk management, Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

Sunwolf, D. R., & Frey, L. R. (2005). Facilitat- ing group communication. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sunwolf, D. R., & Seibold, D. R. (1999). The im- pact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes. In L. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Superhuman heroes. (1998, June 6). Economist, 10–12.

Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how col- lective wisdom shapes business, economics, and nations. New York: Anchor.

Suter, E. A. (1994). Guns in medical literature—a failure of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 83, 133–159.

Sutton, R. I. (2002). Weird ideas that work: Eleven-and-one-half practices for promoting, managing, and sustaining innovation. New York: The Free Press.

Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brain- storming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.

Sutton, R. M., Elder, T. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2006). Reactions to internal and external criticisms of outgroups: Social convention in the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 563–575.

Survey of CEOs regarding business transforma- tion: Barriers to success. (2007). EquaTerra. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cisco.com/ en/US/services/ps2961/ps2664/ent_social_ software_whitepaper_services.pdf

Swift, J. S., & Huang, Y. (2004). The changing nature of international business relationships and foreign language competence. Interna- tional Journal of Management Practice, 1, 21.

Swift, M. (2008, August 14). Forecast: By 2050, 439 million Americans. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 15A.

Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). “Excuse me— what did you just say?”: Women’s public and private reactions to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88.

Tabuchi, H., & McDonald, M. (2009, August 7). In first return to Japan court, jurors con- vict and sentence. The New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes .com/2009/08/07/world/asia/07japan .html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Tang, S., & Kirkbride, P. (1986). Developing con- flict management skills in Hong Kong: An

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 482 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 483 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 483 ▶

analysis of some cross-cultural implications. Management Education and Development, 17, 287–301.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Tannen, D. (2010, May/June). He said, she said. Scientific American Mind, pp. 55–59.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio.

Tasa, K., & Whyte, G. (2005). Collective effi- cacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-linear model. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 96, 119–129.

Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on in- trinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 849–861.

Tavris, C. (1989). Anger: The misunderstood emo- tion. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me). New York: Harcourt.

Taylor, S. (2002). The tending instinct: How nur- turing is essential for who we are and how we live. New York: Times Books.

Teamwork characterizes surgical teams that are faster learners of new procedures. (2002, October 22). Healthcare Review, 15, 5.

Terdiman, D. (2004, January 22). Gay marriage poll gets annulled. [Online]. Available: http:// www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,61982,00 .html

Teubner, G. (2000, November 9). The emer- gence of control in the flattened organiza- tional structure: Toward a theory of the spiral of control following organizational change.

Paper presented at the National Communica- tion Association conference, Seattle, WA.

Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing Street years. London: HarperCollins.

The 2009 H1N1 flu. (2010, August 11). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

The Milgram experiment (Derren Brown). 2006. YouTube. [Online]. Available: http:// uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

The Shakers. (2010, November). Canterbury Shaker Village. [Online]. Available: http:// www.shakers.org/discover-and-learn/ the-shakers.html

Thomma, S. (2004, June 11). Shock jock aids demos. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 3A, 4A.

Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Team- work online: The effects of computer confer- encing on perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dynam- ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 135–151.

Thoms, P., Pinto, J. K., Parente, D. H., & Drus- kat, V. U. (2002). Adaptation to self-managing work teams. Small Group Research, 33, 3–31.

Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. R. (2006). Virtu- ally working: Communicative and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Mono- graphs, 73, 108–136.

Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team perfor- mance. Small Group Research, 31, 592–606.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2005). Under- standing intercultural communication. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Tjosvold, D. (1986). Working together to get things done. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. (2004). Goal interdepen- dence and applying abilities for team in-role and extra-role performance in China. Group

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 483 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 484 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 484 references

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 98–111.

Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Sun, H. (2003). Can interpersonal competi- tion be constructive within organizations? Journal of Psychology, 137, 63–84.

Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Sun, H. (2006). Competitive motives and strategies: Understanding constructive com- petition. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 87–99.

Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Top skills for job candidates. (2011). National Association of Colleges and Employers. [Online]. Available at: http://www.naceweb.org/Friend/ PrinterFriendly.aspx?printpage5/Press/ Releases/Top_Skills_for_Job_Candidates.aspx

Top 10 countries with the highest number of Inter- net users. (2010, June). Internet World Stats. [On- line]. Available: http://www.internetworldstats .com/top20.htm

Toulmin, S., Rieker, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An in- troduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

Townsend, P. (1999a, April 18). Dealing with dif- ficult people. Santa Cruz Sentinel, pp. 1C, 2C.

Townsend, P. (1999b, May 23). Some students watch the “in crowd” from afar. Santa Cruz Sentinel, pp. A1, A8–A9.

Traffic. (2011, January 24). Quantcast. [Online]. Available: http://www.quantcast.com/linkedin .com#traffic

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collec- tivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of cul- tures, Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., Gurtner, A., Bizzari, L., Spychiger, M., Breuer, M., & Marsch, S. U. (2009). Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: A

simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Research, 40, 271–300.

Tubbs, S. (1984). A systems approach to small group interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

Tullar, W. L., & Kaiser, P. R. (2000). The effect of process training on process and outcomes in virtual groups. Journal of Business Communi- cation, 37, 408–422.

Turman, P. D. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective: The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Com- munication Education, 52, 73–86.

Tutor, C. (2009, June 16). Study: Where does your city rank among the road rageous? Autoblog. [Online]. Available: http://www .autoblog.com/2009/06/16/study-where-does- your-city-rank-among-the-road-rageous/ print/

Tutzauer, F., & Roloff, M. (1988). Communication processes leading to integrative agreements: Three paths to joint benefits. Communication Research, 5, 360–380.

TV or not TV. (1993, April 19). San Jose Mercury News, p. 5E.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981, June 30). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, pp. 453–458.

U.S. women in business. (2010, August 9). Cata- lyst. [Online]. Available: http://www.catalyst .org/publications/132/us-women-in-business

Uba, L., & Huang, K. (1999). Psychology. New York: Longman.

Unger, N. C. (2007, January 11). Pioneering women in Congress aren’t guaranteed success. San Jose Mercury News, p. 16A.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 484 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 485 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 485 ▶

Uranium crew was unaware of atomic risks. (1999, October 23). San Jose Mercury News, p. 15A.

Ury, W. (1993). Getting past no: Negotiating your way from confrontation to cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.

Valacich, J. S., & Schwenk, C. (1995). Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer-mediated group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 158–173.

Valacich, J., Dennis, A. R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 57, 448–467.

Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subor- dinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglom- erated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271–281.

Van der Kleij, R., Schraagen, J. M., Werkhoven, P., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2009). How conver- sations change over time in face-to-face and video-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 355–381.

Van Engen, M. L. R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 94, 3–18.

Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1827–1834.

Van Oostrum, J., & Rabbie, J. (1995). Intergroup competition and cooperation within auto- cratic and democratic management regimes. Small Group Research, 26, 269–295.

Van Quaquebeke, N., & Eckloff, T. (2010). De- fining respectful leadership: What it is, how it

can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 343–358.

Vance, A. (2011). Computing a new kind of microchip. San Jose Mercury News, p. C3.

Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 279–292.

Vangelisti, A., Knapp, M., & Daly, J. (1990). Conversational narcissism. Communication Monographs, 57, 251–274.

VanLear, C. A., Sheehan, M., Withers, L. A., & Walker, R. A. (2005). AA online: The en- actment of supportive computer mediated communication. Western Journal of Commu- nication, 69, 5–27.

Varela, O. E., Burke, M. J., & Landis, R. S. (2008). A model of emergence and dysfunctional effects of emotional conflict in groups. Group Dynam- ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 112–126.

Vasilogambros, M. (2009, November 10). Two students charged with hazing. The Times-Delphic. [Online]. Available: http:// w w w.t imes delphic .com/2009/11/10/ two-students-charged-with-hazing

Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory. Small Group Research, 37, 407–424.

Victor, D. A. (2007, March 27–31). What is the language of business? Affecting business out- come before you say a word. Proceedings of the Association for Business Communication, 7th Asia-Pacific Conference, City University of Hong Kong.

Villaraigosa, A. (2010, August 5). Prop 8 Twitter reaction proves major support for ruling. Huffington Post. [Online]. Available: http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/ prop-8-twitter-reaction-p_n_671898.html

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 485 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 486 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 486 references

Virtual team building in Second Life. (2010). PossibiliTeams. [Online]. Available: http:// www.possibiliteams.com/virtual_world_ team_building.html

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychol- ogist, 62, 17–24.

Wald, M. L., & Schwartz, J. (2003, July 12). Shut- tle probe blames managers, foam equally. San Jose Mercury News, p. 8A.

Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal ef- fects in international computer-mediated col- laboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369.

Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated com- munication. Human Communication Re- search, 19, 50–83.

Wanous, J. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruit- ment, selection, and socialization of newcom- ers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wansink, K., & Budde, P. (2010, August). Global - key telecoms, mobile and broadband statistics. Budde.com. [Online]. Available: https://www .budde.com.au/Research/Global-Key-Telecoms- Mobile-and-Broadband-Statistics.html?r=51

Warters, B. (2005, November). Changing pat- terns of roommate conflict fueled by the Net. Conflict Management in Higher Educa- tion Report. [Online]. Available: http://www .campus-adr.org/CMHER/ReportEvents/ Edition6_1/roommates.html

Washington, J. (2009). Barriers slow black wom- en’s progress. San Jose Mercury News, p. 4C.

Watkins, T. (2008, August 2). Graffiti spawns L. A. violence. San Jose Mercury News, p. 4B.

Watson, R., Wehrfritz, G., & Hayden, T. (1999, October 11). Can it happen here? Newsweek, 44–47.

Watson, W., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991). Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 803–809.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W. W. Norton.

Weber, T. (2000, September 26). E-mails too e-motional? Let the computer decide. Santa Cruz Sentinel, pp. A1, A5.

Wech, B., Mossholder, K., Streel, R., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness afflict in- dividuals’ performance and organizational com- mitment? Small Group Research, 29, 472–494.

Wechsler, H., & Wuethrich, B. (2003). Dying to drink: Confronting binge drinking on college campuses. New York: Rodale Books.

Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. F. (2008). What we have learned from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study: Focus- ing attention on college student alcohol con- sumption and the environmental conditions that promote it. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 1–10.

Weick, K. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16, 571–593.

Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2010). Jury tensions: Applying communication theories and methods to study group dynamics. Small Group Research, 41, 495–502.

