How Culture and Personality within Groups Impacts Communication in the Group - Case Study Example

Experiential Analysis - A reflective Structured Essay Name: Institution: Instructor: Course Code: Experiential Analysis - a reflective Structured Essay Introduction Understanding how various factors impact the dynamics within a group and how it impacts communication is critical in understanding how effective a group is. This paper presents an analysis of my study group specifically focusing at how culture and personality impacts how communication occurs within the group, and analysing how individuals within the group might contribute in improving communication. Background information on the context The study group to be analysed is one of the my most interesting study groups not only because the members in the group were chosen randomly and are culturally diverse, but also because the group interactions within this team and the outcome of the team’s work comprises half of the grade scores that the members in each group will be awarded. Participation is imperative in this group. The key objective of the study group is to complete various assigned tasks successfully through deep analysis reflection and provision of different perspectives on certain issues. Discussion, reflection, and debate on different perspectives are key features used in the study group to share information, ideas and opinions. The key cohesive forces that make the group attractive and remain intact are not only the people in the people in the group and their personality that give it a unique experience, but also because of the expectations of beneficial impacts that will be attained from the group, and the various tasks that the group has to perform together. Indeed Hopkins and Hopkins (2002) shows that group cohesion is imperative for a group to remain together and for meaningful benefits to be derived from group activities. The study group is made up of five members, three gentlemen and two ladies with the arrangement during meetings being more flexible and based on the round table ideology where all members have equal opportunity to converse with all others on an equal basis. While initially, the interaction patterns within the group was more of taking turns to express points, overtime it has grown to be a free floating pattern of interaction with members contributing as they will concerning a particular issue if they feel they have some thing meaningful to add. The initial pattern played a critical role in transition to a point where members were free to express opinions regarding a certain issues. The pseudonyms for the group members are John, Amaroo, Liam, Jean and I. John, who is Caucasian, is the team leader and mainly ensures that the team stays focused on what is to be attained and encourages participation of all members. He is articulative, easy going and even humorous at times. Jean is a Caucasian foreign student from the US. She is chatty, competitive and tends to dominate conversations. She also tends to drift topics to other more social issues out of the group discussion scope. Amaroo is the quite one in the group, and tends to express himself and views in short and to the point sentences. He is Aboriginal. Liam is Asian and the joker in the group. He is easy going and makes funny unexpected statements when the group is in a tense mood during conflicts of opinion. His contributions to the group are often from a joking and not too serious point of view yet brings fresh insight. I’m Caucasian and I tend to analyse small details of an issue and linger of details. Analysis In this analysis, culture factor which impacts communication in the group was chosen due to the very nature of the group which is deemed as culturally diverse due to the different cultural perspectives that the different members from different ethnicities, race and regions bring to the group. Personality factor is also chosen due to the obvious diverse personalities in the study group. Impact of culture on communication in the group The cultures of different group members have played a critical role in the communication within the group since it has influenced the manner in which the group handles information and the manner in which each group member is viewed. Xie, Rau, Tseng and Zhao (2008, pp.1) note that culture defines how people communicate and how different people perceive information. This is because culture determines how communication occurs, who talks to whom and about what, and also help the encoding and meanings of messages, and conditions under which certain messages may or may not be portrayed. This is noted in our study group where though Liam tends to be funny, he is not as open as Jean is, and tends to be vague in committing himself to something, or would interpret wrongly what another person. In one instance, Liam made a joke concerning Jean’s comments of a topic which had deviated out of scope, where he noted that Jean’s chattering ability could “certainly draw a snake out of its hiding hole”. Jean was completely cross at this comment and openly confronted Liam concerning his criticism. Liam was a bit uncomfortable at the open confrontation and Liam explained it was a form of expression praising her persuasive abilities. Tension was high in the group, though Liam broke it with another of his more culturally balanced jokes. John though had to expressly explain that while it was important to acknowledge cultural difference in the group in how we express ourselves, it was also important to try and adopt as much as possible an expression that can be understood by all so as to avoid minor conflicts. This scenario is reminiscent of the individualistic and collectivist cultural values. In collectivist cultures, people tend to avoid direct confrontation and feel that such confrontation makes them and the other person loose face in the presence of other group members (Hopkins and Hopkins, 2002; Xie, Rau, Tseng and Zhao, 2008) which may explain Liam’s uncomfortable stance over the situation. Individualistic cultures on the other hand focus on personal gains, how comments impact them and not the group and they tend to be straight forward in their talk. This can explain Jean’s confrontative stance. The aspect of high context culture and low context culture has also influenced communication in our group. Notably, three members are from low context culture where they give straight talk and