Why do some groups accomplish little, while others with similar inputs manage a great deal? Discuss with key communication research.
Question 4)
"Why do some groups accomplish little, while others with similar inputs manage a great deal?" Discuss with key communication research.
Introduction
Today's competitive markets have changed the way companies intend to achieve a competitive advantage. The amount of money invested in the talent of individuals is decreasing, whereas it becomes increasingly important to develop high performance teams (Hensey 2001). Effective teamwork means more than just to have a group of talented coworkers; it is more a collaboration for a higher output. Thereby business communication and the ability to cooperate are of great value to reach the company goals as there can be differences in the performance of teams.
The purpose of this essay is to explain how aspects of communication can be decisive for the success of a group and why some groups are effective whereas others not.
Businesses always consist of work groups and they are of great value in many cases because a group can lead to a much higher output than many individuals could. It is sure that such teams aren't high productive from the beginning. It is more a process of interaction which makes them so successful in the end. Groups are often used in companies to reduce the risk of failures (Sheard & Kakabadse 2005, p. 134). The advantage is that more than one person are working on a specific task what means that the chance is minimized to make mistakes. Furthermore it is possible that a group discussion can encourage the members to think about other aspects and thereby create new ideas. Groups benefit of collaboration, interactive discussions and exchange of knowledge because this is the point that increases the performance of a company (Lawford 2003).
But why does the output of work teams vary so much between teams even if they have similar education, budget, manpower and time? The reason is the quality of their work. It's the extent of synergy that makes the difference in the output (Lawford 2003, p.24). Positive synergy means for example that group members know the needs of each others in certain situations without having a chat. Non verbal communication plays a huge rule in such groups and they are all on the same wavelength. These characteristics assure that the team doesn't spent important time in solving misunderstandings caused by words or even body language.
Groups that have positive synergy act flexible and the information exchange happens fluently. This is one point that differs effective groups from poor ones as they need a lot more time because their communication lacks. The result is that parts of the effort that they put in the project are lost in the group development process or in other processes which are not directly related to the group output (Bartol et al. 2006). Moreover teams with positive synergy always meet to discuss problems and tasks and they work on a common product, whereas negative synergy groups tend to work on "individual products" as their part in the group in not related to a collective outcome (Katzenbach & Smith 2005, p.164 )
Positive group synergy is at first a result of an interactive group framework. Group norms build such a general framework which enables the team to guide the behavior of each other. These norms are strongly linked to interpersonal communication skills as they describe how each team member should behave in certain situations.
In meetings for example team members should listen and speak respectfully, not interrupt and be punctual. Moreover other norms describe that all members have the same position in the group and that every opinion has to be discussed with respect (Heathfield 2007).
If the group isn't able to communicate effectively so that the norms aren't considered, the group output will suffer the most as meetings, discussions, problem solving and all other knowledge based exchange will lose value and be less productive. Especially teamwork consists of exchanges and interactive thinking and therefore it is depending on the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In meetings for example team members should listen and speak respectfully, not interrupt and be punctual. Moreover other norms describe that all members have the same position in the group and that every opinion has to be discussed with respect (Heathfield 2007).
If the group isn't able to communicate effectively so that the norms aren't considered, the group output will suffer the most as meetings, discussions, problem solving and all other knowledge based exchange will lose value and be less productive. Especially teamwork consists of exchanges and interactive thinking and therefore it is depending on the member's ability to communicate.
Another very important factor which can improve the group synergy and thereby the performance is group cohesiveness. Pillai & Williams (2003, p. 146) describe group cohesiveness "as the degree to which group members are attracted to and motivated to stay with a group". High cohesive teams work together with pleasure and their social needs are fulfilled as they like to see each other, share emotions and talk about private things. Such teams develop a "we" feeling rather than to see the sum of the individual work as the result of the collaboration (Oxford Brookes University 2007).
It is clear that cohesiveness produces positive synergy because the group members are more likely to share ideas and to discuss problems together what will end in a higher performance for the team.
