Introduction To Group Dynamics

User Generated

Zvfgre123

Business Finance

Description

In a minimum of 350 words, using APA format answer the following questions using the uploaded book Griffith, B. A., & Dunham, E. B. (2015). Working in teams: moving from high potential to high performance for one reference and must use 2 other scholarly sources. MUST HAVE a total of 4-5 scholarly sources. Additional reading requirements at http://bethelu.libguides.com/coursematerials, please reference from this site if used. Please select course number/name that matches this course. MOD1500_AB019.

What are the four stages of the functional model of decision making? Briefly describe the importance of each. Recall a time when you observed this process in action.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. C H A P T E R 5 Communication A S U N D Verbal and nonverbal communicationE among group members defines much team life. Individual goals, team goals, structure, and norms are evident in the communication patR are accomplished and relationships managed terns that develop among members. Tasks through interpersonal interaction. Yet not S all communication is positive, and as a result, team performance can be compromised. This chapter describes communication skills and patterns that lead to team success. It also identifies specific strategies members can adopt S effectively. The chapter ends with a discussion to improve their ability to communicate about virtual communication and the benefits and challenges of virtual teams. R . CASE 5.1: THE , APPRENTICE The TV reality show The Apprentice first aired on NBC during the winter of 2004 and quickly became the hit that G are divided into two teams that compete against each it is today. At the beginning of each season, 16 contestants other for the ultimate prize of becoming the presidentA of one of Donald Trump’s companies. Every week the two teams face off in various challenges, ranging from selling lemonade on the streets of New York City to organizing R charity events. The project leader of the losing team must face Trump in the boardroom and explain why the team R team who, in his opinion, was most responsible for the did not succeed. Trump then identifies a member of the loss and issues his now famous decree, “You’re fired.” Y In week two of the first season, the two teams, Versacorp (all men) and Protégé (all women), were given the task of designing an advertising campaign for a private jet service. Each team chose a project leader and began 2 they decided not to conduct customer interviews. Not to structure the task. The men made a strategic error when knowing the distinguishing characteristics or the desires 0 of the customer proved to be fatal and led to Versacorp’s downfall. In addition, one of the more eccentric members of the team, Sam, talked excessively during planning 9 when he spent valuable project time lying on the floor sessions, frequently getting off topic. In one of the meetings, 0 of a conference room taking a nap, his credibility was compromised. As a result, when he later tried to interject his ideas and influence other members, he was interruptedTby the project leader, Jason, and marginalized. In contrast to the men, Protégé met with the customer and eventually decided upon an advertising campaign S all the members were comfortable using that approach, that used sexual overtones in its print ads. However, not as it risked offending the customer. In the process of discussing options and making decisions, a number of 91 FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 92 Working in Teams members had different opinions, and tempers flared. Even though the women won the competition, it became obvious that there were serious interpersonal problems on their team. Two of the members, Omarosa and Ereka, had engaged in a number of arguments, and other members of the team were concerned that their dislike for each other would hurt the team’s performance in the future. For this challenge, Trump asked Donny Deutsch, the principal of a successful advertising agency in New York City, to decide the winning proposal. Deutsch and his two associates were torn between the men and the women. The sex S appeal in the women’s presentation may not have been appropriate for an actual print campaign, but it showed that A qualities persuaded Deutsch to declare the women they were more creative and willing to take risks. Ultimately, those victorious. In addition, he commented that their presentationU was sharper and more persuasive than that of the men. Their ability to communicate their ideas with passion and enthusiasm connected well with Deutsch. N men’s team, identified Sam as the team’s biggest After losing the task, Jason, the project manager for the problem. Jason explained to Trump how Sam failed the group Dby literally falling asleep during the project and not caring about the team’s performance. Sam told Trump that EJason was just an average leader who made many mistakes, including not meeting with the customer. He added that because the team did not take the time to Rwas flawed from the start. Thus, Sam didn’t respect thoroughly understand the customer’s needs, the project plan Jason’s leadership and became passively detached. In the end, S Trump held the team leader, Jason, responsible and fired him; Sam was spared. However, the group members became so frustrated with him that they decided to make him team leader for the next project in an effort to get him to “put up or shut up.” While this may have been a S next competition. Although the women’s team was strategic move to deal with Sam, the team suffered, losing the winning competitions, interpersonal conflicts began taking R their toll. Hostility and mistrust among members began to compromise the team’s ability to perform. Case Study Discussion Questions . , • What should the men do about Sam? How do you view members who don’t exactly fit in with the group? Is G Sam a resource or a liability to the team? Explain. A R What do you typically do in group situations when people are angry and start attacking one another? What R do you do when others challenge you? Y What communication skills are needed in the men’s group? In the women’s group? • Two of the women strongly dislike each other. How would you handle that situation? • • 2 In an article in Business Communication 0 Quarterly, Kinnick and Parton (2005) describe the results of a content analysis they performed on all 15 episodes from the first season of 9 The Apprentice. They examined the following communication skills in each of the episodes: oral and written communications, interpersonal 0 communication, teamwork skills, intercultural communication, negotiating skills, and ethical communication. In addition, they T examined Trump’s view of how those skills influenced individual and team performance. Trump and his associates identified poor S communication skills as a factor in 5 of the 15 team losses. Poor communication was also cited as a factor in more than half of the individual firings. The last five players in the competition at the end of the season were FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 93 considerably more likely to be praised for their communication skills than were the first five who were eliminated. Communication skills are foundational for individual, team, and organizational success (Kinnick & Parton, 2005). For example, oral communication and interpersonal skills are often cited as the most important criteria in evaluating job candidates. Interpersonal skills were mentioned more frequently than any other competency listed in classified ads for entry-level jobs in 10 major metropolitanSnewspapers. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Labor has identified communication and interpersonal skills as core requirements for A individuals for professional success by helpfuture workers. Colleges work hard to prepare ing them develop these skills throughU team-based learning activities and class projects (Kalliath & Laiken, 2006). And once employees are hired, organizations invest significant N resources to enhance their communication skills. According to one study, 88% of U.S. companies provide communication skills D training for their employees (Industry Report, 1999). The importance of communication cannot be overstated. Thus, it is important to E thoroughly understand this powerful interpersonal process. R S ENCODING AND DECODING MESSAGES Communication is the exchange of thoughts, S information, or ideas that results in mutual understanding between two or more people. The process requires at least one sender, one R receiver, and a message that is transmitted within a communication medium. It begins with . an idea or concept in the mind of the sender. He or she encodes the idea into meaningful symbols in the form of words, pictures, or gestures (i.e., language). The sender then selects , a medium to transmit those symbols so the receiver can access them through one or more senses. The medium can be a face-to-face conversation, a piece of artwork hanging in an G A Figure 5.1 Sending and Receiving Messages R R Sender Y Receiver Transmission Encoding 2 0 9Response 0 T Transmission Medium: S Oral, written, non-verbal, or electronic Decoding FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 94 Working in Teams art gallery, a text message, or any growing number of electronic transmission media. When the receiver receives the message, he or she must decode the symbols in order to interpret the message and understand the intent of the sender, as depicted below. Meaningful communication takes place when the receiver accurately understands the message transmitted by the sender. However, this does not always happen perfectly. A multitude of potential problems can hinder the process and block understanding. The rest of the chapter examines the many ways in which S a message can become distorted or misunderstood; it also suggests ways to minimize the potential for communication missteps. A U VERBAL COMMUNICATION N D The use of verbal statements is one of the most common ways individuals communicate with Eto understand problems and manage projects, one another. As team members work together hundreds, if not thousands, of verbal comments are exchanged. A team member might be R communicating a message at face value, or he or she may be implying hidden meanings or S even multiple layers of meaning in a single statement. Because members do not always know the exact intent of one another’s comments, there can be multiple interpretations and frequent misunderstandings. In the early stages of group development, team members have S and understand that particular group. to learn the most effective way to interact with Wheelan and her associates have developed R a classification system called the Group Development Observation System (GDOS) as a way of categorizing and analyzing the verbal . interactions that take place among group members (Wheelan, Davidson, & Tilin, 2003). The GDOS classifies statements into one of eight , categories, and while statements can sometimes fit more than one category, trained observers are in agreement 85% to 95% of the time. The eight GDOS categories are as follows: G • Dependency statements are those that show an inclination to conform to the A direction from others. dominant mood of the group and to solicit • Counterdependency statements assert R independence by resisting the current leadership and direction of the group.R • Fight statements directly challenge others Y using argumentativeness, criticism, or aggression. • Flight statements are attempts to avoid work and demonstrate a lack of 2 commitment to the group. • Pairing statements are expressions of warmth, friendship, and support toward others. 