Small Group Communication the Issue

Small Group Communication

The issue of group interaction and dynamics is one that has many variables and depends on the particular situation and stresses and strains that the group experiences. The study of group behavior is also a subject that has become the focus of contemporary socio-psychological theory. The trajectory in modern theory is to find ways to improve and increase the interaction between group members and to improve successful group functioning.

This paper will explore the dynamics in a certain specific group of individuals who came together from different areas of the world and from different backgrounds to experience an African safari. This group was closely observed and assessed in terms of the relevant theoretical aspects relating to successful and unsuccessful group behavior patterns. The safari group was interesting in terms of group dynamics in that they had not met before and had differences in culture and outlook. As will be discussed, what brought this group together was firstly their relative isolation in a foreign country as well as a crisis that occurred during the safari. This context allowed one to observe some of the best and worst aspects of group behavior.

The central thesis that will be explored in this paper deals with the question of whether the group can be considered to be effective or ineffective in terms of the various theoretical views on group dynamics, communication and problem solving. It was found that the group functioned relatively well in a relaxed atmosphere where there was no stress and tension and responded well in terms of functional criteria. However, the group was much less successful in terms of communication in a stressful situation. It should also be noted that only those theoretical aspects that best described the central characteristics of this particular group were discussed. The group situation and dynamics are based on an actual experience.

2. Describing the Group

In general the group reacted and responded differently in different situations. There was little prior internal cohesion to the group. This is perhaps to be expected as the group comprised ten members from different regions and areas of the world who had come together for the purpose of going on safari in Africa. There were four American in the group, two Germans, one Russian and three South Africans, including the guide.

The diversity in culture was certainly a factor in the group dynamics but this was offset by the fact that there were no language barriers and all members of the group spoke English. In the process of observing and analyzing the group what became evident that there were many aspects to the group behavior that could be explained with reference to underlying themes and shared views of life and reality. This is an aspect that refers particularly to Symbolic Convergence Theory or SCT.

In a world that is more integrated in terms of technology and communications than ever before it is perhaps to be expected that members of the group understood many common themes of life that made them function well as a group in some instances. This was evident in the way that they reacted to a number of situations. When the group encountered a young Wildebeest calf that had been hurt in a poacher's trap, they tended to work together and respond as a unit. Communication was good and the group developed a plan to help with the transportation of the calf to the base camp. This aspect will be described in depth in the following sections.

However, the group was much less successful when a life-threatening crisis occurred. This took place when the group was observing a pride of lions feeding. A German member of the group decided to go closer to take photographs, even though this had been strictly prohibited by the tour guide. As a result one of the lions advanced on the man in a threatening fashion. The man panicked and ran which was the worst possible thing to do and the lion ran after him. The tour guide intervened and chased the lion away but was wounded by the lion who raked him with its claws.

The group was faced with a dire situation and needed to work together in order to help the tour guide. He was unconscious and the group was without an external leader. They started to bicker did not agree on the correct path to take. The tour guide was eventually rescued by the arrival of another guide. This situation clearly showed the fault lines in the group structure and is contrasted with the earlier event where the group acted in unison and agreement to help the Wildebeests calf.

3. Theoretical perspectives

The most important concept that was evident in understanding the interaction and dynamics of the group, especially in terms of a crisis situation where immediate decisions were needed, was the issue of communication. This was a central facet that was also a central weakness of this group.

The issue of communications is cardinal in understanding the problem of group interaction and in ascertaining the success or failures of the group. As Frey ( 1994) states, "Communication is the lifeblood that flows through the veins of the group" (Frey, 1994, p. x). In this sense communication is necessary for a number of functional aspects to take place within the group. These include the ability to make clear individual interests in arriving at the best possible solution through good communications (Walkdeck et al. 2007, p.4). Communication is also essential to recognize obstacles that may stand in the way of success, as well as being necessary for the orderly processing of any procedures and plans that are to be followed ( Walkdeck et al. 2007, p.4).

This also applies to the aspect of leadership. Hackman and Johnson define leadership as follows: "leadership is human ( symbolic) communication which modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others to meet the group goals and needs" (Galanes and Adams, p. 175). These and other aspect will be discussed in relation to the safari group. The way that the group related to the ensemble effect and to various functionalist view of successful group behavior will also be examined. It should be noted that this group was closely observed in terms of communication theory and their responses to different situations.

Communication is therefore seen from a theoretical perspective as an aspect which largely determines the group's success or failure. This is also related to other theoretical issues and views, which impact on the issue of leadership within the group. Theoretical views on leadership and decision making were also taken into account in the analysis of this particular group. Symbolic convergence theory was also found to apply to this group's behavior ( Waldeck et al. 2002, p.3).

The group of people on safari was not successful as a group in terms of functional theory in the crisis situation and the negative aspects of a dysfunctional group tended to emerge. On the other hand one has to take into account the fact that the group was randomly constituted with the only linking factor being that they wanted to see animals in Africa. They also came from different backgrounds and cultures. However, what was somewhat surprising in a theoretical sense is that they were relatively successful as a group in problem solving and communication when there was no life-threatening crisis.

This apparent dichotomy will be discussed in more detail below.

4. Discussion and analysis

4.1. The Crisis situation

Functional theory in terms of small group dynamics was very useful in an initial analysis of the effectiveness of his group. This theory states that the performance of the group is essentially dependent on the quality of the communications between the members of that group (Waldeck et al. 2002, p.3). In other words, aspects such as group decision making, planning and leadership are dependent on the ability to communicate and to assess and evaluate issues and ideas in the group.

In term of this theory there are a number of critical requirements that are necessary for the group to be successful. According to Galanes and Adams ( include Date of book publication) these include the following aspects: the members of the group must understand the problem or issue; they should be aware of the minimum requirements for a successful solution; thirdly they should be able to identify alternatives and make consensual choice based in this knowledge; fourthly these alternatives must be evaluated by the group in terms of their strengths and weaknesses and the best solution that meets the groups criteria should be adopted (Galanes and Adams, p.134). However, as will become evident for the analysis, these positive functional ideals of the group cannot be successful if the basic element of communication is lacking.

Therefore, in terms of functional theory an essential factor that let this group down was divisive and poor communications. The group in general was not able to establish a cohesive and agreed upon plan in a crisis. As Waldeck et al. ( 2002) note, one of the essential factors in terms of functional theory that relates to good communication is that the group should be able to " & #8230;establish ground rules for interaction" and to "…employ appropriate interventions for overcoming cognitive, affiliative and egocentric constraints that are interfering with the satisfaction of fundamental task requirements" (Waldeck et al. 2002, p.3) The following example from the experience of the group serves to illustrate the way in which these theoretical perspectives applied to the evaluation of the group's ability to function successfully.

As noted in the previous section, the group was faced with a crisis when the tour guide was injured by a lion. In terms of the above theory the group should have been able to communicate under stress in order to find a common solution to the problem at hand. Instead, what actually occurred was chaotic division and disagreement in the group which led to dysfunction. Two of the group members were in a state of shock and feared that they might be in danger. One of the American members of the group suggested that they should drive the guide back to the base camp as quickly as possible. Other members of the group disagreed with this view and felt that the tour guide should not be moved. They suggested that some members of the group should wait with the guide while the others went off to bring help.

In terms of functional small group dynamics the functional ideal is that these disparate points-of-view should have been discussed and communicated well and that an agreement should be reached that suited the group as a whole. But consensus could not be reached by this group and there was an impasse for a number of reasons. The most conspicuous reason for this situation was the lack of communication.

. Some members of the group could not understand the rationale of dividing the group and others feared that they may be attacked by the lions if their number were diminished. When one of the German members of the group pointed out that there was no danger of attack as long as they remained on the tour bus this point was either not understood or ignored by the others. The various issues were also not well expressed in the heat of the moment. In other words, there was as general breakdown of communication in the stressful situation.

The breakdown of communication meant that in effect the functional aspect of good group functioning could not take place. For instance, the functionalist view of good group interaction includes the importance of the group making consensual choices as well as the evaluation of these choices in terms of their strengths and weaknesses in order to find the best solution to the problem. This did not occur. However, as will be discussed, the group did achieve something of these aims in a different situation.

Furthermore, in the crisis situation the group could not implement the functional requirement for good group interaction as suggested by Waldeck and others. In terms of this stance the group in order to be deemed successful should be able to establish rules of communication and also to employ appropriate interventions in order to overcome dysfunctional aspect such as affiliative and egocentric constraint (Waldeck et al. 2002, p.3).

In the crisis situation it was found that the group vacillated in their decision making. Another aspect was the evidence of egocentric bias. This proved to be an important barrier to the group integration; for example, when some members of the group thought only of themselves and their own safety and did not take the entire group and the situation into account.

Another basic element of functional theory shows a negative aspect of this group is their inability to deal with problems. This refers to the tenet that a primary assumption of group dynamics is that in the group the collective response and effort should "…exceed those of individual member" (Waldeck et al. 2002, p.3). In reality the safari group did not attain the ideals of good group problem solving in the crisis situation. In terms of another theoretical concept the group failed to achieve the ensamble effect. This concept refers to the situation when a "…group solution is superior to both choice of the group's most expert member and to an averaging of opinions" (Galanes and Adams, p. 126)

In the final analysis the crisis situation revealed the shortcomings of the group. They did not do well as a group in many areas. The central problem however centers around the inability to communicate, which in turn led to many other issues and problem areas. This also refers to egocentrism and conflict as well as other barriers to communication that would otherwise have allowed the group to function more effectively in that situation.

4.2. The Wildebeest calf

As has been suggested above, this negative assessment of the group refers to the crisis situation that they experienced on safari. However, this assessment changes radically when we analyze the group in terms of another event and set of circumstances.

One of the constraining aspects in the crisis situation was that there was very little time as well as the added component of stress and tension. Another factor that should be taken into account was that the members of the group came from different cultural backgrounds, which in turn may have been a reason for the poor level of communication. Waldeck et al. ( 2002) refer to these aspects from a theoretical perspective.. "…certain group member demographic variables, such as cultural background and gender, may influence particular communication styles enacted within groups and, consequently, the resulting decisions" (Waldeck et al. 2002, p.7). Waldeck et al. also refers to cognitive constraints which occur when"…little information is available to solve a problem or make a decision, time is limited and/or the issue if more complex than one with which the group typically deals" (Waldeck et al. 2002, p.8).

Therefore, taking these theoretical aspects into account, the concept of cognitive constraints would seem to fit in well with the actual experience of the safari group. They certainly had very little time in terms of knowing each other and with regard to the stressful situation. The situation that they found themselves in when the tour guide was injured was also much more complex than anything they were used to or had experienced on the trip. These factors therefore contributed to the fact that the group performed badly in the crisis situation.

A very different picture of group interaction is painted in the assessment of the second scenario. This refers to the incident when the group encountered the wounded Wildebeest calf. In this case there was a great deal of discussion and communication about this problem and the group succeeded in weighing up the options and achieved consensus in terms of a decision about the calf.

They were unanimous that this was an issue that everyone agreed on in principle and they decided to cancel their tour of the game reserve for that day and assist in helping the wounded animal. There was general agreement on the principle of helping the animal but there were also divergent views on what they as a group could actually do or achieve. After a lengthy discussion the group as a whole decided to go back to the camp and assist with the payment of the veterinary fees. While there were some members of the group who wanted to continue the tour they acquiesced to the views of the group after some debate.