Wellen, J. M., & Neale, M. (2006). Deviance, self- typicality, and group cohesion: The corrosive effects of the bad apples on the barrel. Small Group Research, 37, 165–186.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and applica- tion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wetzel, P. (1988). Are powerless communication strategies the Japanese norm? Language in So- ciety, 17, 555–564.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 486 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 487 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

references 487 ▶

Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group devel- opment, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40, 247–262.

Wheelan, S. A., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34, 223–245.

Wildschut, T., Insko, C. A., & Gaertner, L. (2002). Intragroup social influence and intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 975–992.

Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual- intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698–722.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 236–247.

Williams, K. D. (2011, January/February). The pain of exclusion. Scientific American Mind, pp. 30–37.

Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects expectations of co-worker performance. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570–581.

Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: Does rejection lead to social loafing or compensation? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ig- nored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.

Wilmot, W., & Hocker, J. (2011). Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, G., & Hanna, M. (1990). Groups in con- text. New York: Random House.

Wilson, J. (Ed.). (2003, August). Columbia acci- dent investigation board report. NASA. [On- line]. Available: http://caib.nasa.gov/

Woertz, P. A. (2010, April 22). Fortune 500 women CEOs. CNNMoney. [Online]. Available: http:// money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1004/ gallery.fortune500_women_ceos. fortune/ index.html

Wolf, S. (1979). Behavioral style and group co- hesiveness as sources of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 381–395.

Wolkomir, R., & Wolkomir, J. (1990, February). How to make smart choices. Reader’s Digest, 27–32.

Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000. (2011, May). Catalyst. [Online]. Available: http:// w w w. c at a l y s t . o r g / p u b l i c a t i o n / 3 2 2 / women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000

Women in government. (2010, October). Cata- lyst. [Online]. Available: http://www.catalyst .org/publication/244/women-in-government

Women in the Senate. (2011). Senate.gov. [Onine]. Available: http://www.senate.gov/ artandhistory/common/briefing/women_ senators.htm

Women in U.S. management. (2011, March). Cat- alyst. [Online]. Available: http://www.catalyst .org/publicat ions/206/women-in-us- management

Wood, J. T. (2001). A critical response to John Gray’s Mars and Venus portrayals of men and women. Southern Communication Journal, 67, 201–210.

Wood, J. T. (2004). Communication theories in ac- tion: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Wood, J. T. (2007). Gendered lives: Communica- tion, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA: Thom- son Wadsworth.

Wood, J., Phillips, G. M., & Pedersen, D. J. (1986). Group discussion: A practical guide to participation and leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 487 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 488 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 488 references

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evi- dence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688.

Worthington, D. L., Stallard, M. J., Price, J. M., & Gross, P. J. (2002). Hindsight bias, Daubert, and the silicone breast implant litigation: Making the case for court-appointed experts in complex medical and scientific litiga- tion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 154–179.

Wray, R. (2010, May 3). Goodbye petabytes, hello zettabytes. Guardian.co.uk. [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/ may/03/humanity-digital-output-zettabyte/ print

Wright, N. S., & Drewery, G. P. (2006). Forming cohesion in culturally heterogeneous teams: Differences in Japanese, Pacific Islander and Anglo experiences. Cross Cultural Manage- ment, 13, 43–53.

Wurman, R. (1989). Information anxiety. New York: Doubleday.

Yang, J. L. (2006, June 12). The power of number 4.6. Fortune, 122.

Yardley, J., Rodcriguez, M. D., Bates, S. C., & Nelson, J. (2009). True confessions? Alumni’s retrospective r eports on undergraduate cheat- ing behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 1–14.

Young, F. (1965). Initiation ceremonies. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Young, L. J. (2008, April 9). South Korea adopts jury system. UPI Asia Online. [Online]. Available: http://www.upiasia.com/Society_ Culture/2008/04/09/south_korea_adopts_ jury_system/1409/?view=print

Yu, X. (1998). The Chinese “native” perspec- tive on Mao-dun (conflict) and Mao-dun resolution strategies: A qualitative investiga- tion. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 63–82.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Up- per Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Massacres: Mass murders in the name of moral imperatives. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.

Zander, A. (1982). The psychology of removing group members and recruiting new ones. Hu- man Relations, 29, 1–8.

Zerrnike, K. (2005, January 16). Army guard gets 10 years in prison. San Jose Mercury News, p. 4A.

Zielenziger, M., & Lubman, S. (1999, October 3). Japan’s dislike of quick action proves costly. San Jose Mercury News, pp. 1A, 20A.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Under- standing how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

Zornoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiro, J. M. (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: Face- to-face and computer-mediated communica- tion. Small Group Research, 33, 481–508.

