The Importance of Simple Communication in Group Development

Group interaction and discussion has an important function in socializing and creating networks of people. When interaction is present groups begin to form around important core shared beliefs and values. Sometimes these groups are formed with a very specific purpose like product development or they are more general directed such as political parties. All groups follow similar patterns as all first start with a discussion.

Society is a group that develops off of the conversations that people partake. Whether you are discussing a group of friends, workplace or a nation, at the very core of its identity are the shared ideas and beliefs among its people. Groups that discuss and communicate begin to create agreement around shared values that form their identity. Separated groups form their own identity.

One of the first things we should understand about group discussions is that not everything that is said has value for education or research. Most information discussed is shared information while very little is unique (Reimer, et. al., 2010). People seem to engage more in social necessities than actual meaningful discussion. 

This could infer that informal groups are more for social purposes than product groups. The same could be said even for voluntary groups around hobbies and other life events. Most people repeat shared information because it helps solidify the group. It is a way of interrelating with one another and finding a place.

Group discussion is not passive enough though much of the information passed among group members is social by nature it has the goal of understanding each other and finding an order among events. It becomes a process socialization that offers familiarity of thought and concerted action.

When people are together longer than a short period of time they will move through stages until new rules are adopted. Usually there is also someone(s) that come to lead that group through the quality of their discussion and charisma. Once rules and norms are developed the group becomes goal directed in its behavior and more functional than informal groups.

When they develop a shared understanding, find a leader and have direction the maintenance of such groups becomes easier. Each member already knows the value systems, can express their needs in the group, and can receive support from the group. Steering group beliefs through influencing the conversation during the storming stage leads its lasting impact on its identity.

.

Reimer, T., Reimer, A. & Czienskowski, U. (2010). Decision-making a groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: a meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77 (1).

The Cost of Embedded Group Networks within the Workplace

Workplace groups create their own values over time through social and economic associations that can damage the efficiency and financial viability of any organization. When organizations develop their own group standards, that lay in productive and accurate perceptions, their premises can encourage higher levels of organizational performance. Inappropriately socialized members often develop their own groups which influence the organizational culture and costs of transactions throughout their networks.  Left untouched the groups’ decisions become less logical and more damaging to the financial success of the total organization. It is important for executives to understand how they groups form and the potential wide reaching problems they can create.

It is first beneficial to define what a group is. Groups perceive themselves as belonging to the same social unit (Lawler, Thye, and Yoon 2008). Their place in society is defined by their shared experiences and understandings. To change a group member’s identity and perceived station in life requires the ability to change both self-perception and the members of their social group. This is one of the reasons why a poor organizational culture can be improved by moving employees to new locations and bringing in fresh members with outside perceptions.

When members see themselves as part of a group they begin to view each other as having similar characteristics and traits that bind them together. The group is a method of moderating self-interest and seeking positive perceptions of each other (Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, 1997). Once initiated into a group, the members begin to view each other as more worthwhile and having more positive traits than those who exist outside the group.  Within an organization, in and out-group mentality can create encampment, hoarding of resources, and influence the financial success of the entire organization through poor decision making.

This can be expected as groups seek to create advantages for their individual members at the exclusion of competing organizational interests. They do this through the formation of a group network that continues to expand throughout the organization. According to Thye, Lawler and Yoon actors a) perceive the network as a group;  and , b) share rewards and resources with each other when opportunities arise (2011).  Such networks will continue to seek additional rewards and resources even at the expense of their employer and society.

Within the group certain behaviors will produce certain reactions and results from participating members. As long as these behaviors continue to produce the expected results the group members will remain entrusted to each other. The actions that become dependent on the response from other members are called social exchanges (Blau 1964). Groups live and breed these social exchanges and common rules of engagement. Outside intervention by managers and investors can be resented creating difficulty and passive resistance to requested changes.

Since such groups have social, as well as economic purposes, they create higher forms of identity the more these needs are gratified. Such relational commitment further solidifies the identity of group members which separates them from other groups (Cook and Emerson, 1984). Each group has their own relational commitment assumptions that help them define their distinct identities and existence. Outsiders may have difficulty understanding the unique set of underlining assumptions the group is using to define their identity and social interaction.

Over time the group becomes so distinct that their identity creates new realities of perceiving the world. According to social constructionists the group eventually uses their assumptions to create “objective” perceptions of the world (Berger and Luckmann 1966).  The person is thus fully embedded in the group and therefore sees their existence from the vantage point of the group assumptions and uses these assumptions to judge others and make strategic decisions. Any management team, new executive, or consulting firm is seen as an outsider attempting to intrude upon the groups identity which damages self-identity. This is one reason why outside intervention is often staunchly opposed.

