Small Group and Team Communication - Essay Example

Small Group and Team Communication Number Part I The group I observed was a council of elders of one of the Christian churches around school. The church is new and most of the church members happen to be students, so most of the members of the group are fellow students. This group is composed of the church pastor (assigned from the church headquarters) who acts as the chairman of the group, the church patron who is the treasurer of the group, a student elected as first elder (who serves as the vice-chairman), and other ranks such as secretary, assistant secretary, vice-treasurer and other members predominantly students and a few local folks. There are 6 executive officials and a total of 42 other members who make up the council. Since most of these members are students, a majority of their meetings are conducted in school for convenience purposes. The council basically takes charge of the affairs and management of the church. It oversees things such as venue maintenance, availability and state of chairs, church equipment availability and maintenance, planning and development, church programs and sermons, inviting preachers and churches, overseeing the church services, and so on. They meet at least once a week to discuss matters arising and the issues of the weekly sermons. This is always done on Wednesday evenings so that ample time is allowed for the swift implementation of discussed issues from the conclusion of the meeting to the weekend. But once in awhile especially when there is a lot that needs attention, the group can convene even twice a week (as was the case during my observation week when the members were expecting well-wishers who were arriving over the weekend for development donations. During my observations, I noticed that it is the vice-chairman who presides over the deliberations (but if he is late or absent, the secretary performs this role) after a brief prayer from the pastor (chairman). The chairman then takes a more reserved role, basically overseeing the smooth and timely implementation of agenda. The secretary takes the minutes of the meeting, and is assisted by her vice. The treasurer keeps record of the church’s finances and the use of funds, constantly updating members on the same on weekly basis. He has an assistant too, who helps in the role. These officials are elected yearly by the church members but it is the duty of the 42 to monitor and ensure that they are exercising their mandate with utmost honesty and diligence on behest of the church. The 42, also elected by the church, in addition contribute to debates. Other church members who are willing are often allowed to attend the group’s meetings to offer their views on pertinent issues. One of my close friends happens to be a member of this council and it thus was an easy pick for my project. My choice was also driven by the fact that this group was going to allow me into their midst without any questions and so I would be studying an unalarmed group in their pure selves unlike most other groups where permission is required which leads to wrong data collection as many would alter their behavior if they became aware that they are being observed. True to my assessment, I blended in seamlessly. I studied the group on three separate occasions – Wednesday and Friday evening meetings (each for 5 hours, between 4-9pm at a lecture hall) and on Saturday during the sermon for at least another 6 hours (from 8am to around 2pm) as they conducted the affairs of the day in church. Part II The group is very flexible and diverse on the methods they use to communicate. Depending on who is presiding over the meeting, different approaches are used. The conversations are characterized by order at all points of the interactions. The communication has a structure. A given topic is discussed and exhausted in all fullness during a meeting. The participants too are always careful to indicate if the points they are trying to pass across do not necessarily fall under the current topic of deliberations using phrases such as ‘by the way’. I noticed this on the Wednesday and Friday evening meetings that I attended. A case involves a participant’s contribution on the Friday meeting concerning the preparations for the next day’s visitors from another church. Participant says, ‘I believe it is important to have a wider variety of dishes than the ones currently proposed as different people have different preferences. We cannot assume that all our visitors consume beef. And by the way, I was pleased with the way our leaders went about the issue of securing a venue in time.’ However, the norm is for the discussions to focus on one subject before moving on to the next (Drew, 2006). Contributions to interactions are context-based and context-renewing. Conversations occur in an autonomous context. Although the meeting agenda is often set out before the meeting, the discussions are always flexible to allow deliberations on any arising issue that may not have initially been on the list of issues to be discussed. However, the initial points earlier ear-marked for deliberations have to be completed before the meeting elapses. Another participant who was picked to air views on a matter noted, ‘…I am fully satisfied with the chosen course of action therefore. But I’m a bit concerned about the unmentioned issue regarding the cleanliness of the chairs in the church during fellowship and whether we should have a designated group specifically for that purpose especially before service commences in the stead of volunteers’ (Have, 2007). There is a general order in the way the group conducts its deliberations. After the secretary has read out the agenda of the meeting to the members, members are then invited to contribute on the issues. The process is done in a myriad of ways but regardless of which avenue is pursued, there is an overall sense of civility, patience, self-control and tolerance. During my observations, I noticed three different ways the group uses to successfully solicit ideas from its members. One, the vice-chairman, who presides over the meeting, chooses a member whose hand is raised to provide their ideas on the matter at hand. At other times, I noticed that members would, on their own volition, rise up and speak on the topic if they had something to say. But this was done without arrogance or rude interruptions on the current speaker. In another instance, especially when there are plenty of contributions, there is a list of members which is called out so that members each air their views one by one in order to avoid repeating themselves (saves time) and also so that