0 • Counterpairing statements demonstrate 9 an avoidance of intimacy and interpersonal connection by keeping the discussion distant and intellectual. 0 T Unscorable statements include unintelligible, inaudible, or fragmentary statements. S • Work statements are those that represent goal-directed and task-oriented efforts. • After observing 26 task groups in various stages of development, researchers identified 31,782 verbal statements made during one meeting for each of the groups. Wheelan, FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 95 Davidson, and Tilin (2003) found that established groups utilized twice as many taskrelated statements as compared with newly formed groups. In the early stages of group development, for example, there are more fight, flight, and dependency statements communicated among members than in later stages (Wheelan, 2005). Interestingly, they found that the number of pairing statements remain relatively stable. Approximately 17% of the statements made at any stage of development are supportive of others and meant to engender positive relationships (Wheelan, 2005). S The verbal statements of members of any group can be evaluated to determine whether A resistant, or disengaged from the team at any or not members are committed, compliant, given time. Observing a member’s consistent U pattern of verbal statements over time is one possible way to determine that person’s commitment to the task and people of the group. N Dependency statements suggest compliance, whereas counterdependency and fight statements suggest resistance. Flight and counterpairing statements often indicate disengageD ment. Finally, pairing statements suggest commitment to other group members, while E work statements suggest commitment to team goals. NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION R S As verbal messages are being communicated, an equally important process of communication is taking place on a nonverbal level. S Nonverbal cues from a speaker such as smiling, eye contact, or fidgetiness help listeners interpret the meaning behind the words a person R is using to communicate a message. Listeners perceive these messages subconsciously and often have a difficult time articulating .why they arrived at a certain understanding of a person’s message. As the title of Malcolm Gladwell’s (2005) book Blink: The Power of , Thinking Without Thinking suggests, this process of rapid cognition takes place in the blink of an eye and often outside of awareness. For instance, although the words are the same, the message below may be interpretedG as having entirely different meanings based upon the nonverbal cues associated with it: A R Table 5.1 Using Nonverbal Cues to Interpret Messages R Verbal Message Nonverbal Cues Y Possible Meanings We need to be more prepared for the next project. The speaker is desperate. For her, there is The speaker scans the group and gestures a lot riding on the success of the group. widely. Her facial expression demonstrates 2 the word sincere pleading as she emphasizes need. We need to be more prepared for the next project. The speaker emphasizes the word prepared as she looks intently at and leans9toward a particular member. Her brow is furrowed and 0 she appears frustrated. We need to be more prepared for the next project. 0 T voice The speaker says this in a monotone with no energy, facial expression,Sor hand gestures. Her body is facing slightly away from the group. The speaker is blaming one of the other members for the group’s recent failure and hopes to shame that person into doing better in the future. The speaker is disengaged, does not actually care whether the group sees improvement, and does not plan to put in any extra effort. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 96 Working in Teams Mehrabian’s (1981) seminal research on the importance of nonverbal communication suggests that messages, especially those that express feelings, are overwhelmingly understood through nonverbal cues. The following percentages represent the relative contributions of the verbal and nonverbal components that a listener uses to interpret a message: • 7% from verbal cues (words) • 38% from vocal cues (volume, pitch, S rhythm, etc.) • 55% from facial expressions (smiling,A frowning, etc.) and other body movements (arms crossed, eye contact, etc.) U Nonverbal cues such as physical appearance, N facial expressions, level of eye contact, body movements, vocal qualities, and the physical space between members all contribute to the D way a message is interpreted. An accurate perception of nonverbal communication helps the listener understand the intent of the speaker E and is strongly related to social intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity (Goleman, 2006). So while an individual’s “words” can be difficult R to understand, nonverbal cues are even more subject to personal interpretation as listeners Sinterpret the nonverbal expressions of others. use their own subjective frame of reference to Nonverbal cues not only help members interpret verbal messages, they also help regulate the flow of conversation (Goleman, 2006). For example, when members want to interject a comment into a discussion, they may S use any number of nonverbal prompts such as leaning forward, clearing their throats, making R direct eye contact with the current speaker, or posing a facial expression that indicates a desire to speak. Additionally, if speakers . receive positive nonverbal feedback from others while they are speaking (i.e., head nodding, eye contact, or smiling), they will continue with confidence that they are being heard. , Speakers signal the end of their comments by relaxing their body posture, reducing verbal volume, or leaning back in their seat. These cues prompt others to respond or add their own thoughts. A more direct invitation might G be to nod or gesture toward a particular member with an open hand, palm facing upward. Effective group facilitators frequently use A these types of nonverbal cues to move members in and out of the conversation and to otherwise regulate the discussion. R POSTURING R Y Individuals use both verbal and nonverbal means to establish credibility and communicate ideas in a persuasive manner. Because people 2 desire to be understood and respected, the use of posturing is common. Posturing and the use of identity markers are used to influ0 ence the perception, opinion, and approval of others and to bolster one’s status within the team (Polzer, 2003). According to Polzer, “We 9do not communicate identity-relevant information solely for the benefit of others. . . . When we bring others to see us in a favorable 0 light, we tend to boost our own self-image as we bask in their approval” (p. 3). Identity T markers might include the following: S people are dressed, whether they have a • Physical appearance: This includes how well-groomed appearance, or their fitness level. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 97 • Personal office or room decorations: The presence or absence of plaques, framed diplomas, photographs, or other indicators of success. • Body posture: How much space a person takes up, whether their arms or legs are crossed, whether they stand up straight or slouch, the direction they are facing, strength of eye contact. • Demeanor: Loud voice or soft, smiles S or frowns, engaged or withdrawn, warm or cold, attentive or aloof. A • Explicit statements: Success stories that are shared verbally, statements of one’s U strengths, subtle references to past accomplishments. N The communication and utilization of these markers is driven by the need for selfD enhancement. The self-enhancement motive relates to the desire to present oneself in a E from others. This is commonly demonstrated positive light to garner respect and admiration on college campuses, for example, by identity markers such as fraternity or sorority T-shirts, R sweatshirts, and accessories to identify as a member of an elite social group or by clothing, S automobiles, and vacation trips to communicate wealth and social status. Leaders need to be attuned to both the subtle and blatant attempts of members to promote themselves. Selfpromoting behavior can intimidate others and restrict the free expression of ideas, and it S can be off-putting and hinder the development of trust and cohesion. It might also signal a strong need for recognition and admiration R on the part of those who employ such tactics. Unfortunately, members posture and perform for others in order to gain their respect . and admiration at the expense of authenticity. Teams can become like families in which the members (siblings) compete for the ,approval of the team leaders (parents). This type of “sibling rivalry” in which the members compete for the favored child status can be a distraction for the team. One way a leader can help minimize this dynamic is by establishing the norms of authenticity, honesty, andGtransparency early on in the life of the team by sharing his or her own mistakes or weaknesses. This sends a strong message that members A do not need to compete with one another for performance-based status but, instead, will be valued for their genuineness and humanity. R R Y COMPONENTS OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Communication skills, such as active listening and assertiveness, help make information 2 to understand and interpret the verbal mesprocessing more transparent. Actively trying sages of others takes work. Simply asking 0 another person to provide the evidence that led to certain conclusions can be very enlightening. Similarly, it is helpful to others when we 9 describe the specific data and interpretation of that data that led to our conclusions. Advocating our ideas in a confident and0comprehensive way is demonstrated in the practice of assertiveness. In a typical workgroup setting, assertiveness can take many forms T such as promoting a new idea, lobbying for a policy change, or publicly supporting one S number of alternatives. The following section method of resolving a problem over any describes the communication skills of active listening and assertiveness in detail. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 98 Working in Teams Active Listening Active listening is the key to accurately understanding what another person is saying. It requires effort and discipline. Yet group members are often preoccupied or distracted, and thus do not give 100% of their attention to one another (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). Instead, listeners may be busy comparing themselves with the speaker, mentally rehearsing S what they will say next, daydreaming about a A experience, or wishing they were somepast where else. They might also be speculating U about what is going on in the mind of the N speaker (mind reading), filtering out parts of his or her message, or jumping to conclusions and D offering premature advice. It is also all too comE for some listeners to be more focused on mon debating and critiquing than actually hearing R what is being said. In contrast to the benefits S when a person feels heard, contentiousreaped ness can elicit either a defensive reaction or passive detachment, compromising meaningful S dialogue. RAn accurate understanding of others is needed before a meaningful response can be . made. Effective listeners suspend judgment in , to first understand the perspective of the order speaker. This advanced developmental skill requires listeners to attempt to “get into the G of the speaker and see the issue through shoes” his A or her eyes before responding (Kegan, 1994). The comments of others will make more R if understood from within that person’s sense perspective. Paying attention to posture, paraphrasing what is heard, and probing for R deeper meaning are skills that facilitate this type of perspective taking and lead to a more Yare communicated. accurate understanding of the messages that First, active listeners pay attention to their posture. Specifically, they use their physical posture to help them focus on what is being said. It also creates an interpersonal dynamic 2 attention. The acronym SOLER describes that signals to speakers that the listener is paying five specific behaviors that encourage a listening 0 posture: 9 0 O—Open: Keep an open posture without crossed arms or legs. T and engagement. Head nods and verbal L—Lean slightly forward to communicate interest encouragers like “uh-huh” and “yes!” are also S effective. S—Square: Face the person squarely. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 99 E—Eye contact: Maintain direct eye contact according to appropriate social norms. R—Relax: Stay relaxed. Listeners should be comfortable with silence where appropriate and allow the conversation to unfold without force. By following these guidelines, listeners will be perceived as engaged and interested in what is being said. This approach helps the speaker to feel more comfortable in sharing S information. Paraphrasing is a powerful listeningA skill that validates others, builds trust, and invites deeper levels of disclosure. A paraphrase restates the message that was communicated U in order to clarify and confirm an accurate understanding of that message. For example, N to her roommate’s comments regarding the in the following dialogue, Mary responds cleanliness of their room without appearing defensive or minimizing the problem. In D this way, the paraphrase is an attempt to understand the roommate’s concern before E responding to it. R Sue: I hate that our room is constantly a mess. We can’t live like this! I try to keep my S is always a mess. I want to hang out with friends side of the room clean, but yours here, but I can’t because I don’t want them to see this place! Mary:  Okay, I understand that you’reSfeeling frustrated with our room and the way it looks, and you’re even embarrassed to have friends here because you don’t want R them to think you’re sloppy. Am I hearing you right? . This paraphrase invites Sue to elaborate , on her frustration because Mary has neither become defensive nor has she discounted Sue’s concern. At this point, Mary is simply listening and gaining a better understanding of the issue. Thus, the paraphrase ensures an accurate understanding of the situation, maintains a peaceful interaction, and G affirms Sue that she has been heard before moving to the problem-solving phase of the A conversation. Probing is the third skill that facilitates Ractive listening. In order to understand the ideas, opinions, and perspectives of others, a listener may need information beyond that which R the speaker has already provided. A good question is often the catalyst to an informationY to a deeper understanding of the issues at hand rich response. Open-ended questions lead because they stimulate reflective thinking and can be used to identify underlying assumptions. Once an accurate paraphrase has been communicated, probing questions can be used to solicit more specific, useful, or2otherwise relevant information. Returning to the example of the messy roommate situation, 0 Mary’s response might include some of the following probing questions: • • • 9 What do you consider the messiest 0 parts of our room? When were you thinking of having T friends over? What are some realistic expectations S for both of us? FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 100 Working in Teams • How can I be more sensitive to you in the future? • What do you need from me right now? These questions can be used to address issues and create meaningful dialogue. Instead of avoiding difficult issues, probing questions address them directly. Additionally, they validate the speaker by showing genuine interest S or concern on behalf of the listener. Probing with open-ended questions is an excellent way to gather information about someA you give the respondent complete control one’s priorities, beliefs, and concerns because over the content of his or her response. TheU material on which the respondent chooses to focus is likely the material most pressing or important to that person. Open-ended questions N often begin with the words how, what, or why. Examples may include “What motivates you?” or “How could this process have been improved?” D Open-ended questions can also come in the form of an invitation for the speaker to provide more detail. For instance, one might E begin with “Describe for me . . .” or “Tell me in your own words . . .”. R state of mind of the speaker as well. These Hypothetical questions give insight into the types of questions allow you to discover theS nuanced thought process of your respondent and/or his or her comfort level with a given skill. Respectively, examples may include “Suppose you were the project manager on this task. How would you proceed?” or “If I were to give you the lesson plans, would you S feel confident teaching the class tomorrow morning?” Unlike the types of questions that we haveRdiscussed thus far, closed-ended questions aim to gather specific information, facts, or details. . The range of responses available to your question’s recipient is quite small, and his or her answer is likely to be short and to the point. Examples of closed-ended questions,include “Did Kevin complete the spreadsheet for the meeting?” or “What is the fastest route to 6th Avenue?” Finally, forced-choice questions call upon the respondent to make a choice. The answer G to one of these questions will demonstrate the respondent’s priorities and may guide a decision about how to move forward in a given A scenario. Consider the following example: “The printing company is wondering whether or not it should go ahead and ship the signs R with the typo. Would you rather the signs arrive on time, or that they are printed accuR rately?” Forced-choice questions are also frequently used in a negotiation if one is trying to limit the other person’s options. Y While the previous types of questions can all be productive within certain discussions, the following, however, are not. Leading questions, loaded questions, and multiple questions asked in rapid fire make it challenging 2 for a recipient to respond productively. Instead, recipients are likely to feel challenged, intimidated, and confused. Leading and 0 make unflattering assumptions in order to loaded questions often use harsh language and embed an accusation within a question. An 9 example may be “Do you always pawn off your work onto other people?” or “How long have you been wasting the company’s time 0 dealing with personal issues at work?” Obviously, questions like these will be perceived negatively by the recipient and have the potential to compromise trust and goodwill in the T relationship. It is rarely beneficial to make enemies, so questions should not be used as S weapons. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 101 Multiple questions refers to a string of questions asked in rapid progression that, while they may be related to the subject at hand, confuse and disorient the recipient. The following is an example of multiple questions: “How could the team have missed the deadline, and how do you know, and what are the consequences that we now face, and did you notify everyone, and who was supposed to have been keeping track of this?” By the end of this five-question series, it would be difficult for the responder to decide where to begin or to which question the askerStruly wants an answer. Stressful situations can instigate the use of multiple questions. Therefore, when intensity mounts, it is helpful Aand make discrete, productive, and answerable for members to slow down their speech questions. U N D Assertiveness is the ability to express oneself directly and honestly without disrespecting E or dishonoring another person. Assertive people are able to stand up for themselves and R bullying, patronizing, or manipulating others. communicate their ideas firmly without Because group discussions can move quickly, S teams frequently arrive at conclusions that Assertiveness are not well thought out or supported. Thus, it is important that members speak up either to promote other perspectives or to challenge ideas that are ill-conceived. Assertive members, therefore, are actively engaged in S group discussions and avoid the extremes of being either too passive or too aggressive. R can best be expressed by including the followBaney (2004) suggests that assertiveness ing three components: I think, I feel, I want. . The first step in this assertiveness formula is to describe one’s thoughts about a particular situation. For example, a member of the team is often late for meetings, so the project,leader might say something like: “I’ve noticed that you’ve been late to most of our recent meetings.” Next, the leader describes his or her feelings about the situation: “It’s frustrating to be interrupted when you arrive, and I never G know if I should stop and bring you up to speed.” Finally, the assertive person would make a respectful request: “Do you think you A could make it a priority to arrive on time from here on out?” This interchange shows respect for the other person but also values one’s own R needs. According to the social style framework, drivers and expressives do much better at R or amiables. advocating their positions than do analytics When making a point in a group setting, especially when responding to a particularly Y complex or important set of questions, assertive communicators pay attention to the introduction and conclusion of their comments. To start, a brief overview of their position will let others know what to expect. For example, an explanation of one’s position may begin 2 with “I’d like to discuss a few key areas where I think that the team could have been more 0a concise summary can be given to reinforce the organized.” At the end of the comments, main ideas. Returning to the example at 9 hand, a person might end his or her comments with “and I believe that these were the problem areas that led to the poor performance of 0 are useful practices that reinforce effective our team.” Opening and closing with clarity communication. T It is often beneficial to provide specific examples or anecdotes to give texture and S more likely to remember interesting statistics or nuanced understanding. Some people are FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 102 Working in Teams quotes, for example, than general concepts. Memorable stories or illustrations not only reinforce the main concepts, they also help listeners remember the main concepts. In addition, supporting comments with data and examples not only makes the argument more interesting and informative, but also credible. However, there is a difference between this tactic and attempting to establish credibility by overusing confusing jargon that others do not understand. This can alienate others and decrease their desire to engage in meaningful dialogue. S At times, strong, assertive statements will provoke negative responses or questions from A beginning of a response can be a useful tool others. As discussed, an initial overview at the in rephrasing and perhaps softening the nature U of the question. For this reason, this strategy is an excellent one to employ when asked a leading or loaded question. If faced with N multiple questions, the speaker can slow down the pace of the conversation by calling attention to the multitude of questions and D acknowledging the desire to answer the questions one at a time. For example, an appropriate response to a hostile barrage of questions E might be, “You clearly have a lot on your mind and are looking for some clarity. Let me see R your first question.” Finally, it is perfectly if I can explain my position, beginning with acceptable to acknowledge