Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Small group communication (General (Leadership styles (Effective leaders…
Small group communication
General
Characteristics
Usually focus on some sort of task completion or goal accomplishment
Different groups have different characteristics, serve different purposes, and can lead to positive, neutral, or negative experiences
Types
Task-oriented
Formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information
Interactions and decisions are primarily evaluated based on the quality of the final product or output
Main types of tasks: Production, discussion, and problem-solving tasks
Require honed problem-solving skills to accomplish goals
Rigid structure
Relational-oriented
Formed to promote interpersonal connections and are more focused on quality interactions that contribute to the well-being of group members
Decision making is directed at strengthening or repairing relationships rather than completing discrete tasks or debating specific ideas or courses of action
Example: Although a family unit works together daily to accomplish tasks like getting the kids ready for school and friendship groups may plan a surprise party for one of the members, their primary and most meaningful interactions are still relational
Pros and cons
Pros
Shard synergy: The potential for gains in performance or heightened quality of interactions when complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones. Because of synergy, the final group product can be better than what any individual could have produced alone
Exposure to diversity
Shared resources
Help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have ethical implications or the potential to negatively affect people
Shared decision making
Group members also help expand our social networks, which provide access to more resources
Participating in groups can also increase our exposure to diversity and broaden our perspectives
Cons
Sometimes a group of experts on the problem suits the task better than a whole group of less knowledgeable people
Group interaction also has a tendency to slow down the decision-making process
When under time constraints and pressure, it is best to have a leader to make the call, give final approval
Interpersonal challenges
Coordinating and planning group meetings due to busy and conflicting schedules
Other-centeredness and self-sacrifice
Social loafing: They contribute less to the group than other members or than they would if working alone
Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack => Make people loath group work
Cohesion and climate
Cohesion
Task cohesion
The commitment of group members to the purpose and activities of the group => Task-oriented
Social cohesion
The attraction and liking among group members => Relational-oriented
Climate
Also regarded as group morale
Affected by members’ satisfaction with the group
Qualities for positive morale: Participation, message, feedback, equity, roles, motivation
Leadership styles
Effective leaders do not fit solely into one style in any of the following classifications but they are able to adapt their leadership style to fit the relational and situational context
One common way to study leadership style is to make a distinction among autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leaders
Autocratic leaders set policies and make decisions primarily on their own, taking advantage of the power present in their title or status to set the agenda for the group
Democratic leaders facilitate group discussion and like to take input from all members before making a decision
Laissez-faire leaders take a “hands-off” approach, preferring to give group members freedom to reach and implement their own decisions
Problem solving
General
Involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal
Common problems: Budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes
Process
Define the problem
Considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way
Group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information
Finish: Should reach a problem statement
Analyze the problem
Analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem
Focus on the "Why"
Discuss the potential causes of the difficulty
Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions
Generate possible solution
Solutions should only be proposed and clarified
"What could we do" instead of "What should we do"
Get multi solution for each part of a multi-faceted problem
Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink
Evaluate solutions
Solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth
Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects
Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement
It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context
Implement and assess solution
Requires some advanced planning
Should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm
Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution
Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise
The group should consider its future
Decision making
General
When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making
Group decisions also benefit from synergy
Before decision-making
Brain storming
Refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation
Rules: Evaluation of ideas is forbidden; wild and crazy ideas are encouraged; quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal; new combinations of ideas presented are encouraged
Additional steps
Do a warm-up session
Do the actual session
Eliminate duplicate ideas
Clarify, organize, evaluate ideas
Discussion
The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members
Involves all group members systematically
Steps
Silently and individually list ideas
Create master list of ideas
Clarify ideas as needed
Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas
Specific techniques
Majority rules
Pros
Quick
Efficient in large groups
Each vote counts equally
Cons
Close decisions (5–4) may reduce internal and external “buy-in”
Doesn’t take advantage of group synergy to develop alternatives that more members can support
Minority may feel alienated
Minority rule by expert
Pros
Quick
Decision quality is better than what less knowledgeable people could produce
Experts are typically objective and less easy to influence
Cons
Expertise must be verified
Experts can be difficult to find / pay for
Group members may feel useless
Minority rule by authority
Pros
Quick
Buy-in could be high if authority is respected
Cons
Authority may not be seen as legitimate, leading to less buy-in
Group members may try to sway the authority or compete for his or her attention
Unethical authorities could make decisions that benefit them and harm group members
Consensus rule
Pros
High-quality decisions due to time invested
Higher level of commitment because of participation in decision
Satisfaction with decision because of shared agreement
Cons
Time consuming
Difficult to manage idea and personal conflict that can emerge as ideas are debate
Decision may be OK but not ideal