express what they mean with little non verbal signals, while two members, Amaroo and Liam are from high context cultures where their communication patterns are more indirect and they tend to focus more on non verbal singles or give general examples while expressing their point, unlike the rest of use three, John, Jean and I, who tend to incorporate personal experiences within our examples when discussing a point. This is also evidenced where Jean likes to talk her thinking process unlike Amaroo who rather thinks internally first before talking. This evidence is supported by Kim research (Xie, Rau, Tseng and Zhao, 2008, pp. 3) where he noted that in problem solving process, European Americans tended to think that talking is good for stimulating the thinking process, while East Asian Americans found talking to be interfering with their thought processes. These two though tend to cut in or interfere while other members are talking in order to express their opinions, which I find distracting as I tend to loose focus of what I would be saying if interfered with. Power distance cultural characteristics are also evident in our group interactions and communication. This is noted through initiators of conversations in the group discussions or even activities. Notable While Liam and Amaroo tend to avoid initiation in group activities and discussions; I would tend to bring to light unfinished issues from pervious discussions, while Jean would be like “ok, so let’s get started”. In one instance where the activity in our group was to develop a survival strategy in a jungle with limited resources, Amaroo, asked John what plan we should follow in developing this strategy. While this was a perfectly legitimate question, I found Amaroo’s expectations of John quiet high given the fact that we were all supposed to develop the plan. In this way Amaroo tended to rely on leadership for guidance on the way forward, and saw that the initiator of such a plan would be John. I gave my opinion before John gave his, with Jean chipping in her thoughts. After John’s supporting comments did Amaroo also chip in to give his comments about the plan. Though I never realised this initially, after careful thought and reading on power distance, I was able to connect to this issue. This view is supported by Xie, Rau, Tseng and Zhao (2008, pp. 3) in research where high power distance cultures tend to conform and follow hierarchical structures unlike low power distance cultures. Though Liam and Amaroo participate well in the group, I find that John, Jean and I tend to talk more and widely express our opinions. This contradicts Winter, Neal and Waner’s (2001, pp. 44) stipulations that in mixed gender groups, men tend to participate more as they establish an identity within the group. Liam and Amaroo though develop out solutions I would not normally think of, and bring uniqueness in the way we deal with issues. While I tend to focus on finer details and refine issues raised, Jeans tends contribute by connecting issues raised to real situations. Despite, the cultural facets that have impacted communication in the group, the ability to identify this and John’s role in clearly leading the discussion in on how our different viewpoint and expression can be understood differently by other members has developed a more free environment that appreciates this diversity, and rather jokes about it when one makes a vague remake, or when another makes a joke that may not be funny to other people. Indeed Hogg, Knippenberg and Rast (2012, pp. 248) propose that constructing a group identity lies on the leader’s ability in championing rhetoric performance, and collaboration among team members. Impact of personality on communication in the group The different personalities in the group also play a critical role in communications within the group. John He is articulative, easy going, humorous, inspiring and focused. Through this he ensures that the group communication is focused no issues that are on the agenda, inspires member participation, and is neutral to all members capable of finding amicable ways that conflicts in the group are addressed. Jean on the other hand is chatty, competitive, tends to dominate conversations and understands points to from an abstract point of view but through giving actual real life example. She though tends to drift topics to other more social issues out of the group discussion scope. This brings a more practicable aspect into the group aspect. Amaroo is the quite one in the group, and tends to express himself and views in short and to the point sentences. His contributions though tend to provide solutions for an issue rather than focus on exploring the suggestions or contributions given. His ideas are the ones that have given us most points in our group activities due their out of the box aspect. Liam is more of a humour person in the group. He is easy going and makes funny unexpected statements when the group is in a tense mood during conflicts of opinion. His contributions to the group are often from a humour point of view yet bring fresh insight. He is the tension breaker during conflicts (Rothwell et al, 2011). I on the other hand, I’m analytical, detailed, procedural and action oriented. Though I tend to analyse small details of an issue and linger of details, I also tend to push for implementation of already discussed ideas. These personality traits impact how we communicate in the group. Normally communication in the group mainly occurs in such a way that Amaroo brings fresh ideas, Liam builds on this or also gives his own, Jean connects it to practicability, I analyse the finer details of its feasibility or how individual details would be carried out, and John while also adding fresh ideas makes the final remark concerning solutions based on group agreeableness. Though this procedure is not per se followed, but I have noted that in most discussions, that is often the pattern followed in communication of ideas to its final acceptance. Indeed Lei, Bailey, Kuestermeyer and Westmeyer (2010) note that group compositions and the personality traits of its members are critical in affecting interaction and communication process within the group. One of the activities in the group involved profiling our behavioural traits using Belbin’s self-perception inventory (Swailes and McIntyre-Bhatty, 2002, pp. 531). With this members were able to identify their behavior traits and how it