But only if the cohesiveness goes along with group norms the performance of the whole team will benefit. Only if the group has high performance norms in conjunction with high cohesiveness can a higher performance be accomplished. In theory it is easy to talk about cohesiveness and group norms as important factors for the success but the reality is another point. It takes a long time until groups are able to implement these key factors as this stage of group work requires many interpersonal communications skills.
Team members know about the paralanguage and body language of each other for example and they are active listeners so that a culture of trust develops between them. Furthermore problems are solved in open discussions and decisions are made together. All this ensures that the output of the teamwork is successful. Apart from that it is reasonable that groups with the same amount and quality of workers (in the sense of education and group size) as well as budget can realize different results as cohesion and norms can differ between the groups. Therefore group norms and cohesiveness present one important reason for the different performance of groups.
To understand how a group develops to a high performance team it is useful to analyze the steps of group development. Every group has first to break-through some obstacles before positive synergy can be reached. Teams are developing different and therefore they all have different outputs. Some teams do not need to put time in the solving of problems or misunderstanding whereas others remain on this stage for a longer period.
The view of stages belongs to the theory of Tuckman (Kur 1996, p.27). This four stages model consists of the group-forming, storming, norming and performing phases. The stage model was developed by Tuckman regarding the investigation of therapy groups and according to Kur this model is not complete suitable for the development of work groups. Task and output oriented teams do not just reach all the stages step by step but rather change the direction sometimes.
Kur is describing that a faces model would be a more adequate example to show the development of work teams. This model consists also of the forming, storming, norming and performing "face". Only the informing "face" as the first step is added in this model. According to Kur, groups are wearing different faces during the development process and they "move from one stage or face to another in a nearly random order" (Kur 1996, p.27).
Thereby every change is seen as normal and a chance for the team to grow as it makes the team learning and more experienced.
The first step of the faces model is informing as mentioned above. Here members are learning and thinking about their teamwork and values. It is a kind of organization to find out the most productive way to handle the tasks. In the forming face they collect information about the objective, start to know each other and develop norms. In most cases the group already has some common norms like to attend on time or contribute to the work. In this phase the team is not really sure about the potential of their collaboration. Further in the storming phase the members discuss problems, and try to solve potential dissatisfaction about decisions or ideas. Storming means that there exist disagreement and sometimes this causes problems as members leave the group or are temporary not willing to act jointly. If the storming face is passed successfully the next phase is norming. "Norming groups focus on harmony" (Kur 1996, p. 26) and they feel as a team. Interactive meetings are a result of this face. Every member feels fine as all opinions are considered in the decision process equally. The last phase is performing. This is where the group has absolutely positive synergy and cohesiveness as members act flexible and help each other. The group has a shared decision making process and all team mates support their colleagues.
If we look at this theory and consider that a group project consists of many tasks it is reasonable that a group that has performed some work in the norming or performing face can fall back to storming as they might not agree with other members regarding some new issues. Although this is a "step" back the whole team will benefit of it, if it is solved properly. This means that it is normal to change the faces during teamwork. People learn from the past and therefore such a change of faces or phases means that the team is growing for a better performance. This model shows also that only teams which can pass successful the different faces will be benefited with higher performance.
Groups with communications problems won't be able to reach the norming or performing face and therefore it is clear that they won't manage a great deal.
Communication is a substantial factor for the success of groups. All aspects that have been presented so far in this essay explain the important role of communication regarding the team performance. Groups will undergo several stages of teamwork as it is described by the five faces model or by Tuckman. Each stage will require them to be open for exchange as group work is nothing more than thinking together about aspects or topics. In so far the members of the group will communicate with each other. This means that everybody of them will be a sender and receiver of messages. Groups that work effectively will almost always be able to encode the message they receive properly so that there won't be misunderstandings (Bartol et al. 2006). If people feel that they are misunderstood they might not be willing to participate in further discussion and the group output will suffer only because of communication problems.
