As simple as the concept of Communication would seem, it is anything but. There are many aspects involved in the act of communication, some obvious and others as subtle as a spring breeze. So if the art of personal communication involves complex conscious and unconscious “messages”, the intricacies of Communication in Organizations are many and sometimes complicated. In recent years, however, a new form of problem resolution and thus communication has developed in organizations – the concept of individuals working in groups. I find that this innovation is a terribly interesting and successful concept that is revolutionizing the way in which businesses are conducting their affairs. When implemented properly, I believe that a company’s overall success will flourish by the work produced in these group or team efforts. One of the key elements to a group’s success is what methods it uses for decision-making and problem-solving, and so I should like to explore these different approaches as well.
The study of communication has seen many, many differing theories and approaches brought forth. For example, there have been numerous perspectives as to how communication relates to organizations and the workplace. The Scientific Management school of thought, the Human Behavior approach and the Integrated Perspective are three of the very different concepts of how communication shapes institutions and/or how the institutions’ structure creates communication.
These theories’ divergence is akin to, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Henri Fayol (1841-1925), founder of the Center for Administrative Studies, for instance, believed strongly in a strong chain of command to rigidly control the transmission, and especially, the path of messages. Therefore, in this Scientific Management view of organizational communication, there was a distinct hierarchy, which needed to be closely adhered to; messages moved in a very precise line from top to bottom, with occasional upward-moving ones along this scalar chain. Power came from above and those below had very clear and delineated roles to play as workers in the association.
The Human Behavior approach believed that the overall attitude and input of the employees were crucial for the healthy existence of an organization. Rensis Likert (1903-1981), for example, put forth his theory of participative management, which placed members in small functioning groups linked together and overlapping throughout the organization. This “linking pin” concept created strong, cohesive and healthy bonds throughout. Likert contended that “the supportive atmosphere of the effective group promoted creativity, motivated people … and exerted more influence on leadership than in other types of systems” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 76). Likert was ahead of his time, presenting the idea for what would later develop into the concepts for Self-Managing Teams and Team-Based Organizations, which will be discussed shortly.
These early theories were understandably a bit simplistic in their view of organizational life. A new form of business structure has presented itself, and I believe it to be very intriguing and viable – the forming of teams and groups within an organization. Replacing the linear hierarchal constructs of the early- and mid-twentieth century, the creation of small, often goal-oriented groupings of individuals were formed. The nature and purpose of the groups varied, but the concept was rather straightforward; create a body of creative input that would produce a result that exceeded the sum of its individual members. In Thinking Through Communication (2008), Sarah Trenholm states that “groups provide more input than do individuals” and speaks of “group synergy…the idea that groups are often more effective than the best individuals within them” (p. 180).
Though there are different types of groups (e.g. long-standing teams, project teams and quality teams to name a few), the intention is to form a nearly self-regulating unit whose intention is to solve either a general situation or a specific issue within the organization, while upholding the organization’s best interests. As Ms. Shockley-Zalabak puts it, “Groups also contribute to establishing the shared realities of the organization” (2009, p. 186). Rather than having the traditional scalar chain of management above and supervising several individuals working on their own separate projects, we have an abundance of idea sources with, hopefully, a strong collective identity striving for the betterment of the larger group as a whole. A communication network that shares information and ideas becomes a powerful entity indeed.
This is quite a departure from the way business in America has functioned for decades. Rather than a manager supervising and responsible for individuals each working at their own separate task, a group consists of those individuals all working together as a team, in a cooperative, collaborative fashion to reach important goals within the organization. Instead of separate beings working in a somewhat isolated niche on their own separate functions and tasks, we have a conglomerate of team members working, ideally, in a cohesive, collective fashion to reach the team’s goals.
Many of us will find ourselves working in our primary work team. This may be one in which we are relegated to doing a limited number of specific tasks with little collaboration with others. The more tasks, and cooperative ones at that we are given, will require us to share ideas and try to solve problems with others in our team more and more. This is where good communication competence is vital. One must be able to have the skills to work and communicate closely with others in a collaborative environment. Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto (1989) declared that three components were crucial for successful teamwork: “(1) the possession of essential skills and abilities, (2) a strong desire to contribute, and (3) the capability of collaborating effectively.” They emphasized the need for collaborating successfully with others and “the importance of selecting team members capable of working well with others.”
Working within a group requires a considerable amount of socialization within it. The creation of a group from inception can be a very delicate process of getting to know each member and finding one’s own place within the group. Richard Moreland and John Levine (1982) see group socialization as a kind of contest of domination or sublimation between the individual and the group. Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) Five-Stage Model posits that a newborn group goes through a distinct period of each of the following: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. These stages consist of the individuals feeling each other out in a getting-to-know-you atmosphere; becoming more comfortable with the situation and jockeying for different roles; finding workable techniques for reaching their goals; reaching satisfactory conclusions; and dispersing once the objective has been reached.
In their paper, Functional Roles of Group Members in the Journal of Social Issues (1948), Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats define the different roles one might adopt in a group dynamic, both as Task Roles and Maintenance Roles. Task roles are assumed to further the group’s goals, while maintenance roles are more as a social support for the group.
Knowing where one fits into the group by the role one has adopted helps ensure an accurate self-perception which is important in all communication scenarios. The key element, however, is, again, having the ability to work with others, and so recognizing which cog in the machine you are, is vital to your and the group’s success.
