Someone in your study group plays the harmonizer-tension reliever role. this means that she

11

Effective Communication in Education

Module Six: Small Group Communication (“Rich Subject Matter”)

Objectives:

Students will acquire knowledge regarding communication in groups, and be able to identify the characteristics of learning, growth, problem-solving and social groups (knowledge).

Students will identity the roles they play in groups, develop their negotiation skills and strategies, and learn other productive ways of interacting in a group setting (skill).

Students will understand how organizations hinder and facilitate social justice, and appreciate their roles in this process (dispositions).

Key Concepts: Small group, small group culture, norm, procedural norms, social norms, task norms, groupthink, learning, growth and problem-solving groups, emotional labor, communicative labor, technologized discourse.

Discussion: What procedural, social, task norms are evident in your school? What do these norms say about your school culture? How do they shape your organizational identity? Which norms would you be tempted to change, if you had the chance?

Activities: Self-test: View the clip of 12 Angry Men at: http://www.moviesbox.us/drama/12-angry-men-1957.html" http://www.moviesbox.us/drama/12-angry-men-1957.html. What functional and dysfunctional roles are played by the jurors, especially Jack Lemon? View the clip of Groupthink at: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1078489327&fr=yfp-t-471" http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1078489327&fr=yfp-t-471.

Assignment(s) for Week Six:

Using table 8.2, in Adler, p. 273-275, identify the functional and dysfunctional roles played by teachers in your last group meeting. What did the teachers or group members do so that you assigned these labels? What role(s) did you play, and do you generally play in groups? What evidence can you provide to support your claim about your roles in groups? How do these norms contribute to the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of your group?

Readings: Adler, Chapter 8, The Nature of Groups Adler, and Chapter 13, Informative Speaking.

Introduction to Module Six

The study of group interactions is important facet of teacher socialization and the social construction of reality, because groups create definitions of the situation that are mutually binding, at least during the group interaction. A definition of the situation is a socially constructed understanding of the kind of interaction participants are having. The interactions between individuals, and then between groups create definitions and processes that eventually constitute the culture of the organization described in module eight. Recursive or repetitive interactions in organizations such as schools and businesses lead to the socialization of its members—members learn the formal and informal “norms, values and skills necessary for adopting a particular role and performing a particular function within the organization” (Cheney, 98). But as you probably know from your own experience, whatever the prescribed roles, norms, values and skills, teachers and others actively interpret the activities within schools. “While each member entering the organization learns the values, beliefs and practices of the organization, he or she simultaneously shapes the organization through his or her “reading’ of those values, beliefs, and practices….” (Cheney, 98). This is a symbolic interactionist perspective we discussed earlier. Notably, the micro-negotiation of institutional and social realities takes place in the form of the group meeting where individuals play out both functional and dysfunctional roles (Adler, 266-269). In this module I provide you with a true case study of one a manger (Ms. Wallace) that I hired to run a small prison school. Eventually I fired her, for ‘security’ reasons—which were largely and actively “constructed” by her somewhat jealous staff.

The case of Ms. Wallace provides a clear illustration of one of the major functions of communication–to control by setting implicit standards for conduct, and to communicate information regarding performance. It demonstrates the use of communication for the purposes of decision-making (this information was sent to me, for my consideration and decision-making.) The values of the group are described–values consist of individual’s ideas of what is good, right, desirable and more clearly, the procedural, task and social norms of the group are conveyed in the case. These terms are described in Adler and Rodman’s text.

Module Six, Lesson One: The Group

A group: “consists of a small collection of people who interact with each other, usually face to face, over time in order to reach goals” (Adler, p.256). If there is no interaction with one

another, then the individuals do not constitute a group. Time is an important element in groups. Small groups refer to groups with no less that 3 members, because this is the minimum required to form “alliances either to put increased pressure on dissenting members or to outvote them” (Adler, 2003, p. 258). Thus, there is a political dimension to all group interaction. “Smallness is the ability for each member to be able to know and react to every other member. . . . collections of people ranging in size from three to between seven and twenty” (Adler, 2003, p. 258). “ In groups, members don’t just interact. Their members are interdependent. The behaviour of one person affects all the others in what can be called a ‘ripple effect’” (Adler, 257). Sometimes the group goals and the individual’s goals conflict (the individual has a “hidden agenda” (Adler, p. 261). Also, when there is low interdependence, the collective goal is likely to suffer.

Adler notes: “. . . in a democracy, the small group is the most basic way to get work done.” (Adler, p.256). Much of our work in organizations is accomplished through group work. It is at the level of groups that “contextual factors such as politics, legal requirements, and institutional norms,” (Adler, 2003, p. 259) are negotiated and made real ( or social definitions of the situation are created and enacted).