impacts group interactions and communication. The results showed I was an implementer and complete finisher. This could explain the approach I took in group discussions. Though such skill was important for the team, I tended to linger of details which tended to be problematic as the time for carrying out the activity was limited, and some of my team members grew a little impatient of minutic dissection. The role though has had a positive impact to the performance of the team, as our evaluations have been credited for being detailed. Clearly Beblin (Swailes and McIntyre-Bhatty, 2002:531) notes that within this role, a person tends to scrutinize and polish on the final decision looking for errors in order to maintain the highest standards. Though Aritzeta, Swailes and Senior (2007:110) show that complete finishers have the tendency of taking the team back to already concluded decisions, and therefore may be a downer to a team, Foo (2011:40) found that diversity in team roles is imperative in giving different perceptions on an issue for effective team performance while Chong (2007: 211) note that effective balancing among the different team roles is what defines how coordinated, creative, and cooperative a team is, and is what differentiates performing from none performing teams. Conclusion and Recommendations This paper sought to analyse how culture and personality within my study groups impacts communication in the group. Key issues raised in my analysis are that while cultural difference may provide different insights in how a problem is approached, they at times tend to be problematic in effective group communication since people from different cultures may perceive similar words and expression differently. While a person may use culturally influenced expression such as jokes or points of emphasis, if such expression to another individual’s culture is deemed displeasing and threatening, then there would tend to be more conflicts within the group which would hamper effective communication. On the other hand the different personalities within the group innately describe natural roles of different people within the group in such a manner that communication would also tend to follow such order even if there is supposed to be equal generation of ideas and solutions within the group. This analysis shows that the quality of communication in the group is high though it faces some issues that impact on the group. Notably lack of sufficient cultural sensitivity knowledge within the group has not yet been able to completely ensure high quality of communication and interaction. In addition, the group has not sufficiently explored the use of differences in personality and capabilities to assign tasks. Therefore recommendations for the group need be made from these view points. In view of the above notable issues, a number of strategies can be adopted to better manage communication to achieve greater efficiency. First and foremost, cultural sensitivity should be improved within the group in such a manner that the members are not only aware of cultural differences but are also able to incorporate it in the communication tactics of the group such as in conflict resolution. Indeed Hopkins and Hopkins (2002) indeed acknowledge that diversity training and awareness on cultural sensibilities is imperative if a group is to be able to operative effectively and maximally. The group though aware of cultural differences, is still not culturally sensitive to various cultural differences and still faces tensions in this area. On the other hand, personality difference defines the abilities, viewpoints and capability of up taking certain roles within the group. Recognising the different personalities and through this assign various tasks that align with such personalities and capabilities within the group in completing a problem would enhance group effectiveness. Lei, Bailey, Kuestermeyer and Westmeyer (2010) note that group compositions and the personality traits of its members are not only critical in affecting interaction and communication process within the group, but also task allocation and group performance. Aligning tasks to capabilities would maximise probability of higher performance. References Aritzeta, A, Swailes, S, & Senior, B 2007, 'Belbin's Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building', Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1, pp. 96-118 Chong, E 2007, 'Role balance and team development: A study of team role characteristics underlying high and low performing teams', Journal Of Behavioral & Applied Management, 8, 3, pp. 202-217, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 April 2012. Foo, M 2011, 'Teams developing business ideas: how member characteristics and conflict affect member-rated team effectiveness', Small Business Economics, 36, 1, pp. 33-46. Hogg, M, Van Knippenberg, D, & Rast, I 2012, 'Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries', Academy Of Management Review, 37, 2, pp. 232-255 Hopkins, W, & Hopkins, S 2002, 'Effects of Cultural Recomposition on Group Interaction Processes', Academy Of Management Review, 27, 4, Pp. 541-553, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 April 2012. Lei, S, Kuestermeyer, B, & Westmeyer, K 2010, 'Group Composition Affecting Student Interaction and Achievement: Instructors' Perspectives', Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37, 4, pp. 317-325, Rothwell, E, Sibarath, K, Bell, S, Nguyen, K, & Baker, C 2011, 'Joking Culture: The Role of Repeated Humorous Interactions on Group Processes During Challenge Course Experiences', Journal Of Experiential Education, 33, 4, pp. 338-353, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 April 2012. Swailes, S, McIntyre-Bhatty, T 2002, "The “Belbin” team role inventory: reinterpreting reliability estimates", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 6, pp.529 - 536 Winter, J, Neal, J, & Waner, K 2001, “How male and Female and mixed Gender groups regard interaction and Leadership difference in the Business Communication Course”, Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 3, pp. 43-58. Xie, A, Rau, P, Tseng, Y, and Zhao, C 2008, “Cross-cultural influence on communication effectiveness and user interface design”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6, 4, pp. 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ytseng/images/ibm/Cross-cultural%20influence.pdf Read More