all members are heard in order that there are no murmurings in the end when deliberations are concluded (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). In addition, the group members frequently use non-verbal communications in attempts to clarify their views and avoid any confusion thereto. There are also times when contributor is making a point and the members who are in support of their views nod in approval as the speaker continues to delve further into the issue. There are very little verbal interruptions as a result as mostly non-verbal cues are used to tell if listeners are satisfied with the contribution. And even so, the listeners do so cautiously especially when they appear to be in disagreement so that the speaker does not feel intimidated in the course of their speech (Markee, 2000). Part III I’m especially impressed by the group member’s resolve to be tolerant to a number of at times even conflicting ideas, the speed with which a contributor moves to clarify a point that could irk others using phrases such as ‘what I mean is’ or ‘kindly allow me to explain further…’ and the group’s ability to involve each and every member in constructive deliberations. To further emphasize on the group’s ultimate desire to involve everyone in the talks, I notice a particular incident where an absentee member deemed to be well versed on the current topic was actually called in the course of the meeting to offer advice on the particular issue. He did so on speaker phone (additionally highlighting the level of honesty and openness practiced by the members) as the other members joined in to deliberate and constructively argue with the member on phone. The group does not allow physical absence to hurt the quality of their discussions or to prevent one form making contributions. They have designed a plan that effectively uses technology to their advantage and surprisingly, they set aside funds towards such calls and conveniences. Also, the group allows outsiders, like me, to offer views on subjects if they should so desire. To them, every person, member or not, can offer critical and irreplaceable contribution. Knowing that they are often frequented with visitors and other church members, the group, before commencing deliberations, always inquires from the audiences if there is anyone in their midst who doesn’t speak English (which is the group’s default language of communication). They do this to avoid the trouble of language barrier (Fisher, 1980) so that every attendee is kept in the know. On further inquisition about this arrangement, I was made to understand that the group has members who can fluently speak French, Spanish, German, Chinese and other languages, who can occasionally serve as interpreters. Otherwise, since interpretations during speech are time consuming, if all present are comfortable with English, the group uses no interpreters. There are also members who can do sign language for the deaf. In almost all deliberations in any part of the world, there is always that member who is disgruntled – this group is no exception. But during the course of my observation, I noticed that however much a participant may be out of base or may lose their nerve, it is the duty of the rest of the members to continue to hear the member out and exercise tolerance as issues/ stands are clarified. In this way, the disgruntled member is made to feel like their view is appreciated. And in truth, all the views are always solemnly discussed – whether or not they are delivered unpalatably. In as much as the group’s leadership tries to instill an ethos of self-restraint, clam and understanding during deliberations, the members still exercise awful patience with such members who deviate from the norms of the discussions. A particular example that comes to mind is when a member arose and vehemently complained against the leaders’ tendency of summoning ‘too many and unnecessary meetings while we should be studying for our exams’ – honest and wise concerns, but the group managed to convince the fellow of the importance of the flurry of meetings judging from the magnitude of the approaching weekend activities (they had to be well prepared as the leading church organ, which called for sacrifice). The group always tries to understand how passionate a speaker feels about what they are communicating (Goldberg & Larson, 1975). In addition, as earlier indicated, the group does its best to listen to every member’s opinion on a subject matter. The group also takes certain measures if need be to ensure all members contribute their opinions. For one, members are often provided with leaflets to note down their views and complaints, and this goes a long way in advancing this exchange of information more so for the shy members and those who prefer not to appear very vocal in certain matters especially which can elicit controversy. The group leaders also offer their mobile numbers and email addresses to facilitate constant flow of communication between themselves and the members – meetings or not. The leadership has hence done a lot to discourage constant top-down, one way communication while encouraging multi-way conversation across the group (Goldberg & Larson, 1975). The members also mastered the use of non-verbal communication splendidly. They employ this form of communication with such ease and verve that it bodes in beautifully with what they are saying. This helps in making the discussions quite lively and less monotonous – sparking in its wake a desire in members to make meaningful contributions. Part IV In as much as I can rate the group as above average in terms of good communication, there are certain aspects of their communication that I feel the group as a whole and members individually ought to improve in order to make their processes even more fruitful in coming times. The group is basically composed of students from all academic disciplines – there are those who study linguistics, others are into science, others history and so on, as is normal in all institutions of higher learning. I noticed the tendency of students to use technical terms from their classes during deliberations that made the rest of the members rather uncomfortable. This was more common in the students that study English who for some reasons opt for jargon terms instead of familiar and common words to share information. This was, according to me, both wasteful in terms of time as members constantly wanted further clarification (there is the added risk of such behavior causing deviations from discussion topic) and to some extent crass and prideful. There was a young man in particular who was reveling in the