feeling ill-prepared S or uncomfortable answering a question and, instead, choose not to respond at that particular time. For example, if one team member pushes another team member into making a commitment about a certain problem, he or she might need to say something like “There S are several aspects of this situation about which I know very little, and I do not want to speculate. Can you give me a few days to think about it and get back to you?” In that way, R he or she can buy time and formulate a more thoughtful response. . , CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED COMMUNICATION G Group researchers have observed that one of the most important features of group communication is the level of centralization (Brown A & Miller, 2000). When one or two members do most of the talking and comments are routinely directed toward these members speR cifically, the group is said to have a centralized communication structure (Huang & Cummings, 2011). Conversely, when groupsR exhibit more balance in terms of who speaks and with what frequency, the group has a decentralized communication structure. In a Y decentralized structure, members engage in both advocacy (proposing their own views) and inquiry (exploring the views of others). Of course, due to logistical and time constraints on any given meeting, not everyone can be 2 expected to comment on every topic. In larger groups, it can be very easy to situate oneself on the periphery and become marginally 0 to be anonymous, and members may choose involved. In smaller groups, it is more difficult to confront those who are consistently not9speaking up. Nonetheless, who speaks, how often they speak, and to whom they speak are each important characteristics of commu0 centrality within a given group is influnication structure. The degree of communication enced by the level of complexity of the group’s task as well as the characteristics of T individual group members. S FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 103 Groups tend to adopt a more centralized communication structure if the task is relatively simple and become more decentralized as the tasks become more complex (Brown & Miller, 2000). This S trend is due to the fact that A task uncertainty and ambiguity lead to wider participation U and a more open exchange of N information. Put another way, complex tasks require cogniD tive flexibility and open E discussions in order to thorR oughly understand the issues and to make well-reasoned S decisions (Roy, 2001). Relatively straightforward tasks, on the other hand, are conducive to one or two people directing the discussion and coordinating the efforts of the group. Simpler tasks benefit from the efficiency S of centralized communication, allowing group discussions to be more organized, efficient, and concrete. R member characteristics influence the comIn addition to task complexity, individual munication structure of the group. Some . members speak often and with confidence, while others tend to be more hesitant. Individual member traits such as interpersonal dominance, , to the group’s task all serve to influence the perceived competence, and commitment degree of centrality in group communication. People with high interpersonal dominance have a strong need to be in control. Even if they are not the designated leader, they may G attempt to take charge and direct the group. When members acquiesce and allow plans and meetings to be controlled by their dominant teammates, the communication becomes A centralized. But sometimes members resist. When faced with dominant members, some R group members form alliances or subgroups in order to create a balance of power and, R pattern where everyone’s voice is heard. thus, ensure a decentralized communication During the “forming” stage of group development, members assess one another’s Y knowledge, skills, and competencies. This is done partly to see how they might compare with their new teammates, but it is also done with the intent of taking inventory of the group’s resources. Those who are perceived as competent and who possess important 2 abilities are allotted greater amounts of influence over the decisions, direction, and dynam0 in this assessment are not always related to the ics of the group. However, the criteria used task at hand. Sometimes members are9given status based upon characteristics such as gender, physical attractiveness, education level, or professional success. For example, when 0 while nurses or other health care professionals medical doctors are given too much status are marginalized, patient safety is compromised (Lingard et al., 2004). As a result, the T health care industry has gone to great lengths to improve the quality of communication on S FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 104 Working in Teams health care teams (Brock, Abu-Rish, Chiu, Hammer, Wilson, Vorvick, Blondon, Schaad, Liner, & Zierler, 2013). Once a member is perceived to have high levels of competence, regardless of the reasoning behind this perception, and is granted status in the group, members will naturally direct their questions and comments to him or her. Members who perceive themselves as having competence are also more likely to speak up in discussions. Interestingly, there is a slight tendency for men to overestimate their knowledge and abilities (Lemme, 2006), possibly S explaining why men tend to be more frequent contributors in mixed-gender groups (Dindia A & Canary, 2006; Krolokke & Sorensen, 2006). Commitment to the group’s tasks and goals U will also affect the level of member engagement. Highly motivated members will tend to be more active and contribute more freN quently to discussions. They are more invested in the group’s success, and will subsequently seek to be involved in major decisions. At the Dsame time, there may certainly be members who are very committed to the task but withhold their comments and ideas from conversaE tions. In these cases, other personal or circumstantial variables have intervened to reduce R their perceived involvement. In order to establish balanced communication within the team, leaders have to figure out the reasons for poor participation and help low talkers S become more active. As group members interact, each establishes his or her place in the group relative to other members. A systems view of groups suggests that individual communication styles S will depend upon the particular group composition within which members find themR take over if there are no other dominant selves. For example, a dominant member might members in the group. As that member exerts . control, submissive or passive members become more passive, in turn encouraging the dominant member to become even more dominant. Each member reacts to others in, a reciprocal fashion. If there are a number of dominant members in a group, control and management of the group may be shared. Similarly, if no particular person has a great deal of competence in a given area, a member G with moderate competence will likely be forced to become an active participant. The assessment of one’s own competence is related A to the perceived competence of other members. The same holds true for commitment to the group’s task. If nobody is passionate R about the goal or interested in taking charge, a member who normally does not take a R just that. Each group has a unique configuleadership role might find him or herself doing ration that influences how people act, interact, and communicate with others in that parY ticular group. For this reason, the tasks and interpersonal roles that people fill will vary with each new group they experience. The process of communication is complex 2 and highly idiosyncratic. Different people can hear the same message but have completely different interpretations. The practice of 0 the interpretation and evaluation of mesreflection can help group members slow down sages to improve the accuracy of understanding 9 and thoughtfulness of responses. In addition, certain listening skills (posture, paraphrasing, and probing) can increase the likelihood that accurate understanding is taking place.0 Group members can also learn to express T themselves more intentionally. They can become more aware of how they are communicating observations, thoughts, feelings, S reasoning that led to certain conclusions. or needs. Members can provide the data and In addition, members can enhance their ability to communicate by avoiding mixed FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 105 messages and becoming more assertive. Assertiveness is a form of communication that respects the opinions of others while directly stating one’s own thoughts and perspectives. Effective communication requires members to suspend their assumptions and judgments of others in order to stay open to new ideas. Members can learn to minimize their reactivity even when dialogue becomes spirited or difficult. In the most effective groups, members feel comfortable to freely express S their views and engage in a balanced level of participation. When this happens, communication contributes to the effectiveness and Asuccess. efficiency of group processing and team U N VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION D Virtual teams bring geographically dispersed members together though electronic informaE tion and communication technologies to accomplish organizational tasks (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). The use of technology canR significantly improve team efficiency and increase productivity, but they need to be actively S managed (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). Technology has become such an integral part of organizational life that some teams never meet face to face; they only exist in a virtual environment. Virtual teams and the technology that drives them offer the following benefits: S (a) team compositions that increase quality and outcomes, (b) efficiency of communication, and (c) the development of intellectual capital. R without regard to geographic location allows Putting the right mix of people together managers to maximize knowledge, skills, . and abilities (Blackburn, Furst, & Rosen, 2003). These types of diverse and specialized teams are especially necessary to solve complex , organizational problems and tasks. For instance, a team of school principals and district administrators G working on educational reform might be able to benefit from the A experience and knowledge of parR allel committees in other states. R The team might also benefit from the perspective of a curriculum Y specialist at a university who consults with school districts. Virtual teaming allows diverse 2 members to collaborate in ways 0 that were heretofore difficult if not impossible. Virtual teams allow 9 team members in various locations 0 to interact without the need for face-to-face (F2F) meetings. T Scheduling and attending meetings S may be easier when workers can stay at their own desk (wherever FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 106 Working in Teams that may be) and participate in virtual meetings instead of flying in from various places around the world to meet in a central location. Since physical spaces and other arrangements such as travel and accommodations are not necessary, organizations can save both time and money. While virtual meetings may not be as efficient as F2F meetings (Levenson & Cohen, 2003), the financial and logistical benefits are attractive. Without the benefit of nonverbal clues, group communication can be ambiguous and cohesion can be difficult to build. These obstacles, however, can be overcome S by effective leadership. A U When geographical obstacles are removed, teams have access to subject matter experts N from all over the globe. But those experts might live in different time zones and have technological