This is what happens in less productive groups as these teams do not accomplish to link their knowledge and ideas to a group discussion. The result is that such teams can't take advantage of teamwork and are therefore, compared to effective teams less productive.
But not just the verbal communication must be encoded. Semantics for example are very difficult to encode as it is the meaning of words. Bartol et al. (2006) explain that words are symbols and they do not have the same meaning for every person. It also depends of the constellation of the group. If it is a multicultural team members will have to pay much more attention to communication as non verbal expressions and gestures can be different.
So it requires a lot of knowledge about the person you communicate with to encode this. Similar is the nonverbal communication as it can have a complete different meaning to another person. Eye contact during a meeting can be a gesture of polite listening for some but also a kind of looking through you (Thorne 2005, p. 75).
Body language is also another example for communication. The way team members use their arms or their facial expression can leave a wrong impression if it is misunderstood (Ramsey 2004). The consequence is that your message hasn't been encoded well so that the interaction in the group may be affected in a negative way. All kinds of communication are relevant in teams as all can be misunderstood, what will affect the teamwork. Some teams have positive synergy and the required skills to communicate. Therefore it doesn't exist a barrier for communication and the collaboration and the exchange of ideas in a discussion won't suffer. Such teams accomplish the goals that they have determined or even more.
Finally it is really important to point out that those high cohesive groups that have reached the phase of performing will have complete trust in each other. To a certain extent this is good for the group as it supports the feeling of togetherness and thereby the communication. But if they have too much trust it might be that group members stop to monitor each others in meetings so that the group will lose a lot of productivity that comes from interactive discussions (Morse 2005, p.19). Trust means that group members believe that the job of their colleagues is carried out well and satisfactory. It is right that this is an essential requirement of effective groups but it has to be considered that trust doesn't mean that the work of individuals isn't reviewed by other members. When team members don't know what is actually done by their colleagues it will create confusion in the coordination of further tasks and the team will work less productive (Morse 2005, p.19).
To summarize, it is reasonable that the productivity of a group depends on their ability to work together. Group norms, group cohesiveness and communication have a huge impact on teamwork as it can be a barrier for interactive discussions or a way to take advantage of teamwork. To reach high cohesiveness and positive group synergy all the team members need to have a wide range of personal communication skills to assure that the communication doesn't lack. The more the group members like to work together the more the output will be affected positively. Henry Ford is quoted as saying "Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success." (Harrell 2003, p. 198).
References
Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, Ritson, P & Scott-Ladd, B 2006, ' Management foundations: a pacific rim focus', in COMM 1054 - Managing Communication in Business, eds T Bretag, J Crossman & S Bordia, McGraw-Hill Australia, Sydney, pp. 454-491.
Harrell, KD 2003, The attitude of leadership: Taking the lead and keeping it, John Wiley and Sons, USA.
Heathfield, SM 2007, How to create team norms, About Human Resources, The New York Times Company, viewed 15 May 2007, <http://humanresources.about.com/od/teambuilding/qt/norms.htm>.
Hensey, VM 2001, Collective excellence: building effective teams, ASCE Publications, Reston, USA.
Katzenbach, JR & Smith, DK 2005, The discipline of teams, Harvard Business Review, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 162-171.
Kur, E 1996, ' The faces model of high performing team development', Management Development Review, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 25-35.
Lawforg, GR 2003, 'Beyond success: achieving synergy in teamwork', Journal of Quality & Participation, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 23-27.
Morse, G 2005, ' Trust but verify', Harvard Business Review, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 19-19.
Oxford Brookes University 2007, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, viewed 14 May 2007,
<http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/small-group/sgt1.7.html>.
Pillai, R & Williams, EA 2004, 'Transformational leadership, self efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment and performance', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 144-159.
Ramsey, L 2004, 'They see what you say', Ward's Dealer Business, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 46-46.
Sheard, AG & Kakabadse, AP 2002, 'From loose groups to effective teams', Journal of Management Development, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 133-151.
Thorne, P 2005, 'The secret codes of the silent language', European Business Forum, vol. 20, pp. 74-76.