46850_em_ptg01_hr_439-488.indd 488 25/10/11 5:18 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 489 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

489 ▶

Subject Index

A Abusive behavior, 147–148, 150–152,

165, 198–199, 378 Accommodation in conflict

management, 353–354 Accountability

individual, 105, 217, 391 leadership, 167, 171 team, 208–209

Ad hoc groups, 155, 215 Agendas, meeting, 280–281 Aggregation vs. group, 36 Aggression, 321–322, 335 Agreeableness, and leadership, 161 Alliances, power relationships,

325–326 Ambushing, conversational, 143 Analysis paralysis, 264 Anger management, 161, 363,

375–379 Anxiety, 390, 410–413 Appropriateness in communication,

See Communication Competence

Argot, 61–62 Arguments, structure of, 422–423 Assertiveness, 7, 35, 137, 334–340,

315, 352, 365–366 Asynchronous communication, 396 Attention, gaining and maintaining,

414–416 Attraction, and joining groups, 82 Attractiveness and leadership,

173–174 Autocratic leadership style, 175–177 Autonomy as empowerment, 211 Avoidance of conflict, See Conflict

Management

B Bad apples, See Difficult group

members Bargaining, See Negotiating

BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), 374

Belonging, need to, 81 Bias of the fixed pie, 296 Binge drinking, 91, 92 Blame, 356 Boundary control, See systems Brainstorming, 195, 291–294 Bridging, method for integrative

problem solving, 296–297 Bullying, 165, 321 Bypassing, 14

C Certainty vs. provisionalism,

139–140 Change, 11, 100–101, 148, 268–269

and adaptability, 53–65 resistance to, 269, 306

Charisma, 315–316 Cheating, and competitive climate,

124–125 Claims, 288, 416 Cliques, 94–95 Closed-mindedness, and groupthink,

251 Closedness, in systems, 60–66, 233 Coalition formation, 325–326 Cohesiveness, group, 79, 83, 105, 155,

196, 397 building, 80, 206–208 and communication climate, 127,

128–129 and conformity, 96–99 and groupthink, 248–249

Collaboration, 112, 137, 195, 201, 352–353, 367

Collaborative interdependence, 193–194

Collective effort model, 103 Collective inferential errors,

238–243 Collectivist cultures, See Culture

Commitment to group as element of competent

communication, 29, 195, 205, 277

and hazing, 96–99 Communication

context, 19 definition, 8, 9–20 myths about, 6–8 as process, 11–12 as transactional, 10–11 See also Communication

competence; Competitive climate; Cooperative climate and Defensive and Supportive communication

Communication climate, 117–144, 148, 198, 219–220, 274, 278, 289

Communication Competence, 20–36, 243, 349

appropriateness, 12–13, 21, 25–26, 197–199, 267, 307–308, 314–315, 318, 331, 394–404

commitment, 29, 195, 205, 277, 363

and competitiveness, 125, 367–368, 369–370

definition, 20 effectiveness, 20–21, 199, 200–201,

202, 207–210, 211, 213, 222–255, 260–298, 312, 314, 319, 331, 334, 391, 399–404

ethics, 30–31, 97–98, 183–185, 319 and grouphate, 4 knowledge, 7, 27–28, 170, 312, 363 and leadership, 8, 163–164, 167,

171, 180, 186, 218–220 sensitivity, 29–30, 85–86, 89,

302, 363

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 489 25/10/11 4:19 PM

◀ 490 subject index

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 490 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 490 subject index

Communication Competence (continued)

skill, 7, 28–29, 35, 170, 195–196, 199–200, 312, 315, 363. 404

training, 200–201 Competition, 14–15, 192, 303–305,

352, 356, 367 Competitive climate, 148, 289

in conflict management, 356, 357–358, 363, 367, 369–371, 372

defensive communication, 131–141

definitions, 119 hypercompetitiveness, 121–122,

129–130, 369–370 ineffectiveness of, 126–127

Competitive interrupting, 143 Complexity in groups, and size,

66–72 Compliance, power relationships,

324–325 Compromise in conflict management,

See Conflict management Confirmation bias, 234–236, 267 Conflict management,

accommodation, 353–354, 365 avoiding, 89, 249, 354–356,

357–358, 365, 367 benefits of conflict, 349 collaborating, 357–358, 362,

363, 367 competing, 356, 357–358, 363, 367 compromise, 354, 362 confrontation, 105, 331, 352, 356,

358, 363, 365, 397 constructive, 349, 351 definitions, 348–349 destructive, 350–351, 363 integration, 296, 352–353,

362, 363 smoothing, 353, 362 styles for, 351–358 tension and, 86–89 types of conflict, 359–361,

362–364, 367 and virtual groups, 394–395

Conflict spirals, 368, 374 Conformity, 67–68, 91–99, 167, 325 Confrontation, See Conflict

management Consensus, 249, 268, 273–276 Constructive competition, 122–125

Contempt, verbal/nonverbal, 321–322 Content dimension of message,

10–11 Context in communication, 19

High-context, 364–365 Low-context, 364–365

Control vs. problem orientation, 135–137, 362

Cooperation, 14–15, 68, 80, 86, 196, 203–204, 303–305, 352, 362, 367, 371, 380

Cooperative climate, 129–130, 131–141, 148, 193–194, 203, 217, 219–210, 274, 278, 289

definitions, 119 effectiveness of, 120, 126–127, 129 We-orientation, 21, 22–25, 197, 351 See also Empowerment; Teamwork

Correlation as causation fallacy, 241–243, 425

Creative problem solving, 289–298 Credibility of information, See

Information Criteria, and group decision making,

264–267, 373 Critical thinking

collective inferential errors, 238–243 defined, 225 and effective decision making,

282–288 and fallacies, 423–426 and group polarization, 244–247 and groupthink, 247–255 and information overload,