limitations that prevent them from D engaging in virtual meetings. Knowledge management systems assist members in capturing, storing, and cataloguing what they E know so that others can access that knowledge and experience. Knowledge-sharing links R team members together through a virtual repository of expertise. For example, Proctor and Gamble (P&G) has an electronic network that links 900 factories and 17 product developS Improved Knowledge-Sharing ment centers in 73 countries. In the past, it was difficult to know what new products were being developed in different locations, centers, and departments around the world. To address this issue, P&G purchased collaborative S knowledge-sharing software that permits product developers to search a database of 200,000 existing product designs to see if a R part of the company. As a result, the time similar design or process already exists in another it takes to develop new products has been reduced by 50% (Ante, 2001). . Buckman Labs, a chemical manufacturing company, has effectively pooled the expertise , an electronic knowledge base (Buckman, of 1,400 employees in over 90 nations through 2004). For example, when one of its customers has an outbreak of a bacterial contamination that threatens production in a paper mill in Brazil, the local Buckman engineer in that G part of the world can access the company knowledge base for possible solutions based upon the knowledge and experiences of engineers A at other locations. In this way, problems can be solved more quickly and effectively than when field offices operate independently R from one another. This type of quality customer service earned Buckman Labs the 2005 R MAKE Award (Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise) from a panel of leading knowledge management experts. Y Inherent Problems 2 Virtual teams are not without their problems; they tend to be abstract and ambiguous, and, 0 (2004) found that problems within virtual by their nature, are challenging to manage. Davis teams take longer to identify and solutions longer to implement. The distance inherent in 9 virtual teams may serve to (a) amplify dysfunction, (b) dilute leadership, and (c) weaken 0 teams can be especially difficult to manage human relations and team processes. Virtual in terms of goal definition, task distribution,Tcoordination, and member motivation. Teamwork requires interdependence. Members need to have a level of trust that their S of the group and will do their part to achieve teammates are equally committed to the goals those goals (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003). In organizational contexts, trust is built by assessing FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 107 the ability, benevolence, and integrity of other group members (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). In virtual groups the lack of face-to-face interaction makes it difficult to carry out this assessment. Therefore, virtual teams struggle to gain a level of trust that maximizes group potential. When group members interact in person, they are able to observe one another and draw conclusions about a number of variables including intellectual ability, past experiences, interpersonal style, and personality type. Virtual members have less information from which to make assessments. Thus, virtual environments can be more S tenuous and less trusting (Gibson & Manuel, 2003). A groups may also have a difficult time creating a In addition to developing trust, virtual shared vision. Shared vision includes notUonly an understanding of the group’s goal but also a shared commitment to achieving it. In a virtual environment, it can be difficult to assess N commitment levels. Because virtual members typically interact less frequently and with less perceptual richness, they do not have D the opportunity to observe interpersonal characteristics such as vocal tone, body language, and facial expressions. Thus, it is difficult to E determine who is invested in the success of the group. Communication Challenges R S Communication is more of a challenge in virtual teams than in F2F teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). Since trust is difficultS to achieve, members are more reluctant to express their opinions in virtual discussions (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002). R the nonverbal and social context to understand Contributions in a virtual environment lack others accurately and to be understood.. Teams take longer to make decisions and arrive at a shared understanding. In an F2F meeting, an idea can be acknowledged and agreed upon , through nods, smiles, or verbal responses. Puzzled looks, shrugs, and raised eyebrows signal a lack of G understanding and a request for more information. Even the most A sophisticated computer-mediated R communication channels are not R able to capture the richness of F2F exchanges (Driskell, Radtke, & Y Salas, 2003). Obviously, it is more difficult to communicate complex informa2 tion by phone or e-mail than it is in 0 person. Even video conferencing has its limitations. For example, 9 consider the experience of going to 0 a college football game or hearing an orchestra perform a symphony. Live action includes the sights, smells, sounds, T and various intangibles that cannot easily be put into words. Even watching a game or S all the details of the experience. Listening on musical performance on TV does not capture the radio or reading a New York Times review does even begin to convey the nuances of a FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 108 Working in Teams live performance. Likewise, virtual environments are limited in capturing all the detail and “feel” of F2F meetings. Virtual teams, by nature, tend to be more diverse than F2F teams since they often span multiple geographic locations. Greater geographical distances can translate into differences in regional, national, and organizational cultures. Diversity introduces the potential for increased creativity and problem-solving, but it also creates a context for miscommunication and misunderstanding. Therefore, in addition to the challenges noted above, virtual S teams also have to contend with the lack of a common set of assumptions and social norms A & Weisband, 2003). Members may not even that facilitate effective communication (Hinds be communicating in their native language.UYet even with a common language, different words and phrases have different meanings from culture to culture. It is easy to see that the N potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding is great. D E LEADERSHIP IN ACTION R In many team discussions, there is too much Stalking and not enough listening. To test this hypothesis, try monitoring your next interaction with friends, family, or colleagues. People are often more interested in delivering a message than receiving one. This is certainly true in meetings where emotions are running high. S What happened the last time you had a disagreement with someone or were in a tense or stressful situation? Why did your voice R rise in volume and pitch? Why did your words hasten? It was probably because you wanted . it was too late. This chapter emphasizes the to make sure you got your point across before fact that communication is critical when it comes to leading people, working in teams, and , facilitating interpersonal dynamics. Team leaders can model active listening and manage the dialogue so that understanding takes place and everyone feels heard. It is amazing G how much can be accomplished when members are invited to participate and feel validated when they do so. Because leaders A concise, and well-supported dialogue, they want to encourage a high standard on clear, might need to push members to explain their R position and to develop their ideas more completely. While leaders will have their own position on various subjects, they should not R the contributions of others. Effective comdiscount the value of open dialogue or minimize munication involves members verbalizing their Y ideas clearly and listening carefully to the ideas of others in order to create a fertile environment for understanding, exploration, and innovation. So, the next time members are locking horns 2 with one another, try using an engaged posture, probing questions, and paraphrases to help them explain their perspectives and 0 arrive at a mutual understanding. Once all the information is on the table and understood by the team, members will be closer than they 9 originally thought. This nuanced and challenging skill set can be difficult to master, but with conscientious practice and risk-taking, 0 it can be learned. And there is no better time or place to hone one’s communication skills T than when working on a team. S FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 109 KEY TERMS Self-enhancement 97 SOLER 98 Advocacy 102 Inquiry 102 S A Name and describe the eight GDOS categories U of verbal communication. Give an example of each. N Compare and contrast verbal versus nonverbal communication. D What impact does nonverbal communication E have on a conversation? What are some examples of nonverbal cues? R Name and describe the SOLER acronym. What is this communication strategy designed to do? S DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recall a time when you either misunderstood a message or were misunderstood in a group atmosphere. What were the repercussions? 6. What are the three skills of active listening?SHow can you apply these in group situations? R inquiry. Create three examples of each. 7. Describe the difference between advocacy and . teams? As a leader, how would you address 8. What are the benefits and challenges of virtual some of the inherent challenges? , G R O U P AGC T I V I T I E S A EXERCISE 5.1 THE OLD RUMOR MILL R R We have all played “Telephone.” This exercise is designed to illustrate distortions that can occur as information is relayed from one Y person to another. The instructor enlists the help of six volunteers. The rest of the students remain to act as process observers. Five of the six volunteers are asked to leave the classroom so they can’t hear the class discussion. One remains in the room with the instructor and the 2 observers. 0 The instructor reads an “accident report” (or a detailed account of an event) to the first volunteer. One of the volunteers who is9waiting outside the room comes back in the room and the first volunteer reports the details of the story to him or her. The process observers 0 record what information was added to the original story, what information was left out of the original story, and what informationTwas distorted. S FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 110 Working in Teams A third volunteer returns to the classroom and the second repeats the story that was reported from the first volunteer. Again, the process observers write down what was added, deleted, or distorted. The process is repeated until all the volunteers are back in the room. The last volunteer will write the details of the event on the board. Compare that version with the original version. Class observers should report their observations and identify where the message went awry. S A U EXERCISE EXERCISE 5.2 HIGH TALKER/LOW TALKER N Place yourselves into one of two similar-sized groups: high talkers (people who are more expressive) and low talkers (people who areD quieter). Make sure that everyone agrees with who is in which group (some high talkers do Enot see themselves as high talkers, and vice versa). Adjust groups accordingly and form a circle with the low talkers in the middle and R talkers and low talkers are just labels—one the high talkers in the outside circle. Note: high group is not better than the other. S The goal of this exercise is for low talkers and high talkers to gain a better understanding of one another’s experience. When one group is talking (the group in the fishbowl or inner circle) the other group (the group on the outside S of the circle) is to remain quiet. Ask the low talkers the following questions:R . , What would you like the high talkers to know about what it is like to be a low • What is it like to be a low-talking member of this class? • talker in this class? • Have the high talkers paraphrase what Gthey heard. Then have the low talkers either confirm or clarify. A Have students switch places (the high talkers R are now in the fish bowl and the low talkers are on the outside of the circle). Remind the low talkers that they cannot speak while R they are on the outside. Y Ask the high talkers the following questions: • What was it like for you not to be able to speak? 