Theories of Human Communication - Book Report/Review Example

Communication in Group A very significant dimension in group behavior dynamics is communication as it impacts on the members of the group from outside stimuli and as it impacts on other groups. Communication in groups is a basic component in the relationship with the external environment. It is the lifeblood of any organization. Communicating ideas and information plays a major role in modifying behavior, effecting changes, and achieving goals. The book written by Littlejon & Foss (2007) entitled Theories of Human Communication proffered multidimensional communication theories of which the theories of group communication are discussed. The study of group behavior has a long tradition among social scientists in various disciplines. Organizations have become aware of the need to understand how the relationships between group members and between management and the group influence work behavior. In this regard, the chapter on “The Group” aims to summarize and proffer an analytical and critical evaluation of the topics discussed therein with integrative scenarios related to group communication. The authors averred that there is the dilemma of balancing relationship and task efforts that necessitate the discussion on the relevance of the group in its antithetical perspective. The major theories of group behavior are categorized into sociopsychological, cybernetic, and sociocultural traditions. These traditions are hereby presented and analyzed accordingly. The Sociopsychological Tradition The discussion on the sociopsychological tradition focus on the interaction process analysis, a classic theory of the group, envisioned by Robert Bales. This theory aimed to “explain the types of messages that people exchange in groups, the way in which these shape the roles and personalities of group members, and thereby the way they affect the overall character of the group” (Littlejon & Foss, 2007, 216). The authors delved into the concept of cohesiveness and emphasized the two general classes of communication behavior, to wit: (1) socioemotional behavior and (2) task behavior (ibid, 216 – 217). The forces acting on the members to remain in the group should be greater than the forces acting on them to leave it. Thus, cohesiveness may be developed. In a cohesive group, members are attracted to each other and engage in frequent social interaction. They share positive feelings about their group and are protective of its existence. In a group of nursing students tasked with creating a system for triage (“a process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate medical treatment. Triage is used in hospital emergency rooms, on battlefields, and at disaster sites when limited medical resources must be allocated” (American Heritage, 2009)), the relationship between group cohesiveness and performance would determine the success of their endeavor. High group cohesiveness may result in either high or low levels of group performance. When standards of performance are high, performance is high, if the degree of cohesiveness is high and medium performance, if degree of cohesiveness of low. But if standards of performance are low, performance is low whether degree of cohesiveness of high or low. In the development of an appropriate process for the triage, the high standard of performance is expected and must be adhered to due to the delicate nature of process to be addressed: the effective delivery of health care. In this regard, if there is high cohesiveness in the group of nursing students, performance is expected to be high. Finally, the perception of an individual’s position in a group is found to be a function of three dimensions: dominant versus submissive; friendly versus unfriendly; and instrumental versus emotional (ibid, 217). The Cybernetic Tradition Littlejon & Foss (2007) discussed the cybernetic tradition of group theory as part of a larger system of interacting forces with four sub-theories developed in this area: bona fide group theory, input-process-output (IPO) model, Fisher’s interaction analysis, and the effective intercultural work group theory. The cybernetic tradition focused on the groups’ interaction with a much larger interacting system where there is a sense of interrelatedness of required and emergent behavior. Required behavior is that which the group starts with, so to speak, i.e., what is given and what is required by external forces and conditions in order that the assigned tasks of the group may be performed. Emergent behavior is that which develops internally, or emerges over and above that which is given or required. For example, the accounting group is expected to make the financial statements for the organization (required activity) and in the process needs to interact with the department head and with other departments (processing) to come up with the financial statements (current and projected) which would be used for various purposes (outcome). The discussion on cybernetic tradition touched on issues pertaining to nexus, liminality, and gaming methodology under the bona fide group theory which centered on naturally occurring groups with permeable boundaries and interdependence with the environment. The theory of decision emergence presenting four phases of orientation, conflict, emergence and reinforcement bear similarities with Kurt Lewin’s three steps in the change process: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing steps (Lewin, 1951, 188 – 237). These processes manifest the need for groups to use proper communication processes and steps in order to address possible conflicts and be able to manage members into required tasks needed to accomplish goals. Managers have become aware of the need to understand how the relationships between group members and between management and the group influence work behavior. The issue is not whether groups are beneficial or not; but whether groups are planned. Goals are the main justification for the group’s existence. The effective intercultural work group theory acknowledges the importance of culture in teams where cultural diversity is eminent. The Sociocultural Tradition The sociocultural tradition looks into group structure and group tasks and discussed three theories: (1) structurational perspective, (2) functional theory, and (3) the group think theory. Gidden’s theory of social action formed the basis for the structurational theory seen as human action being a “process of producing and reproducing various social system” (ibid, 225). There are numerous concepts introduced with this theory including modalities of structure, variables in groups’ operations, types of group paths, interwoven tracks, and types of breakpoints. Open and honest communication exists among team members and a structure is used functionally for written and verbal communication. Members are kept informed of events and they listen well to each other. Tolerance for conflict with emphasis on resolution and on solving the problem dominates instead of blaming the individual responsible for the problem. Decision are made with an orderly, problem-solving approach. As indicated, John Dewey developed six steps in problem solving and identified factors which generally contribute to faulty decisions (ibid, 230). Finally, the group think theory examined the effectiveness of group decision making where concepts of cohesiveness, negative outcomes, symptoms, as well as steps in decision making were presented. This theory presents the tendency to make loyalty to the group a very powerful norm. An example for this is the hazing activities of some fraternities in various universities. Loyalty to the group and secrecy in the procedures and naming of officers and members involved in fatal deaths of some group members who undergo hazing are powerful norms which inhibit rational thinking, develop unwholesome sense of values and defy Christian ethics and morality. Janis gives examples of blundering American fiascos that followed group think among its policy makers: Bay of the Pigs, attack on Pearl Harbor, the Korean War Stalemate, and the escalation of the Vietnam War (Janis, 1976, 321). Conclusion Communication is a very important element in group behavior. It may either facilitate or impede smooth transactions and processes with individuals, groups and organizations. Since it is the lifeblood of any organization, it behooves every member of it, from top to bottom levels, to foster effective communication. The theories on group provide enlightening concepts that transcended through time. What is important to recognize is that groups work differently than people alone. To maximize their effectiveness demands a complex match of people, the situation, leadership, and the job to be done – not an impossible match. References American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2009). Triage. Retrieved 14 December 2010. < http://www.thefreedictionary.com/triage> Janis, I. (1976). “Groupthink Among Policy Makers.” Varieties of Psycho-History, ed. G.M. Krem and I.H. Rappopport, Springer Publishing, New York. Lewin, K. (1951). “Frontiers in Group Dynamics.” In Field Theory in Social Science. Harper, New York. Littlejon, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2007). Theories of Human Communication. Wadsworth Publishing. Read More