225–227, 229–233 mindsets, 234–237 representativeness, 239, 241

Criticism, See Evaluation Culture, 245, 339

and appropriateness, 22–25, 26, 27, 307–308

competitive climate, 127, 129–130 conflict management styles,

365–367 and conformity, 91 diverse group membership,

83–86, 200 ethnocentrism, 86, 200 high-context communication,

364–365 individualism-collectivism

dimension, 22–25, 91, 193, 365–367

and leadership, 185–186

low-context communication, 364–365

and misunderstandings, 13–14, 365–367, 389

participation in small groups, 276–278

power distance dimension, 322–324

powerful versus powerless, 307–308

social loafing, 103–104 and verbal communication, 13–14,

19, 87, 100, 365–367 Cyberostracism, 100 Cynicism, and teams, 198, 199, 211

D Decision making

defective, 224–255 effective, 220, 260–298 phases of, 261–263

Deep diversity, 50, 69, 107, 194–195, 200, 294

Defensive climate, 131–141, 217, 219, 362, 376–377, See also Competitive climate

Defiance, 322–324 Delegation style of leadership,

180–181 Democratic decision making, See

Participative leadership/ decision making

Descriptive communication, 132, 134–135

Deviance from group norms, 67, 99–100, 167, 332–333

Devil’s advocate role, 156, 236, 247, 254, 267, 278, 349

Dialectical inquiry, 254, 267, 278 Difficult group members, 43–44, 48,

55–59, 167, 198–199, 280 Discussion in groups,

defective, 224–255 effective, 220, 260–298 functional perspective, 262–263 See also Defiance; Resistance

Dissent, 252, 332, 349 Disruptive roles, See Roles Diversity, 13

and group membership, 83–86 and member skills, 50, 69, 107,

194–195, 200, 294 See also Cultural factors; Deep

diversity

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 490 25/10/11 4:19 PM

subject index 491 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 491 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

subject index 491 ▶

Dogmatism, 139–140 Dominance, 303–305 Driving force, for change, 268–269 Dyadic communication, See

Interpersonal Communication Dynamic equilibrium, 54–59

E Egocentric bias, 3 Egocentrism, 197, 199, 219 Electronic brainstorming, 294 Emoticons, 18–19 Emotional intelligence, 166 Empathy, 138, 373 Empowerment, 70, 211–216, 303–305

defined, 211, 304 autonomy, 211 hierarchy and, 212 impact, 211 meaningfulness, 211 potency, 211

Entropy, 44 Equality, and supportiveness,

138–139 Equifinality, 52–53 Error-correction function, 108,

217, 243 Ethics, See Communication

competence Ethnicity, 236

and leadership biases, 167, 168–171

and participation in groups, 276–278, See also Culture

Ethnocentrism, 86, 200 Evaluative communication, 131–135,

356, 375 Expanding the pie, 295 Expertise, 108, 312–313 Extemporaneous speaking, 413 Eye contact, 309

F Facebook, 4, 34, 60, 63, 70, 226,

383, 385 Factions, 67 Fallacies, 423–426 False dichotomies, 236–237, 303 Fantasy themes, 206 Feedback, 10, 59, 200, 358 Flattening the hierarchy, 70 Followership and leadership, 160–161 Force field analysis, 268–269 Forming phase of groups, 81–86

Forum discussions, 410 Framing/reframing technique in

problem solving, 294–295 Functional perspective

on decision making, 262–263 on leadership, 181–183

G Gatekeepers, 71 Gender issues, 236

competent communication, 32–35 gender similarities hypothesis, 32 gender styles, 33–35 hypercompetitiveness, 122 language, 307–308 leadership, 167, 168–171, 178 and power, 304, 338–339 role conflict, 153 role status, 157, 158

Gestures, 309 Goals, of groups, 80, 82, 349

and clarity, 202 and teamwork, 120, 202–205 superordinate, 200, 203, 362

GRIT, negotiating strategy, 369 Group climate, 117–144, 148, 198, 274 Group definition, 36–38 Group development, phases of,

80–110 Groupdrink, 106, 107 Grouphate, 3–4 Group identity, 82, 195 Group polarization, 244–247 Group presentations, See Oral

presentations. Group pressure, 67–68, 91–92, 96–99,

251–252 Group remembering, 107 Group size, 37–38, 66–72, 107, 109 Group socialization, 112–113 Groupthink, 247–255, 349, 364 Group types, 4–5

H Habitat for Humanity, 49–50 Hazing rituals, 96–99 Hidden agenda, 138 Hierarchies and power, 212–214 High-context communication style,

See Culture Hindsight bias, 7–8, 9–10 Humor, 87, 89, 139, 183, 416 Hypercompetitiveness, 121–122, 128,

130, 131

I Identity, establishment of team,

2–5, 209 IDEO design firm, 117, 195, 214–215,

291, 293 Illusion of invulnerability, and

groupthink, 249–250 Implementation, of decisions, 268–270 Implicit leadership theory, 186 Indecisiveness, and information

overload, 227 Indifference and defensiveness, 138 Individual achievement, 120–121 Individualist cultures, See Culture Inferential errors, collective, 238–243 Information

control of, 70–71 credibility of, 284–285 currency of, 286, 287 evaluation, 284–288 flow of, 70–71 gathering of, 282–284 overload, 225–233, 283 and pattern recognition, 232–233 and power, 311–312 relevance of, 287 representativeness, 287 screening, 230 searching, 231–233, 254 selectivity, 231 sharing, 233 specialization, 231 underload, 233–234