2 0 • What would you like the low talkers to know about what it is like to be a high 9 talker in this class? • Have the low talkers paraphrase what0they heard. Then have the high talkers either confirm or clarify. T After everyone has returned to his or herSoriginal seat, discuss what you learned from • What did you hear the low talkers say about their experiences as low talkers? this experience. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 5  Communication 111 C A S E 5 . 2 : E N E M Y L I N E S A N D F R I E N D LY F I R E It’s the third week of the semester and you have met with your class project team several times. You’ve already noticed that two of your teammates, Sam and Alex, seem to be very friendly with each other. On e-mails, texts, and in person, this duo strikes you as fun, lighthearted, and occasionally flirtatious. After S the next team meeting, Sam and Alex are the last two people left in the meeting room. As they are walking out the door, Sam turns to A getting to know you these last couple of weeks. Alex and says, “Hey, Alex, I really enjoyed With Homecoming next weekend, I’d love U to hang out and grab a bite to eat before we hit some of the parties together.” After an awkward silence, Alex turns to Sam and says, “Gosh, Sam. That’s so sweet. I’m not sure if myN roommate has anything planned for us, but let me check and see. I’ll shoot you an e-mail.”D The e-mail from Alex never comes. Sam doesn’t know what to think, but feels angry and hurt that Alex didn’t follow through. At E the next meeting, Sam pulls up a chair next to Alex and says, “Hey, what’s up? I never heard Rfrom you.” Alex curtly snips, “Yeah, I can’t make it. It’s not going to work out,” just as the meeting was beginning. S During the meeting, Alex withdraws and takes an aloof posture. Sam is visibly agitated and very critical of everyone else’s contributions. The two have spread a negative dynamic over the team. You, as team leader, pull Sam aside during the break and say, “Hey, Sam, I’ve S noticed that you’re not yourself today. What’s going on?” • R Using active listening skills from this . chapter, what would you do to find out the source of the tension between Sam and Alex that has affected the team? Please write , might follow. out a hypothetical conversation that • If you were Alex, how could you have been more assertive in setting boundaries between work relationships and potentially romantic ones? G A R R Y 2 0 9 0 T S FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. S A U N D E R S S R . , G A R R Y 2 0 9 0 T S FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. C H A P T E R 6 DecisionA Making S U N D Decisions are continuously being made E by both individuals and teams. Some decisions are made subconsciously while others are the focus of much deliberate thought and debate. Healthy discussion considers R multiple perspectives and weighs their relative strengths and weaknesses before coming S to a decision. This chapter is divided into three major parts. First, we discuss the way people process information. Then, we describe the typical mistakes that occur when groups make decisions. Finally, we describe a systematic S thoughtful and consistent team participation to model of decision making that encourages avoid those mistakes. R . CASE 6.1: WEAPONS ,OF MASS DESTRUCTION In March 2003, the United States decided to launch an invasion of Iraq. At the time, fear of the possibility of Iraq G held and received broad coverage in the media. This having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was widely created a deep concern that the United States was in A great danger, which buffered the president and his administration from scrutiny for the decisions they made. The perceived risk had escalated to the point that it comproR mised objective and critical thinking. Though not all of the information has yet come to R light, due to the fact that many records still remain sealed, there are meaningful data that suggest President George Y W. Bush and his cabinet fell into some of the common pitfalls of poor group decision making as they launched a decade-long war. According to the Economist article “History’s Second Draft,” 2 Contrary to statements by President George W. Bush or Prime Minister Tony Blair, declassified records from 0 both governments posted on the Web reflect an early and focused push to prepare war plans and enlist allies regardless of conflicting intelligence about 9 Iraq’s threat and the evident difficulties in garnering global support. Perhaps most revealing about today’s posting on the National Security Archive’s website 0 is what is missing—any indication whatsoever from the declassified record to date that top Bush administration officials seriously considered an alternative T to war. In contrast there is an extensive record of efforts to energize military planning, revise existing contingency S plans, and create a new, streamlined war plan. Some Bush officials insist the war decision was made just before the March 2003 invasion. The evidence does not support that construction. Others believe no decision was ever made. Richard Armitage, 113 FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 114 Working in Teams deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell, observes, “Never to my knowledge, and I’m pretty sure I’m right on this, did the President ever sit around with his advisors and say, ‘Should we do this or not?’ He never did it.” George J. Tenet of the CIA agrees. He wrote, “There never was a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat.” And again, based on conversations with colleagues, “In none of the meetings can anyone remember a discussion of the central questions. Was it wise to go to war? Was it the right thing to do?” (Economist, 2010) S This senior leadership team had come to believe in the presence A of something that, if true, posed a catastrophic, horrifying, and unprecedented threat to America and her allies. In fact, the threat of a terrorist attack was so great U that the administration overlooked contrary data that demonstrated an absence of WMDs, and that conclusion led to a decision that propelled the United States into the N Iraq War. When the United States occupied Iraq and systematically searched for the WMDs and found none, the D U.S. was in the position of not being able to justify an extreme act of aggression and a declaration of war. E With an influential core of determined people driving toward a single conclusion, the conditions lent themselves RIf this seasoned team of subject-matter experts felt to a “groupthink” climate in which dissent was discouraged. the pressure to conform to emotionally based decisions, what Scan everyday leaders do to ensure that the decisions their teams make are rational, evidence-based, objective, and intentional? How can they avoid similar decisionmaking mistakes? While the stakes will almost certainly be much lower and, therefore, easier to manage than the variables at play in the decisions leading up to the Iraq War,S what can leaders do to maintain impartiality, encourage critical reflection on processes, and allow for enough consideration of questions like, “Are we making the right R decision?” Case Study Discussion Questions . , 1. In teams, who is ultimately responsible for making the decisions? Why? G 2. If you were present in the cabinet meetings that made the decision to invade Iraq, what would you have A said or done differently? R decision-making practices? Which do you think 3. Other than fear, what other factors influenced the group’s were the most pertinent? R 4. Describe other examples involving high-stakes decisionY making. How do they compare to this case? How do they differ? 2 There are many advantages to group decision 0 making. The collective wisdom of groups can be far superior to the knowledge and decision-making ability of a single person 9 (Suroweicki, 2004). Groups will often have more information about any given subject than a single individual does. Furthermore, the process 0 of group discussion and deliberation can foster critical analysis and reflection that can lead to high-quality decisions. But groups can T also make terrible decisions. As a matter of fact, some very disastrous decisions, such as the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq over S the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction, have been made by groups as opposed to individuals. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 6   Decision Making 115 INFORMATION PROCESSING Information processing is the series of cognitive processes that make sense of incoming sensory data. Words and nonverbal cues are perceived through the five senses and ascribed meaning. This raw data are interpreted and evaluated based upon idiosyncratic as well as shared frames of reference. Past experiences, current assumptions, and the surrounding S messages. Argyris (1994) describes the prosocial context are used to decipher incoming cess of perceiving and interpreting dataAas the Ladder of Inference, depicted below. Each step or “rung” describes how information is perceived and processed, beginning at the U & Witherspoon, 2005). bottom of the ladder and moving up (Cannon Perception and information processing N occur unconsciously at the lower rungs of the ladder and become more conscious as one moves up the ladder. However, over time, D ingrained and automatic. For example, learning repetitive patterns of processing become to drive a car initially requires great concentration and effort, but eventually the process E becomes routine, making conscious thought no longer necessary. R S Figure 6.1 Ladder of Inference S R . Take , Action G A Draw Conclusions R R Y Interpret Data 2 0 9 0 T Available Data S Select Data FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 116 Working in Teams In order to process incoming information quickly, individuals make assumptions and draw inferences based upon the perceptual data’s similarity to past experiences. Thus, deliberate, conscious reflection is often neglected in favor of a preprogrammed response that is made in accordance with memories and tendencies associated with comparable past experiences. It would be inefficient for people to experience all new data as if it were their first time seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching that phenomenon. The benefit of this process is that people can respond quickly to stimulus without much conscious S thought; the downside is that not all new experiences fit neatly into our database of previA done as an individual or in a group setting, ous experiences. Conscious reflection, whether is a practice that can help evaluate and revise U old patterns of thinking as well as assumptions that are either outdated or limited in perspective. N D Selecting Data E Human beings only have the capacity to pay attention to and process a limited amount of R have a greater capacity to “multitask” than incoming data at one time. While some may others, the limit exists for all of us and