So why do we pay so much attention to groups and group communication? The answer lies in part because of a historical shift in the nature of work and the formation of modern organizations which tend to be, more and more, ambiguous with regard to positions we adopt, identities, and relationships. Modern organizations are a reflection of the shift away from labor- intensive societies to information based, and service oriented society. While the world consists of societies at various stages of development, we can say that when it comes to the USA the shift from traditional to knowledge-based, informational, service—oriented modes of interaction are quite apparent. “A key facet of organizational life today is negotiating relationships and identities. Relationships and identities are actively constructed. They are dynamic and fluid, not stable or unitary.” (Cheney,141). During the Industrial Revolution the factory models were everywhere, and were based on strict rules and procedures that had to be followed. In the Box below excerpted from Cheney et al (2004, p. 142), is a detailed description of the shift in relationships from hierarchy and prescription to negotiation, emotional labor, and communicative labor. The implications for the organization of the modern school should be somewhat obvious (as should the criterion for what it means to be a good teacher from an organizational perspective).

Consider now, the kind of roles that you play at your school. In particular, how much time do you devote to “promotional discourse” which is related to a concept we discussed earlier (presentation of self). How often do you question your sincerity and that of others? (Remember that Goffman, in his discussion of presentations of self, suggested that sincerity was of pivotal concern to everyone in these presentations). And, when it comes to the uses of communication in groups and in organizations, how technologized is the discourse? Does your school organization host “how to events” that present a danger because students, teachers and administrators may be treated as “objects” rather than subjects (as in I-Thou relationships).

The four major functions of communication within organizations described below, are examples of how groups mediate the contextual factors of the organization, such as its goals.

Module Six: Lesson Two: The Four Major Functions of Communication within a Group or Organization

There are a number of functions that groups perform in any organization.

Control: formal communication in the form of job descriptions, performance evaluations, school policies sets standards of behaviour, job expectations, etc. Informal communication appears in groups too, in terms of setting the implicit standards for conduct. (Robbins, 1993, p. 328). In factories, some groups engage in goldbricking, for example, slowly they are taught by others not to produce too much, too fast....

Communication fosters motivation by clarifying to staff what is to be done, who well they are doing and what can be done to improve performance if it’s below standard. Goal setting behaviours require communication.

Communication provides a release for the emotional expression of feelings and for fulfilment of social needs.

Communication provides information so that decisions can be made (Robbins, 1993, p. 328)

Advantages of groups over individuals

Groups have more complete knowledge and information; greater resources to share.

Groups increase the diversity of views and hence the outcomes tend to be more global and more creative.

Groups participation increases the chances that the decision will be accepted by more people.

Group decisions have legitimacy, especially in democratic countries, which value democratic methods.

Disadvantages of groups:

Time consuming: time to assemble the group; time to interact; limits ability to act quickly and decisively

Pressures to conform: to desire by group members to be accepted may squash any overt disagreement or dissenting views

Domination by the few: often, by the few who are of lower ability

Ambiguous responsibility: issue of accountability-who ultimately is responsible for the decision (or the mess we’re in).

Major Disadvantage of Groups: Groupthink and Groupshift.

Groupthink refers to the pressures for conformity from the group so that the group fails to consider unusual, minority, or unpopular views.

Symptoms of Groupthink phenomenon (from Robbins, 1993, p.349):

The taken-for-granted and often faulty assumptions of the participants is rationalized away (that’s the way we’ve always done it; we know we’re right; so and so does it this way); no matter how strong the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, members behave to reinforce their assumptions continually.

Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of the group’s shared views or on those who question the validity of the arguments.

Members who have doubts about the group opinion, or different points of view seek to avoid deviating from what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts.

There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. If someone does not speak, it is assumed that he or she is in full accord. Remaining silent or abstaining becomes viewed as a Yes vote.

To understand the implications of groupthink on organizational life, in particular the Challenger spacecraft disaster, please view the video clip at: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1078489327&fr=yfp-t-471" http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1078489327&fr=yfp-t-471. (If you watch Everybody Loves Raymond, you’ll recognize one of the key actors in this clip…) In the complete version of this film the developers identify nine characteristics of groupthink (defined as the “high regard for agreement’).

Immune from error–illusion of invulnerability (we can do no wrong).

Unquestioned faith in group’s morality (whatever it decides must be the right choice).

Rationalization–closing mind–focusing on pat success and guarantee of future success.

Stereotypes of outsiders–close ideas outside group (we-they).

Isolation of the group.

Self-censorship (imposed from within, willingness to devalue one’s personal ideas when they conflict with group.)

Direct pressure.

Mindguarding–ridicule, suppression of documents.

Illusion of unanimity.

Everywhere we look, we can find examples of groupthink. For example, some authors have indicated that the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) scare was a product of the closed environment and lack of consultation of the military with “outsiders” who might have challenged their impressions and illusion of unanimity. You can read more about contemporary examples of groupthink, such as the war in Iraq at: http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm" http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm.