Input, in systems, 44–45, See also Information

Integrative problem solving, 295–297 Interest-based bargaining, See

Negotiating and Principled negotiation strategy

Intergroup competition, 125, 127–129, 367

Internet searches, 60, See also Technology

Interrupting, competitive, 33, 45 Interpersonal attraction, 82 Interpersonal communication, 38,

161, 387 Intragroup competition, 125–127 Isolate role, 67 Isolation, 100, 332; See also Ostracism

J Juries, 16–17, 19, 60–61, 69, 84,

88, 107

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 491 25/10/11 4:19 PM

◀ 492 subject index

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 492 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 492 subject index

K Knowledge, See Communication

competence

L Laissez-faire leadership style, 176 Language, 12–14, 135

and boundary control, 61–62 and power, 32, 209, 306–308 and team talk, 207–209

Law of Mount Everest, 193 Leader, 210, 254

emergence, 165–167, 168–171 how not to become, 164–165 versus manager, 161–163 retaining the role, 167, 171

Leadership, 7, 158–186, 404, 405–406 charismatic, 162 and communication

competence, 163 definition, 160–164 and ethics, 183–183 and ethnicity, 168–171 and followership, 160–161, 163–164 funtional perspective, 181–183 gaining and retaining of, 164, 171 and gender, 168–171 participative, 174–178, 180, 319 perspectives, 172–186 servant perspective, 183–184 situational perspective, 178–181 styles perspective, 174, 176–178, 319 in teams, 217–220 trait perspective, 172–174 transactional, 162 transformational, 162

Legitimate authority, 253, 316–319 Lieutenants, and leader emergence,

166–167 Linguistic barriers for boundary

control, 61–62 Listening, 35, 373, 376

active, 15, 89, 141 ambushing, 143 and interruptions, 33, 45, 89 and leader emergence, 165, 166 competitive and noncompetitive,

141–144 Low-context communication style,

See Culture

M Maintenance roles, 154, 155, 156, 157 Majority rule, 268, 272

Manipulative communication, 137–138

Margin of error, 287 Meaning, 12–20 Me- vs. We-oriented perspective,

See Competitive climate; Cooperative climate

Media richness theory, 400–401, 403 Media synchronicity theory,

401–402, 403 Meetings, 4, 11, 15, 33, 196, 220

guidelines for conducting, 278–282

in virtual groups, 404, 406 minutes, 282

Mentors, 113, 340 Messages, dimensions, 10–11 Message distortion, 72 Milgram Studies, 316–319, 324–325 Mindsets, 234–237, 291 Minority influence, 334–335 Minority rule, 268, 272–273 Minutes of meetings, 282 Misunderstanding mirage, 328–329 Mixed messages, 18 Motivation, 109, 167 Motor function, loss of, as resistance

strategy, 328 Murphy’s Law, 270–271 Multiple sequence model, of decision

making, 261–262

N Negative group climate, 118 Negative information flow, 70–71 Negative synergy, 50–53, 108 Negotiating, 352

definition, 367 positional bargaining, 369–371 principled negotiation, 371–374 reformed sinner strategy, 368–369 tit-for-tat strategy, 367–368

Networks, 63–64, 70 Networking, 340 Newcomers and group development,

110–113 Nominal group techniques, 292–293 Nonconformity, 99–101 Nonverbal communication, 11–12,

14–17, 198, 207–208, 388, 391, 393, 394–395, 401

and power indicators, 308–310 connection with verbal

communication, 17–19

Norming phase of groups, 89–101 Norm of group interest, 128 Norm of mediocrity, 109 Norms, 45, 130, 149, 167, 254,

332–333 explicit, 89–90 implicit, 89–90 and social loafing, 104 purposes of, 90 sources of, 90–91

O Obedience, 316–319, 324–325 Openness, and systems, 60–66 Oral presentations, 408–421 Organization and outlining, 416–421 Organizations vs. groups, 69–72,

212–213 Ostracism, 100, 332, See also

Cyberostracism and Isolation. Outputs, in system, 45, 101–110,

391–392

P Panel discussion, 402–403 Paraphrasing, 143–144 Parliamentary procedure, 38,

279–280 Participation in groups, 109, 165–

166, 167, 215, 276–278, 292, 396–398

Participative leadership/decision making, 176–178, 180

Passivity, 335, 336–339 Performing phase of groups, 101–

110, 201 Persuasive argumentation, 246–247 PERT (Program Evaluation Review

Technique), 269–270 Physical barriers for boundary

control, 61 Polarization, See Group polarization Positional bargaining, See Negotiating Positive group climate, 118 Posture, 309 Power/forcing, style in conflict

management, 356, 357–358, 362, 367

See also Competitive climate Power distance, 393; See also Culture Power in groups, 45, 250, 302–341

alliances, 325–326 defiance, 304, 322–324 definitions of, 303–305

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 492 25/10/11 4:19 PM

subject index 493 ▶

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 493 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

subject index 493 ▶

dominance, 34–35, 303–305 empowerment, 303–305, 334–340 expertise, 108, 312–313 imbalances in, 34–35, 320–341, 393 indicators of, 32, 305–307, 308–310 and information, 311–312 and language, 306–308 and legitimate authority, 253,

