Effective Group Communicationother Than Your Online Discussions In You ✓ Solved
Effective Group Communication Other than your online discussions in your various classes, perhaps one of the most significant examples of the importance of effective group communication comes in jury deliberations where a consensus is not immediately obtained. Whether or not you have served on a jury, what do you think are some difficulties you might encounter that could prevent a consensus? What are some strategies you or the group could employ to overcome these difficulties and reach agreement on a verdict? How could the same strategies apply to a small work group that cannot reach agreement? Class, as we begin this week's discussion on group communication.
I think that it is important to understand the difference between an introvert and extrovert. When I began working in the hospital twelve years ago I was afraid of the waiting rooms because large groups of people intimidated me. I was much better one on one with people and then when I got my confidence up, I became better with groups. See the following video and share with us if you think you are an A. Introvert B. Extrovert Please share with us why you think you are one or the other.
Paper for above instructions
Effective Group Communication: Challenges and Strategies
Effective communication in groups is essential for making informed decisions, resolving conflicts, and fostering collaboration. This is especially pronounced in high-stakes situations such as jury deliberations, where the consequences of decisions can profoundly affect individuals and communities. While discussions in classrooms and other settings are important, jury deliberations showcase the complexities of reaching a consensus in a group setting. This paper examines potential difficulties encountered during jury deliberations that might impede consensus-building, introduces strategies to overcome these challenges, and demonstrates how these strategies are applicable in workplace settings as well.
Challenges to Consensus
1. Diverse Perspectives and Biases: Each juror brings personal backgrounds, experiences, and biases to the table, which can significantly affect viewpoints on the evidence presented. This diversity may create misunderstandings or misinterpretations of facts, leading to polarized positions. Research has shown that groupthink can arise when individuals conform to shared biases rather than challenging them, ultimately impairing decision-making (Janis, 1982).
2. Communication Style Differences: Jurors may exhibit varying communication styles based on their personality traits—introverts may be less vocal in discussions, while extroverts might dominate the conversation. Effective communication hinges on mutual understanding; thus, when some voices are louder than others, the perspectives of quieter members might be overlooked (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988).
3. Emotional Responses: Stress and strong emotional reactions can cause jurors to become defensive, reducing their willingness to engage in productive dialogue. Tension can lead jurors to focus on arguments rather than the substance of the deliberation, compromising the quality of decision-making (Goleman, 1995).
4. Time Pressure: Often, jurors face a constrained timeline in reaching a verdict. This pressure can lead to rushed conclusions, limiting thorough discussions and considerations of alternative viewpoints (Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983).
5. Group Dynamics: Power dynamics within the group can influence decision-making, with dominant individuals potentially swaying the group disproportionately. This imbalance may stifle thorough critical analysis of the case (Forsyth, 2010).
Overcoming Difficulties and Reaching Consensus
1. Establishing Ground Rules: Setting clear guidelines for discussions can foster an environment of respect and inclusivity. Establishing rules related to speaking times, listening habits, and how to respectfully disagree can help prevent dominance by more vocal members and ensure that every juror's opinions are considered (Bennett & Eryilmaz, 2015).
2. Active Listening Techniques: Encouraging jurors to practice active listening—focusing on understanding rather than responding—can help mitigate misunderstandings. Instructors or facilitators can remind participants to reflect on what has been said before formulating rebuttals. This practice not only fosters better understanding but also creates a culture of respect (Brownell, 2012).
3. Facilitating Dialogue: Assigning a neutral facilitator can help guide discussions, ensure everyone has the opportunity to speak, and manage emotional tensions. This individual can help by calming heated discussions and encouraging quieter members to express their perspectives (Klein, 2004).
4. Problem-Solving Approach: Shifting the focus from winning an argument to collaboratively finding a solution can reshape group dynamics. Encouraging jurors to brainstorm alternatives and consider all perspectives can broaden the decision-making process (De Dreu, 2010).
5. Taking Breaks: Allowing the group to take brief breaks during deliberations can help manage stress and emotions. Stepping away from intense discussions can allow jurors to process information more effectively and return with a fresh perspective (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993).
Application in Workplace Settings
The aforementioned strategies for reaching a consensus during jury deliberations can similarly be implemented in workplace groups facing disagreements. For example:
- Establishing ground rules is crucial in meetings to ensure everyone's voice is heard, which can be further enhanced through technology, like anonymous suggestion tools.
- Active listening is essential across different contexts, promoting open dialogue and reducing conflicts caused by miscommunication.
- In work groups, having a neutral facilitator, such as a team leader or human resources representative, can aid in promoting equitable conversations, especially in cross-departmental collaborations.
- Reframing challenges as collective learning opportunities fosters a culture of innovation, encouraging team members to share knowledge and adopt a sense of ownership of the group's outcomes.
- Taking pauses during intensive discussions in work settings can allow employees to regroup emotionally and cognitively, often leading to more effective problem-solving (Lussier & Kimball, 2015).
Conclusion
Effective group communication is integral in high-stakes environments like jury deliberations as well as in workplace settings. Recognizing the difficulties that may prevent consensus and implementing strategic approaches to overcome these challenges can foster robust discussions leading to informed decisions. Inherent in these strategies is the need for patience, understanding, and openness to diverse perspectives, an essential skill set that enhances not only juror efficacy but also benefits teamwork in various organizational contexts.
References
1. Bennett, C. L., & Eryilmaz, A. (2015). The Role of Ground Rules in Enhancing Group Decision Making. Journal of Business Communication, 52(3), 219-235.
2. Brownell, J. (2012). Listening: Attitudes, Principles, and Skills. Pearson Higher Ed.
3. De Dreu, C. K. (2010). Social Conflict and Conflict Management. In P. S. Doyle (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 5). John Wiley & Sons.
4. Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group Dynamics. Cengage Learning.
5. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
6. Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the Jury. Harvard University Press.
7. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
8. Klein, H. J. (2004). Facilitating Teams and Group Decision Making. In K. M. Kreitner & A. K. Kinicki (Eds.), Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill.
9. Lussier, R. N., & Kimball, D. C. (2015). Effective Leadership, New Strategies for Managing Knowledge Workers. Business Expert Press.
10. McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Communication Style and its Relationship to Personality. In L. M. B. Derlega & A. M. Margulis (Eds.), Personality and Communication: A Systematic Perspective. Praeger.