Communication Analysis - Assignment Example

Section/# Communication Analysis As with any form of professional or personal communication, reviewing the causal mechanisms that served to help and/or to harm the process of the exchange of information and ideas via the mechanism of communication is one of the most valuable ways in seeking to learn key lessons from what was done incorrectly as well as what was done correctly. As a means of performing such an analysis or review, the practitioner is able to appropriately define best practices that should be kept and seek to minimize or disuse entirely other practices that are less than rewarding characteristics. Furthermore, beyond helping improve the actual communication process, are view of such a communications model is helpful in alerting the reader and/or researcher as to what specifically they might like to focus on in the future. 1. Leadership communication With regards to leadership communication, understanding such a construct requires that one be fully aware and able to adequately define the different ways in which leadership is able to communicate through the use and application of power onto the group members (Chia-Peng et al 2012). For purposes of our group, our leader was one that was popularly elected within the group as possessing the key skills and leadership qualities that would benefit each group member as well as to ensure that the selected project was done in a satisfactory and complete manner. As a function of such a selection process, the power dynamic that usually defines the way in which a leader interacts with and directs the process of communication was somewhat altered (Myers 2012). A more traditionalist approach maintains that the ways that a leader is able to express his/her power onto the group is via reward power, referent power, coercive power, and legitimate power dynamics. Although each of these was doubtless used in our group to a greater or lesser extent, no single mechanism defined the process. This was likely due to the fact that leadership was due a democratic process and therefore did not find it necessary to exercise a high degree of power dynamics as a means to accomplish key functions. Moreover, the leadership communication style was one that required the shareholders to give nearly incessant feedback with regards to what specific direction they would like the project to proceed (Navickiené et al 2009). This mechanism further helped the overall participation as each and every member understood that both their individual success as well as that of the group depended upon the means of interaction and integration they provided with both leadership and the group as a whole. 2. Communication strategies for effective teamwork With regards to the key strategies that our team employed in order to achieve the goals that were set before us, our communication pattern and framework were nontraditional in that each and every member of the small group felt it at least somewhat incumbent to engage with one another regarding the topic in question and seek to add value to the discussions that were ongoing. In such a way, the functions of leadership and group members came to be blurred in a positive way. As is oftentimes the case in small groups, such as the one we worked within, the leadership of the central figure, although important, is nearly always a type of signatory gesture intended on providing the group members with an overarching framework and/or rubric within which they can categorize the style and types of communication which will be employed. As a function of such a small group, the level to which leadership style dominates the scope and breadth of the way in which communication takes place is lessened as this burden is placed upon key members of the group. Rather than the leader directly espousing and formulating a path of resolution on the issues of innovation, vision, and future direction, the leader within our given group was able to reference but a few of these ideals and then allow the conversation to take place within a different construct entirely. In this way, it is this student’s belief that more so than being an actual “group leader” in the traditional sense of the term, our group leader was actually more of a facilitator in that they were able to engage the team members with helpful ideas, useful approaches, and then almost immediately switch gears, join the conversation as an interested party, and seek to find the common ground and/or the best approach which according to the agreement or disagreement of the other group members may or may not best represent the common needs and shared vision of the remainder of the shareholders. As discussed in the readings, this transition between being able to direct the activity and discussion as well as seeking to engage and motivate the shareholders is an integral mechanism that only some of the best leaders can effectively employ (Osman 2010). As such, our group was extraordinarily fortunate to have such a leader who could, almost naturally, readily shift between both of these functions and seek to motivate and engage the group in effective communication which sought to focus and guide the needs of the group with respect to the needs that the project entailed. 3. Feedback for motivating team members With regards to some helpful pointers that could be used in facilitating a higher degree of communication and understanding within the group that has been thus far discussed, this analysis will now turn its attention to providing some feedback to both guide the process in the future as well as enumerate on some key strengths and weaknesses that members of the group portrayed. Firstly, with respect to Member #1 the greatest strength was portrayed by the fact that this member was able to continually keep the constraints and demands of the project in mind so that a growth of scope or direction never took place. This was helpful for a number of reasons; not the least of which that group projects oftentimes have the potential to grow beyond the original scope and exceed the bounds that the team should otherwise have been constrained by. The weakness of Group member #1’s approach was the fact that they were oftentimes unable to diverge even the slightest from the directions in order to gain a higher degree of understanding with regards to a given question. In this way, the approach itself was short sighted in that it did not consider the complexities that could have been brought to bear on the given project; instead, they were too heavily focused on adhering, in a rigid fashion, to the demands set forward by the original directions. Group Member #2 was gifted with the ability to synthesize and absorb a great amount of information prior to providing their determination on a given topic. This was of course useful due to the fact that many involved in the process of idea sharing and communication do not give adequate time to the ideas of others prior to putting forward their own. This allowed for the group to provide valuable levels of input while at the same time reviewing their own mechanisms once Group Member #2 had thoughtfully ruminated upon this and presented them back to the group as a means of differentiating the process. Group Member #3 helped the group by acting as a go between within the group as different and competing ideas sprang to the forefront. As mentioned, Group Member #3 was not only the group leader but also switched back and forth between this role and as role of a facilitator. In such a way, due to the intimacy of the group setting as well as the fact that the group leader was democratically elected, it was a smooth and easy transition that did not require any forethought or planning. Although this was a great strength, it was sometimes difficult for Group Member #3 to transition back into the role of group leader once they had retaken the role of fellow shareholder and active participant. Lastly, Group Member #4 was the organizer. In this function, this was an extraordinarily useful function as the communication process became some varied and frantic at times that the role of the organizer was one that not only fit with Group Member #1 but also in helping to congeal the many different threads of knowledge that had accumulated as a result of the discussions that had taken place. Of course the weakness in this individual’s response to this stated need was the fact that they were oftentimes preoccupied with organization even when a type of brainstorming was taking place and communication was necessarily in an “un-organizable” stage. Regardless of the individual mechanisms that took place, the fact of the matter is that each of these three metrics which have been discussed provided a valuable definition and aid to the communication process as it grew and developed within the group in question. Each member provided their own unique flair to the process as well as helping to differentiate it and move to group towards a more full and complete understanding of one another as well as the goals and metrics discussed herein. References Chia-Ping, Y., & Feng-Yang, K. (2012). Investigating the Development of Work-oriented Groups in an e-Learning Environment. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 164-175. Myers, S. A. (2012). Students Perceptions of Classroom Group Work as a Function of Group Member Selection. Communication Teacher, 26(1), 50-64. Navickiené, V., & Pevcevičiūtė, S. (2009). COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN GROUP/TEAM WORK FOR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Bridges / Tiltai, 45(1), 83-91. Osman, N., Nayan, S., Mansor, M., Maesin, A., & Shafie, L. (2010). Spoken Skills, Communication Apprehension and Collaborative Learning. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6(2), 117-124. Read More