requires S us to select specific pieces of information or data on which to focus. For example, the first meeting of a group with a large number of participants convening in a new location will contain literally hundreds of pieces of perceptual data, including seating arrangement,Slighting, room temperature, verbal messages, nonverbal messages, and interactions among members. Because there is simply too much Rchoose that which is most important to us. information to attend to at the same time, we The internal process of selecting information . to interpret and then “present” to our conscious minds is not unlike that in which video editors engage. Although reality TV producers film hours of video footage, they air only a ,small percentage of the total interactions that occur among show participants, carefully selecting the pieces they wish to show the viewing audience. In the documentary Secrets of Reality TV Revealed, producers describe how they G edit and manipulate data (scenes) in order to lead the audience to certain conclusions and make the show more entertaining. In a similar A way, it might be said that people have an “internal producer” that selects, screens, edits, and interprets data. Since it is impossible to R pay attention to all available data, certain pieces of information are eliminated from awareRpeople tend to look for evidence to confirm ness. For the sake of continuity and stability, expectations and assumptions. Thus, the selection of data is influenced by existing assumpY tions, biases, and stereotypes. This reflexive loop leads people to see what they both want and expect to see, in turn reinforcing those beliefs and making it more difficult to see things in a different light. This confirmation bias is2the tendency to search for and interpret information that supports first impressions and preconceived notions. 0 People are also more likely to attend to information that is perceived as important. For example, if a group is having a discussion about whether or not to request a deadline exten9 sion for an existing project, some members may have strong feelings about the issue, causing them to sit up and pay close attention. 0 Members who are ambivalent about the topic may choose not to engage in the discussionT and only halfheartedly pay attention. In order to achieve the highest levels of group performance, members must continually ask themS that perception is limited and potentially selves what they might be missing. Realizing flawed is the first step in opening up to new perspectives and seeing things that have yet to FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 6   Decision Making 117 be discovered. Increased awareness and appropriate data selection comprise the first rung of the Ladder of Inference. Interpreting the Data Once data have been selected for processing, individuals must interpret that information. We interpret data by comparing the current S situation to past experiences, which have been summarized and cataloged into core beliefs and assumptions called schemas (Griffith, A or rule books that are used to interpret incom2004). Schemas are the internal dictionaries ing data quickly and efficiently. For example, U a red light at an intersection is automatically interpreted as a symbol for “stop,” triggering a certain response by the driver of a car. The N interpreted stimulus and resulting response is deeply ingrained as a habit that requires little to no awareness or conscious attention. D Similarly, group members may hear a particular word or interpret a certain nonverbal gesture as a “red light” (danger) and disengage E from the conversation. Under stress, people tend to revert to the deeply embedded primal R can be counterproductive to meaningful comresponses of fight or flight, both of which munication. When tensions are running Shigh, group members can easily default to emotionally laden reactions instead of thoughtful, reasoned responses. Biases, assumptions, and stereotypes include generalizations about groups and can be based upon any number of variables S including gender, age, race, or geographic background. For instance, after meeting a distant relative from New York City who talks fast and R stereotype about all New Yorkers. Thus, future is very direct, one might create an internal interactions with anyone associated with . New York can potentially be influenced by that initial experience. The generalizations about New Yorkers, in this example, have been created prematurely and with limited data,,and thus are likely to be inaccurate and unfair. Yet we do this all the time. It is all too easy to discount a person’s message because of the label we have put on him or her. G Vague messages that have less concrete information to aid in interpretation are, consequently, more prone to misunderstanding. A For example, if a male project leader told a female member that she was not pulling her weight in the group, she could internally R respond to that statement from a variety of interpretive frameworks, including those R related to the following: • Her view of her own competenceY (“I know I am competent”) • Her view of leaders (“Leaders are never satisfied”) 2 male power play”) • Her view of men (“This is a typical 0 can’t get ahead in this organization”) • Her view of the organization (“Women 9 0 • Her view of groups in general (“I knew this would happen; I hate working in teams”) T S about the possible ways to interpret this stateIf she is not open-minded and reflective • Her view of other members of the group (“They’re all threatened by me”) ment, she may choose an interpretation that has very little to do with the intended message FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 118 Working in Teams of the team leader. Instead of a thoughtful response or a request for more information, she might respond with a preprogrammed reaction. If an individual is operating from an incorrect interpretation or assumption and responds accordingly, misunderstandings and interpersonal problems that hinder group functioning are likely to result. Therefore, it is important for members to be aware of their own existing schemas and to combat tendencies to make unsupported inferences. Active listening skills, which we will discuss later in the chapter, can S go a long way in preventing misinterpretations and can lead to a more accurate understanding of what others are saying. A U Drawing Conclusions N After a message has been interpreted, conclusions are drawn. Obviously, it is difficult to arrive at an accurate conclusion if the data Dhave been misinterpreted. Beck (1995) has found that when inaccurate conclusions are made, the mistakes leading up to the concluE sion are remarkably similar across circumstances. The following list describes common R mistakes people make when receiving and responding to messages: S • Overgeneralization: Conclusions are based upon a limited number of past experiences. Example: “Recycling programs don’t work; we tried that once before.” S • All-or-nothing thinking (also called dichotomous or black-and-white thinking): Viewing a situation as “all-or-nothing”Rwithout considering other possibilities or recognizing that most hypotheticals exist on a continuum. Example: “We should . forget about it.” make a decision today, or we should just , • Catastrophizing: Assuming that a current negative experience will undoubtedly produce a devastating effect. Example: “I bet I failed the test; I’m probably going to fail the course and flunk out of college.” G • Personalization: Speculating that the comments or behavior of others are related to A you in some way. Example: “Bob didn’t sit next to me in the meeting today. I’m sure he’s mad at me. I must have saidR something to offend him the last time we met.” R • Emotional reasoning: Strong feelings about Y an issue or a person cloud one’s ability to hear other perspectives. Example: “She may have a good argument for the policy change, but I still don’t trust her, and I’m not going to go along with it.” 2 to others and speculates on what they • Mind reading: A person attributes motives are thinking. Example: “He was intentionally trying to hurt me by not calling last 0 night.” 9 These common tendencies lead to inaccurate 0 conclusions that translate into misguided actions. It is difficult to create an effective action strategy based upon poorly formed or T distorted conclusions. S A common problem in interpreting interpersonal behavior is the fundamental attribution error, which is an assessment of others that attributes behavior to personality traits FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 6   Decision Making 119 and underestimates social context. For example, a group member named John has become quiet and disengaged because he is annoyed by the lack of structure in the group’s meetings. Observing this quiet behavior and noticing a scowl on John’s face, another member might make the fundamental attribution error and conclude that John is angry by nature. From then on, this observer will likely select and interpret data about John based upon that assumption, and thus confirm that bias. Other possible explanations, such as whether or not the meetings were in fact poorly run, Sor whether the individual was under some unrelated pressure for time, may not have been given enough consideration. Once judgments A back and reverse the process. The fundamental have been made, it can be difficult to step attribution error is a frequent information U processing mistake that creates blind spots in perception and misunderstandings in communication. N D Taking Action E When a verbal message is received, nonverbal cues and assumptions are used to interpret and evaluate it. Then, the receiver takesR action or responds to the message. No two people will process information in exactly the same way. In group situations, leaders increase the S summarizing what has been said and agreed level of mutual understanding by regularly upon. Another strategy is to ask group members to reflect upon the content of a discussion. This approach serves the same purpose as the summary but involves the perception of more members of the group instead of S relying solely on the leader’s understanding. Many groups record minutes to document the R details of a discussion; those minutes serve to reduce the ever-present potential for future misunderstandings and the need to rehash old . discussions. Good minutes record not only the decisions themselves, but also the reasons and support for those decisions. , Boardroom scenes in The Apprentice are often quite interesting as Donald Trump asks project leaders and team members to explain their actions. He is basically asking them to G describe their reasoning: What data or information did they use to make sense of the challenge given to them? How did they interpret that data? What conclusions did they draw that A led to the actions they took? This process is known as “moving down” the Ladder of R or group approached a problem or dilemma. Inference and helps explain how a person Once the thinking process is made transparent, individual and group behavior make more R sense. It also identifies where the reasoning may have been inaccurate or short-sighted. For example, in the first challenge of seasonYone, Trump asked the two teams to sell lemonade on the streets of New York. The women’s team focused on the fact that location would be important (select data). In addition, the members chose Midtown Manhattan, where a lot of men would be present who would 2 potentially be attracted to the women selling the lemonade (interpret data). Finally, they 0 set a reasonable price point of $5.00 per glass but included a kiss with the purchase, which they thought would win over customers (draw 9 conclusions). They executed their strategy (take action) and, in the end, beat the men’s team by