Such similarity in subjective truth can define “stickiness” in economic decisions that are weighted and judged against societal norms. Independent objective thought becomes more difficult the more people define themselves based upon their distorted group identity. Such relational identities impact both the sociological and economic transactions of the members (Emerson 1981). Having two different economic approaches within an organization can damage that organizational viability through waste and inefficiency that is rooted in inappropriate premises.

At times the group identity can be so far removed from organizational and societal norms that they run counter to these wider expectations. Socially embedded market transactions can defy rational thought and logic (DiMaggio and Louch 1998). Such logic creates their own market influence based upon information sharing and thought patterns of members who interpret environment actions from a skewed lens. Changing the group identity and thought patterns requires exposing them to new people, methods of needs attainment, and ways of thinking.

Group identity can either encourage productive behavior or be destructive by nature. In organizations group identity that is stronger than organizational norms should concern both executives and investors. Such networks continue to expand their influence and waste of organizational resources by financially and socially feeding group members at the expense of more logical choices. It is through the development of strong cultural assumptions and organizational identity that more effective uses of organizational resources can be achieved.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New

York: Doubleday.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.

DiMaggio, P. and Louch, H. (1998). Socially Embedded Consumer Transactions:

For What Kinds of Purchases Do People Most Often Use Networks? American Sociological Review 63:619–37.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking Together or Falling Apart: In-group Identification as a Psychological Determinant of Group Commitment versus Individual Mobility.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:617–26.

Emerson, R. (1981). Social Exchange Theory. pp. 30–65 in Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, edited by M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner. New

York: Basic Books, Inc.

Cook, K. and Emerson, R. (1978) Power, Equity, and Commitment in Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review 43:721–39.

Lawler, E., Thye, S, & Yoon, J. (2008). Social Exchange and Micro Social Order. American

Sociological Review 73:519–42.

Thye, S., Lawler, E. & Yoon, J. (2011). The emergence of embedded relations and group formation in networks of competition. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74 (4).

Leadership Communication Abilities Leads to Trust and Performance

Communication between employee and employers can have a compelling impact on the nature of business and the overall success of employee trust. Through these positive relationships between managers and employees higher levels of shared interest and commitment to organizational principles can be formed. The development of such benefits rests in how managers communicate their expectations and the openness of the employee to hearing those messages.

Managerial communication can take the form of downward, horizontal, or upward momentum through both formal and informal communication methods (Bell and Martin, 2008). The openness to share ideas, needs, and values allows for a stronger depth of mutual experiences. It is through these relationships and shared experiences that organizations can develop higher levels of positive affectivity toward the business imperatives.

Such concepts are set in the underlining premises of the employee and management group understandings.  Communication is the lifeblood of employee and organizational performance. According to Katz and Kahn (1966) it is communication that is fundamental to the forming of any group, organization, or society. A group is based upon the trust of shared understandings that define collective action and its benefits to the organization.

Before effective communication can be developed it should be understood that the authority to communicate does not necessarily rely in the person doing the talking. According to Barnard (1968) the authority of the communication doesn’t lay in with the person of authority but with the person who is being addressed.  People make the fundamental choice to give or take the authority away from their manager (Drucker, 1974). Testy labor issues are often a result of internal noise that blocks alternative and positive messages of managers.

It is the personal management style of the person in authority that can help limit the distracting aspects of this internal noise and variance of perspective. The success or failure of transferring attitudes and values is a byproduct of the leadership style that seeks the ability to foster the change (Appelbaum, Berke, Taylor & Vazquez, 2008). Such leaders are seen as positive, humanistic, empathetic, and have a wider range of concern beyond oneself. It is through this genuine positive approach that employee begin to see the managers issues, concerns, and messages as worth listening to, interpreting, and implementing.

The advantages of creating trust through positive communication approaches cannot be underestimated. The loyalty that can be fostered through open communication has been known to increase productivity across an organization by 11% (Mayfield, 2002). This financial incentive should prompt organizational leaders to consider the positive benefits of training their management team in developing positive relationships that further strengthen underlining premises of positive group behavior that leads to higher overall performance.

Appelbaum, S., Berke, J., Taylor, J., & Vazquez, A. (2008). The role of leadership during large scale organizational transitions: Lessons from six empirical studies. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13(1), 16-24.

Barnard, C. (1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Bell, R. & Martin, J. (2008). The promise of managerial communication as a field of research. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 5(2), 125-142.

Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities and practices. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2002). Leader Communication Strategies Critical Paths to Improving Employee Commitment. American Business Review, 20(2), 89-93.