316–319 and personal qualities, 315–316 prevention, 303–305 resistance to, 304, 326–331 resources, 311–320 and rewards and punishments,

313–315, 340–341 sharing, 213

Praise, 133–134 Prevention form of power, 303–305 Primary tension in groups, 86–87 Principled negotiation, See

Negotiating Probing, 143–144, 378 Problem solving,

defective, 137, 224–255 effective, 137, 260–298, See also

critical thinking; Decision making

Problem orientation, 135–137, 378 Productivity, group, 14, 79, 83,

101–110, 126–127, 155, 396–398

Provisionalism, 140, 237 Pseudo-teams, 196 Psychological barriers, for boundary

control, 61 Psychological reactance, 135–137, 358 Public speaking, versus group, 39 Punishments and power, 313–315,

340–341 Purposeful procrastination, 330–331 Purpose statement, 417

Q Quality circles, 213 Question of fact, 264 Question of policy, 264 Question of value, 264

R Random sample, 287–288 Rationalization of disconfirmation,

235–236 Readiness level and situational

leadership, 180–181

Reciprocal communication patterns, 140–141, 373–374

Referents, 12 Reflective thinking model, 263 Reformed sinner negotiation strategy,

See Negotiating Reframing technique in problem

solving, 376 Relationship dimension of messages,

10–11 Reminder role, 254–255 Representativeness of

information, 287 Resistance, 326–331 Restraining forces, against change,

268–269 Rewards, 313–315, 340–341

equal distribution of, 216 equitable distribution of, 216 extrinsic, 314 intrinsic, 314 and teams, 216–217

Ripple effect, in systems, 46–47 Risk-taking and polarization,

See Group polarization Risky shift phenomenon, 244 Robert’s Rules of Order, See

parliamentary procedure Role conflict, 153 Role endorsement, 155, 157 Role fixation, 157–158 Role reversal, 149, 152 Role specialization, 157 Role status, 152 Roles, 45,

and boundary control, 63 defined, 148 disruptive, 43–44, 48, 55–59, 154,

155, 156, 280 emergence of, 155, 157 formal, 153 informal, 153 maintenance, 154, 155, 156, 157 power of, 147–148, 149–153 specialization, 157 task, 154–155, 156 team, 209–210

Rule of seven, 68 Rules, 21, 399, 410

and appropriateness, 21–22, 25–26, 394

and boundary control, 63 and constructive competition,

124–125

and structuration theory, 45, 303 and team behavior, 219–220

S Secondary tension in groups,

86, 87–89 Selective amnesia, 329 Self-justification, 131 Self-managing work teams, 213 Self-selected sample, 288, 424 Selling style of leadership, 180 Sensitivity, See Communication

competence Servant leadership, See Leadership Shared meaning, communication as,

See Meaning Shift response, 141–143 Signposts, 420–421 Situational perspective on leadership,

See leadership Size of groups, 66–72, 404 Skills, See Communication

Competence Social comparison, and group

polarization, 246 Social compensation, 105–106,

397–398 Social dimension of groups, 77–80,

88, 112–113, 129, 180, 183, 352, 353, 354, 356, 367, 371–372, 392–393, 403

Socialization, See Group socialization Social loafing, 4, 103–105, 106, 211,

363, 396–398 Social media and networks, 4, 33–34,

60, 63, 70, 97, 383, 384–385 Solidarity symbols, 206–207 Space, and power status, 308–309 Specialization and information

management, 231 Speech anxiety, 410–413 Standard Agenda, 220, 263–270, 274,

276, 282, 292 Stand aside, and consensus, 275 Stanford Prison Study, 150–152 Status, 33, 253, 393–394 Stereotypes, 33, 251 Storming phase in groups, 86–89 Strategic stupidity, 326–327 Structure, 66, 149 Structuration theory, 44–45, 303 Styles perspective on leadership,

See Leadership Sucker effect, 4

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 493 25/10/11 4:19 PM

◀ 494 subject index

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 494 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

◀ 494 subject index

Superiority, and defensiveness, 138, 148, 313

Supermajority and consensus, 275–276

Superordinate goals, 200, 203, 204, 362

Support response, 141–143 Supportive climate, 33, 148, 219, 362 Symbolic convergence theory,

205–206 Symbols, 12 Symposium, 409–410 Synchronous communication, 402 Synergy, 4, 49–50, 108, See also

Negative synergy Systems, groups as, 43–72, 303

adaptability to change, 53–65, 148, 186, 201, 351

boundary control, 60–65, 225 closedness, 60–66, 233 dynamic equilibrium, 54–59 interconnectedness of parts in,

46–53, 110, 161, 211, 213, 298, 348, 360, 385, 392

openness, 60–66 size, influence on, 66–72

T Tactical tardiness, 329–330 Talkativeness, 33 Task dimension of groups, 77–80, 87,

88, 103, 104, 108, 109, 170, 180, 182–183, 331, 352, 353, 354, 356, 367, 401

Teams, 8, 192–220, 314 collaborative interdependence,

193–194 commitment of members,

195, 205 defined, 193–196 developing an identity, 205–209 diversity of skills, 194–195 and egocentrism, 197 empowerment and, 211–216, 218 goals, 202–205 and identity, 195, 205–209 and member attitudes, 197–199 and member experience, 199–200 mission, 204 and personality traits, 196

prevalence of, 5 and roles, 209–210 slayers, 197–198 training, 200–201 and traits, 196