a margin of 3 to 1. The men, in 0 contrast, chose a poor location and, in desperation, tried to sell glasses of lemonade for $1,000 each. Since this strategy did not have any data T or logic to support it, it was doomed to fail. While some teams capitalize on the collective S decisions. How can such smart and competent wisdom of the group, others make very poor people can make such bad decisions? FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 120 Working in Teams COMMON DECISION-MAKING MISTAKES Groupthink is one of the most common decision-making problems in groups. According to Janus (1982), groupthink is “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of actions” (p. 9). Thus, groupS that have strong norms of cooperation and think often occurs in highly cohesive groups agreement. Decisions are initiated by high-status, influential members who generate A momentum for a certain position. Because it is frowned upon to question the direction of U In addition to highly cohesive groups, teams the group, members are reluctant to speak up. that are under pressure to make quick decisions N can also fall prey to groupthink; a few individuals can promote a certain idea and then pressure others to agree for the sake of D time and expediency. When groups make decisions, it is easy E for them to demonstrate overconfidence R in their conclusions (Kerr & Tindale, S 2004). Without fully considering the depth or complexity of the problems that they are trying to solve, groups can draw S superficial and ill-conceived conclusions. when groups are initially unsure of R Even the decisions they make, they become . more confident over time. After they have a decision and initiated a course of , made events, they can be overly committed to their plan and unwilling to acknowledge G the possibility that they made a mistake. Another common problem in group A decision making is the tendency of groups R to make premature decisions. When faced with a decision, groups often conR sider only a few options before making Y their decision. For example, in a class where students are asked to identify a problem on campus they would like to address during the semester, teams often consider only a handful of options before making a decision. When forced to use a structured brain2 storming process in which each individual takes 10 minutes to create a list of ideas before 0 combining them into a larger list, teams generate 50 to 60 unique ideas instead of a mere 5 or 6. Another problem with premature decision 9 making is that groups rarely have a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues upon which they are deciding. They simply have 0 not had enough time to consider how the issues are embedded in larger organizational and T institutional contexts. Confirmation bias occurs when members S look for information to confirm a decision that, for the most part, has already been made (Nickerson, 1998). Group decisions are often made on an emotional level and only afterward do members look for data or reasoning to FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 6   Decision Making 121 support their decision. This happens more frequently than we might care to admit. When confronted with a decision, group members have an initial reaction or response that leads to a potentially short-sighted decision. After coming to a conclusion, members then look for evidence to justify their positions. This common practice can greatly reduce the overall quality of decisions that are made by a group. A similar problem is when members are reluctant to voice unique information, as seen in the following decision-making mistake. Shared information bias is the tendency S of group members to spend most of their time discussing information that is already known by most members (Baker, 2010; Boos, Schauenburg, Strack, & Belz, 2013). InAother words, it is easier for members to discuss information that most people already agree U upon than it is to bring a new and novel perspective to the discussion. In some cases, members may not feel that what they know is N important and, therefore, are reluctant to contribute. Another possible deterrent to speaking up is the possibility that a member’s D perspective will be challenged by the group. In order to avoid the discomfort of being an outlier, they remain silent. In either situation, E potentially important information is not considered in the decision-making process. Rgroups to make more extreme decisions than any Group polarization is the tendency for individual member of the group would make. S When a certain idea or concept starts to gain momentum in a group discussion, it can take on a life of its own. It can grow to the point that no member would endorse it individually, but collectively, it appears that the group fully supports it. Examples of this dynamic S are abundant in today’s political landscape. During budget talks, Republicans and Democrats become more entrenched in their posiR tions and are unable to arrive at a compromise with one another. When a decision is timesensitive and under pressure, movement. toward the extremes can be difficult to slow down; someone has to be willing to break ranks and suggest that perhaps the group has gone a , bit too fast and too far on any given decision. While groups benefit greatly from such a deviant role, not many individuals are willing to play it. At times, groups make decisions that produce ineffective or adverse results. But even as G mounting evidence confirms a poor decision, groups can experience an escalation of commitment to that course of action (Moser, A Wolff, & Kraft, 2013). Group decisions often require the investment of resources such as time, money, and effort in order to achieve the R desired results. When the results are not forthcoming, groups can be reluctant to “cut their R Instead, they “double down” and decide to losses” and choose another course of action. put more resources into a failing proposition. Gambling in the face of significant losses, Y continued investment in long-term conflicts such as the Vietnam War, and the subprime mortgage crisis that produced the global recession of 2008 are all examples of an escalation of commitment. The next section describes 2 a structured framework that can help groups avoid making bad decisions. 0 9 FUNCTIONAL MODEL OF DECISION MAKING 0 T poor decisions, a functional model of decision In light of the potential for groups to make making allows groups to be more deliberate, S thorough, and systematic in the decisions they make (Forsyth, 2006). Many of the shortcomings of group decision making can be addressed by establishing a system that challenges premature consensus and encourages diverse FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 122 Working in Teams perspectives. Poor decisions can be avoided by implementing a structured decision-making process that includes orientation, discussion, decision rule, and implementation. Orientation When groups are given a problem to solve, there is a strong temptation to start proposing various solutions before appropriately defining S the problem and planning the decisionmaking process. The orientation phase of group decision making begins with a thorough A members are well advised to understand understanding of the problem to be solved. Group the task at hand from multiple perspectivesU before launching into problem-solving mode. Teams can waste a lot of time trying to solve poorly understood problems. Characteristics N of a good solution should be identified and posted in a public place during the orientation process. For example, students who want D to improve the dorm food on campus might need to find a solution that (a) students approve, (b) won’t cost more money for the school, E (c) the administration would be willing to embrace, and (d) the dining staff are capable of R implementing. Those criteria need to be identified before students start brainstorming ideas about the types of food they want to S see in the cafeteria, or a lot of time could be wasted. In addition to thoroughly understanding the problem to be solved, effective groups create a process for making decisions. For example, S they might set aside a specific amount of time to collect data about the problem and then meet to discuss that information. Then, R they might have a session devoted to brainstorming possible solutions and identifying their three best options that address the problem. After more research on those three options, . the team leader might call for a vote. Once a decision is made, the group might spend time creating a detailed implementation strategy.,This type of orientation schedule helps everyone know what is expected and how the group is going to use its time. G Discussion A Discussion allows members to voice theirR perspectives and critically evaluate options. These conversations are a form of critical reflection in which members analyze issues and R weigh the pros and cons of various decisions. Educational reformer and philosopher John Y persistent, and careful consideration of any Dewey described reflective thought as “active, belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (1910, p. 6). In this way, the practice of reflection can 2 and critically evaluate the decisions they help group members monitor their assumptions are considering (Griffith & Frieden, 2000). 0 Reflective discussions identify the facts, formulas, and theories that are relevant for supporting existing positions and for solving9complex and ill-defined problems (King & Kitchener, 1994). The highest level of reflective 0 thinking assumes that knowledge is gained from a variety of sources and is understood in relationship to a specific context. While it T may be impossible to arrive at a perfect understanding of a given issue, judgments based upon conceptual soundness, empirical justification, or personal experience are a good S starting place. Effective groups are receptive to a multitude of options and perspectives, but FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING SYSTEMS STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc. CHAPTER 6   Decision Making 123 are clear about the criteria upon which they base their decisions and actions. The process of reflective discussion accomplishes the following objectives: • To consider multiple perspectives • To identify the assumptions for one’s interpretations • To critique the accuracy of and evidence for one’s conclusions S • To evaluate the effectiveness of one’s A actions U Individuals who are not reflective may not understand how their behavior affects the group. For example, in some groups a small N number of members can dominate discussions. They speak without listening and offer opinions without a deep understanding of what is D being discussed. E Conversely, there are members who overanalyze and cautiously R rehearse their responses before S speaking out, causing them to miss the opportunity to contribute as the discussion moves on without them. S Group members are unlikely to change until they become aware of R their patterns of processing and . participation. For this reason, reflecting on one’s own communi, cation patterns is an important practice. Psychologist Carl Jung, whose G...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: FUNCTIONAL MODEL IN TEAM WORK

Functional Model in teamwork
Name
Institution

1

FUNCTIONAL MODEL IN TEAM WORK

2

Functional Model in teamwork
Teams are always in urgent need to meet the identified objectives for short or long term
expectations, however, with the different expectations and functions comes to the various
pressure groups that can result to failure and inability to achieve the group objectives. According
to Griffith & Dunham, (2014), the majority of research and theory on the existence and dynamics
of teamwork, t...

Similar Content

Related Tags