Once formed and up and running, the group must learn how to make (the best possible) decisions, and how to solve problems, whether they are problems within the group, or problems regarding the potential solution to the group’s current focus. As mentioned, knowing what role one fills in the group affects how one personally fits into the scheme of things regarding these issues. If one is, for instance, what Benne and Sheats refer to as an Information Giver, one must come to the group meetings prepared to contribute salient information regarding the issue(s) at hand so the rest of the group can process the input for problem resolution.
As to the process of solving a certain problem or circumstance, some traditional techniques include forming an agenda, brainstorming, the Delphi Technique and nominal group technique. In each of these, there has to exist a cohesive identity within the group and an eventual concurrence of approach. The Standard Agenda, for instance, was presented by philosopher John Dewey in 1910, and called for a six-step approach: (1) problem identification, (2) problem analysis, (3) criteria selection, (4) solution generation, (5) solution evaluation and selection and (6) solution implementation. The group members attempt to identify the problem as specifically as possible; recognize the factors contributing to the problem; select specific ranges of change; produce multiple, potential solutions; analyze and choose a single solution; and, finally, put the solution to work.
In Brainstorming, the members simply free associate and “throw into the hat” as many ideas as possible, as impractical or nonsensical they may seem. No evaluation occurs at this point. Later these ideas are examined, possibly elaborated upon, and then the most promising are discussed and voted upon.
The Nominal Group Technique is a variation on brainstorming. The individual members work upon the problem on their own, and then present solutions while expounding upon them at the group’s next meeting. The best ideas are voted upon, and then discussion begins among the group to select the ultimate solution.
The Delphi Technique removes the face-to-face aspect of decision-making and problem resolution. The most important element of this procedure is the leader who in this process is known as the charging authority. The charging authority, or charge agent, selects the members from whom he will solicit ideas and input for a particular subject. The responses are submitted in written form, and so the individual members never interact. There is feedback provided by the charge agent after all input has been received. The thinking behind this process is to eliminate stronger personalities from potentially steam rolling the other members, creating a very one-sided concept; all the members, who are anonymous to one another, can feel free to express their opinions without fear of criticism or attack. The Delphi Technique, however, has been criticized as often being used in a different fashion, manipulating the outcome by the charge agent. Lynn Suter (1996) has gone so far as to say, “…the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps.” I personally feel that this technique can be valuable in certain circumstances but in general, I do not think it ideal as it keeps human interaction out of the picture.
It cannot be overstated that the key to the success of these teams and/or groups is the dedication of trustworthy individuals to work selflessly and cooperatively. The ultimate group that relies on these qualities is the self-managing team, mentioned earlier. “Self-Directed (or Self-Managing) Teams are teams that have been structured to manage and coordinate their own activities and make many of the day-to-day decisions that would have traditionally been made by a supervisor or manager. They usually have responsibility for a complete piece of work (such as engine assembly) and they work quite closely and interdependently” (Buzzle.com). Members of these teams must be unbelievably proficient at working successfully with others to solve problems and make important decisions.
Another emerging entity is the team-based organization, which is comprised almost entirely of teams and groups working independently and self-managing. The structure of this kind of establishment is referred to as “flat”, implying that it lacks the vertical structure of the older, traditional, linear hierarchy.
As I had stated, team and group processes are becoming the norm in the business/ organizational world. “In fact, as early as 1991, the U. S. Department of Labor identified teamwork as an essential skill…” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 197). As a job-seeker entering into an unfamiliar job market, I am aware that I must now develop tangible organizational skills in general; but more specifically those I shall need to work in group and team environments. Having had virtually no prior experience in these venues, I must begin by evaluating what capabilities, if any, I have that will allow me to succeed there. Unfortunately, my personal inclinations and preferences are to work solo. I am by nature a nonsocial individual, so I shall have to overcome my tendencies and learn to work in a cooperative and collaborative environment.
What minor exposure I have had to operating in a group has shown me where I believe I fit regarding Benne and Sheats’ task and maintenance roles. I would have to say that my typical task role is both “Opinion Giver” and “Evaluator-Critic”; I feel better suited for seeing what does and does not work, and offering input accordingly. My maintenance, or social support role, is probably the “Standard Setter”; I focus on not allowing the group to settle for mediocre output.
I have tried to make sense of this animal, the group in the organizational workplace. I believe I have shown its value, and its special requirements. A group member must be a competent communicator, as well as a well-socialized being; and must have strong abilities for working successfully with his team members to achieve the collective goal. I hope to become one of these individuals; but I am realistic in seeing that I have work to do to attain an adequate level of performance as a member of a hard-working, productive group. I believe I am up to the challenge, and shall immediately begin my hunt for these all-important skills for successful collaboration.
Groups – this is indeed a very exciting and viable concept; individuals working in a self-contained environment that promotes autonomy, responsibility and productivity. This “flat” model, I believe, is so superior to the conventional vertical constructs that I am truly anxious to be an integral part of one soon and see the actual workings from within. A body that works together in a well-choreographed fashion with strong ideals and strong goals is an exceptional organism that is bound to produce exceptional results.
References
Benne, Kenneth & Sheats, Paul (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.
Jay, C. (Published 1/25/05) Business management: Self-managing & directed teams.
Retrieved 1/12/10 from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-21-2005-64580.asp
Larson, C. E. and LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Team work: what must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shockley-Zalabak, P.S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson.
Suter, Lynn (1996). The Delphi Technique: What is that new process being used at public forums to reach consensus? Retrieved 1/11/10 from www.learn-usa.com/trans-formation_process/acf001.htm
Trenholm, Sarah (2008). Thinking through communication: an introduction to the study of human communication. Boston: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment