A group can broadly be defined as:
"a collection of individuals who, as a result of interacting with one another over time, become interdependent, debeloping shared patterns of behaviour and a collective identity" - Trenholm (2004) .
It is thus clear that communication between colleagues at the workplace, better known as office politics, constitutes a great deal of group communication. In any workplace, we assume that employers seek synergy between their staff and co-workers. In modern mega-corporations, Human Resources tend to have specific requires in the hire of new employees. Specifically, they seek potential staff that encompass various characteristics such that a balance may be struck and that all "roles" of the office can be filled up. By "roles", i refer to the need to have a handful of leaders while at the same time also having a large body of maintainance roles to help support the leadership. Only when such an ideal demographic is sought in the office may there then be optimal efficiency in productivity.
However, having the right people in the right amounts will just not be enough. As can be seen from the video, an office, no matter how well equipped or well staffed, may still turn out to be a Zoo if no common identity and/or objectives have been established. It is necessary to have sincere and positive interaction between colleagues at work to expedite work processes. Colleagues should not mock or undermine the abilities of their coworkers as this may arise in resentment and conflict. Moreover, a group cannot rely just on one member should it want to achieve effective productivity standards. The effect of having members of a group perform below expectations because they assume others will perform more than is required is known as Social Loafing.
The fact is, we cannot just assume that the inherent Group Pressure will help motivate members into performing optimally. Instead, we should practice effective Group Socialisation, whereby members will take the initiative in approaching others for help, so that members can serve to ultimately support and complement each other, thus achieveing the common goal. This is especially true in the context of the workplace as there is tendency to overlook the individual or even group needs of co-workers. Such insensitivity may prove dire in the competitive environment of the corporate world.
Nonetheless, we should be aware that at the other end of the spectrum of group communication, an excessive obession with regard to practicing Group Synergy may eventually result in a regrettable occurance of the Groupthink phenomenon. Like the picture above suggests, employers tend not to get honest opinions from employees in the event that the staff feel it more beneficial to appear cohesive than be actually so. This is unfortunate as it will deprive the firm of a diverse range of ideas and opinions and thus may ultimately cause it to lose it competitive edge.
It is clear that effective Group Communications are necessary and highly desired at the workplace. Nonetheless we should all avoid exerting too much pressure to achieve unanimity so as to avoid Groupthink
How do you think we can achieve an optimal balance in Group Communication?
I wonder how they manage to film the advertisement with all the monkeys. The monkeys look so adorable in shirts and ties.
ReplyDeleteOk, that is of no relevance to your question. I feel that Group Communication will be much easier if people in the group have the same frequencies and think likewise. This will imply less debates, and it will be much easier to reach a conclusion.
However, it may be good to have different groups of people with different idealogies and views. Discussions will then sparkle new and creative ideas.
Personally, I prefer the latter. The process may be more tedious, but the outcome is more beneficial for the group. However, in order to achieve an optimal balance, there should be a final decision maker. He/ She will play a key role in such communications. He/ She has to create a suitable platform for the others to express their views, without feeling uncomfortable. This is very important! If not, the discussion is not considered as group communication.
My two-cents worth of thoughts.. :)
interesting question,
ReplyDeleteit depends what you want from the term "optimal balance" in group communication.
Different people with with different perception of what is best for a group to progress in. Some believe that everyone should work in harmony and in agreement, some believe in the need for opposing views and multiple options for discussions.
well, for me, I believe that for "optimal" balance in group communication, there should always be people within with different attributes. most importantly, everyone needs to play a part in the group, but sometimes, that would also mean just standing aside if you really have no better opinions to input in. Group harmony is of utmost importance to me, but a myriad of ideas should be discussed first before pulling off in any direction.
above all, for any groups to be successful, there is a need for a strong leader. without which, it will be like a kite flying without someone controlling it. flying aimlessly.
Yes, I agree that an optimal balance should be achieved in Group Communication. In a group, there are many different types of personality, and we should make use of that personality to assign them roles in the group, such as Opinion-seeker etc. I agree to tommy's thoughts that there should be a need for a strong leader. A leader is there to guide and bond the group together, also tries to solve the dispute between members of the group. I believe that Group Pressure should not be exercised within the group because if members are forced into a corner, he/she may feel that being alone to achieve his/her goal may be better.
ReplyDeleteHmm to answer to Tommy's question, i suppose my concept of optimal balance would compose 2 elements, the first being the ability of each of the members to be able to willingly want to exhibit their thoughts and ideas while the second would be that the members should also know how to censor their own opinions, especially in the way they present it to the group. Perhaps only when these 2 are in fine balance that we see productive group behavior void of Groupthink.
ReplyDelete