attention he was getting as a result of his diverse vocabulary. Members should instead focus on providing information in clear, concise and comprehensive manners then take back their seats to allow for swift discussions and conclusion of affairs (Harris & Sherblom, 2005). Secondly, though it’s important that members are tolerant and lenient towards one another, I believe that more stringent measures should be put in place to ensure that members do not wander away from an active topic into another. However important and pressing the intruding topic may be, it is paramount that the group adopt a more systematic means of conducting their deliberations – one issue at a time. This will also help them fully exhaust an issue without any distractions and thus arrive at solid conclusions (Hirokawa & Poole, 1986). For instance, I thought that interrupting the issue of ‘venue allocation’ with ‘demand for reasons for a flurry of meetings’ was counter-productive and inconsistent. Members also need to learn to speak up so that they are heard by everyone in the room. The group is a fairly large on and the meetings can consequently occupy up to half of the hall. It was therefore a bit difficult straining to pick up words from a soft spoken female on the other end of the congregation, for example. And I had to contend with a lot of such instances with members occasionally murmuring in displeasure amongst themselves and suggesting that the contributor speaks up. Unfortunately too, most of these ideas were lost as they were carefully shrugged aside to save on time. I also noticed that the leaders’ communication with the members to some extent was passive and many members missed important appointments with the group hence. For example, miscommunication occurred when the group leader announced a scheduled meeting for the group for the previous Tuesday during a church service. This did not go down well as some members were absent from church that day and so on the material day most of the members were absent. The meeting had to be called off till the next day which is the official meeting. The leadership wrongly assumed that every member was in church to listen to the announcement and naively failed to take any further steps to repeat the information in other forums or through other means such as through telephones as they had the members’ contacts. A hasty mind would dismiss this kind of leadership as reckless and below par, and quite frankly, who would blame them? Part V Part IV of my analysis of some of the group’s weak links during their communications also highlights briefly what I believe the groups should do to minimize such flaws. For instance, the problem of the use of technical terms during deliberations has been dealt with and an appropriate solution proposed. It is more of an individual effort and resolve to ensure that what they what they are saying is clear and in simple verbiage. This is also correlated with one’s personal character, I suppose, whether one has irretrievably trained themselves into flaunting their language mastery. The second important issue arising during deliberations involving unrestrained tinkering from one topic to another at a member’s own discretion has also been discussed in part IV and a solid measure to tame this proposed too. It is now for the leadership of the group to train its members on these things. On the issue of contributor not being loud enough to be heard throughout the room, considering the fact that the group allows non-members to attend their meetings and also the large size of the group itself, I believe the group has to go a notch higher in their operations and acquire a public address system with microphones that can go around as members contribute on matters. This will not only help with the problem of low toned speech but will also further diminish the possibility of a member interrupting another while speaking. It is in my view much easier to disrupt a contributor mid-sentence if they lack a microphone than if they have one. The members can simply come up with a small fundraiser to purchase this item or solicit for funds from friends, well-wishers, school administration, and patrons and so on. As for the matter regarding communication on group activities such as meetings, the leadership would do well to utilize the contacts of the members (I am made to understand every official has the phone and email contacts of all members) to communicate such either via a simple text message, phone call (if possible) or email. This will go a long way in solving the problem of other members feeling kept out of the loop as they will be getting personalized updates. Otherwise, announcing a group meeting during an open event such as a church sermon without further augmentation is quite unwise. Such prompts updates will serve to improve the quality of future meetings in a plethora of ways. The group currently allows members to air their views without any particular time limit. It my view that the group introduces a system where members who rise to speak are allowed a specific duration of time to air opinion as some contributors take too long while circling repeatedly on the same issue. This wastes the group’s valuable time and spends the members, greatly diminishing the vibrancy and freshness of meetings. Also, the audience ought to improve on the amount of attention they accord the speaker. I notice instances during a discussion where members would be conducting parallel deliberations amongst themselves. This is counter-productive and the audience should pay maximum attention to whoever is speaking, listen actively, maintain eye contact, avoid finishing other people’s sentences and talking over people (wait for own chance to make contributions). Members should always act present, close their laptops, put their ipads down and refrain from answering phone calls. Otherwise they send a message that they do not care. References Drew, P. (2006). Conversation analysis. London: Sage. Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making: communication and the group process (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Goldberg, A. A., & Larson, C. E. (1975). Group communication: discussion processes and applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Harris, T. E., & Sherblom, J. (2005). Small group and team communication (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Hartley, P. (1997). Group communication. London: Routledge. Have, P. T. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Hirokawa, R. Y., & Poole, M. S. (1986). Communication and group decision-making. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Read More