Teamtalk, 207–209 Teamwork, 14, 108, 120, 194 Technology, 383–406

audioconferences, 388, 393, 404, 399

avatars, 383 bias of speed, 228–229 cell phones, 21, 25, 229–230, 384,

390 conflict and, 394–395 cyberostracism, 100 death of distance and, 390–391 definition of, 380 electronic brainstorming, 294 email, 32, 60, 387, 395, 398–393,

404, 405, 399 emoticons, 395 and group polarization, 245–246 and information overload, 225,

227, 229–232 Internet, 282–284, 285–286, 383,

385, 387, 379, 381 media richness theory, 400–401.

403 media synchronicity theory,

401–402, 403 meetings, and, 388, 389, 391, 404,

406 and social anxiety, 390 social loafing and, 390–392 social networks, 4, 33–34, 60,

63, 70, 97, 226, 228, 383, 384–385

Skype, 389, 404 videoconferencing, 388, 390, 396,

404 virtual groups and teams, 5, 14, 18,

167, 230, 235, 385–406 virtual library, 283 visual aids, 420–421 temporality, 400 text-messaging, 13, 21, 25, 60–61,

228, 231, 387, 393–394, 394, 400, 401, 402, 404

Wikipedia, 283–284

Telling style, of leadership, 180 Tension, in groups

primary, 86–87 secondary, 86, 87–89, See also

Conflicts Throughput in systems, 44–45,

See also Decision making and Problem solving

Tit for tat, negotiating strategy, See Negotiating

Touch, 309 Traits perspective on leadership,

See leadership Transactional communication

perspective, 10–11 Transactional leaders,

See Leadership Transformational leaders,

See Leadership Twenty Percent Rule, 85, 170 Twitter, 4, 34, 60–61, 225, 226, 383

U Unanimity rule, See Consensus Uncritical inference test, 240

V Value conflicts, 23–24, 364,

366–367 Verbal communication, 12–14,

61–62, 135, 365–367 and abuse, 150, 198, 242 and power indicators, 32, 209,

306–308 and offensive language, 165, 308

Vigilant decision making, and groupthink, 250–255

Violence, and power imbalances, 321 Virtual groups 235, 379–400 Virtual groups and teams, 5, 14, 18,

167, 230, 235, 379–400 Visual aids, 420–421 Vital functions of leadership, 182–183 Vividness effect, 240–241

W We- vs. Me-oriented perspective,

21, 125, 197, See Competitive climate; Cooperative climate

Wikipedia, 283–284

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 494 25/10/11 4:19 PM

Nikki

Typewriter

uploaded by [stormrg]

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 495 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 495 25/10/11 4:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 496 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 496 25/10/11 4:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 497 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 497 25/10/11 4:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 498 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 498 25/10/11 4:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 499 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 499 25/10/11 4:19 PM

# 107444 Cust: Rothwell Au:Cengage Pg. No. 500 Title: In Mixed Company, Server:

C/M/Y/K/ Short / Normal

DESIGN SERVICES OF

S4carliSle Publishing Services

46850_em_ptg01_hr_489-500.indd 500 25/10/11 4:19 PM

Brief Contents
Contents
Preface
Ch 1: Communication Competence in Groups��

Myths about Communication��
Communication Defined��
Communication Competence��
Achieving Communication Competence��
Definition of a Group��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 2: Groups as Systems��

Interconnectedness of Parts��
Adaptability to Change��
Influence of Size��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 3: Group Development��

Primary Dimensions of Groups��
Periodic Phases of Group Development��
Newcomers and Group Development��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 4: Developing the Group Climate��

Competition and Cooperation��
Communication and Group Climate��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 5: Roles and Leadership in Groups��

Group Roles��
Leadership��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 6: Developing Effective Teams��

How Teams Differ from Groups��
Team Members��
Building Teamwork��
Competent Team Leadership��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 7: Group Discussion: Defective Group Decision Making and Problem Solving

Information Overload: Too Much Input��
Information Underload: Poor Sharing��
Mindsets: Critical Thinking Frozen Solid��
Collective Inferential Error: Uncritical Thinking��
Group Polarization: Extremely Uncritical Thinking��
Groupthink: Critical Thinking in Suspended Animation��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 8: Group Discussion: Effective Decision Making and Problem Solving��

Discussion Procedures��
Participation��
Conducting Effective Meetings��
Critical Thinking and Effective Decision Making��
Creative Problem Solving��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 9: Power in Groups: A Central Dynamic��

Power Defined��
Indicators of Power��
Power Resources��
Effects of Power Imbalances��
Addressing Power Imbalances��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 10: Conflict Management in Groups��

Definition of Conflict��
Styles of Conflict Management��
Situational Factors��
Negotiating Strategies��
Anger Management��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Ch 11: Technology and Virtual Groups��

Technological Group Options��
Benefits and Challenges of Virtual Groups��
Virtual Group Effectiveness��
Questions for Critical Thinkers��
Video Case Studies��

Appendix A: Group Oral Presentations��
Appendix B: Critical Thinking Revisited: Arguments and Fallacies��
Glossary��
References��
Index��