It is important to realize that as you work with groups, the conditions in your school might be ideal for the creation of the herd mind, or groupthink. Some of the solutions to the problem of groupthink are to create an open climate where all opinions are values. Avoid isolation, so that outsider information flows freely to challenge the closed perceptions of the group. In addition to these remedies, it is important to assign someone the role of critical evaluator who is free to express his/her opinion without fear of censure. One of the problems in groupthink is the unwillingness to go against group opinion, especially if this opinion is legitimized by leadership. Thus it is important in groups to have non-directive leadership (we’ll discuss leadership in an upcoming module).

Module Six, Lesson Three. Group and Personal V alues

Values and attitudes can be expressed in general opinions often in small group settings: “People at work have opinions, and you don’t have to undertake a formal attitude survey to get at them. They’re voiced all the time: “Managers should never socialize with their employees.” “ A little conflict in this place is good–it keeps everyone on their toes.” I don’t think there’s any justification for the president of this company making a million dollars a year.” (Robbins, Organizational Behavior, 1993, p. 171).

“Attitudes are evaluative statements–either favorable or unfavorable-concerning objects, people, or events. They reflect how one feels about something” (Robbins, 1993, p. 177). Values represent the basic convictions that a “specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.” They contain a judgmental element in that they carry an individual’s ideas as to what is right, good, or desirable. Values have both content and intensity attributes. The content attribute says that a mode of conduct or end-state of existence is important. The intensity attribute specifies how important it is. When we read an individual’s values in terms of their intensity, we obtain that person’s value system. All of us have a hierarchy that forms our value system. This system is identified by the relative importance we assign to such values as freedom, pleasure, self-respect, honesty, obedience, and equality (Robbins, 1993, p.p.171). Values generally influence attitudes and behavior. One of the earliest efforts to categorize values was made by Allport and Associates, who identified six types of values:

Theoretical: Places high importance on the discovery of truth through a critical and rational approach.

Economic: emphasizes the useful and practical.

Aesthetic: Places the highest value on form and harmony.

Social: Assigns the highest value to the love of people.

Political: Places emphasis on acquisition of power and influence.

Religious: Is concerned with the unity of experience and understanding of the cosmos as a whole. (Robbins, 1997, p. 173).

What are the typical values that are expressed in small group interactions in your school settings? Remember that we bring our personal values into play too, as we work in groups. The Rokeach Value Survey examines the terminal values of people (desirable end states of existence, the goals that a persons would like to achieve during his or her lifetime), and their instrumental values–the preferable modes of behavior or means of achieving one’s terminal values. I have produced a table below to help you to reflect on the kinds of values you bring to the group (and most likely, to your class).

Terminal and Instrumental Values in Rokeach Value Survey

Terminal Values

Instrumental Values

A comfortable life (a prosperous life)

Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring)

An exciting life (a stimulating, active life)

Broadminded (open minded)

A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution)

Capable (competent, effective)

A world at peace (free of war and conflict)

Cheerful (lighthearted, joyful)

A world of beauty (in nature and the arts)

Clean (neat, tidy)

Equality (equal opportunity for all)

Courageous (standing up for one’s beliefs)

Family security (taking care of loved ones)

Forgiving (willing to pardon others)

Freedom (independence, free choice)

Helpful (working for the welfare of others)

Happiness (contentedness)

Honest (sincere, truthful)

Inner Harmony (freedom from inner conflict)

Imaginative (daring, creative)

Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy)

Independent (self-reliant)

National security (protection from attack)

Intellectual (intelligent, reflective)

Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life)

Logical (consistent, rational)

Salvation (eternal life)

Loving (affectionate, tender)

Self-respect (self-esteem)

Obedient (dutiful, respectful)

Social Recognition (respect, admiration)

Polite (courteous, well-mannered)

True Friendship (close companionship)

Responsible ( dependable, reliable)

Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)

Self-controlled (restrained, self-disciplined)

Original source: M. Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (New York: The Free Press, 1973)

Adapted by S. P. Robbins, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1993, p.194).

One aspect of communicating competently with others and in groups is to better understand your own values. If you would Like there is an extensive 30 minute survey found at: http://psychologytoday.psychtests.com/tests/values_r_access.html" http://psychologytoday.psychtests.com/tests/values_r_access.html. This exercise, while optional, is meant to help you to articulate your school of thought—one of the objectives in the course. It will also help you when you develop your philosophy of education in EDUC 605.

Module Six, Lesson Four: Group Rules and Norms

“Many groups have formal rules–explicit, officially stated guidelines that govern what the group is supposed to do and how the members should behave. In a classroom, these rules include how absences will be treated, whether papers must be typed or may be handwritten, and so on. Alongside the official rules, an equally powerful set of standards also operate, often without ever being discussed. Sociologists call these unstated rules norms. Norms are shared values, beliefs, behaviors, and procedures that govern a group’s operation” (Adler, 2000, p. 246). Rules are explicit, norms are unstated. Norms are the “unstated code” (p.247). Norms are defined as “ a standard or rule, regulating behavior in a social setting; shared expectations and obligations; prescriptions that operate at every level of society. The concept of norms also implies that of social control, i.e. positive or negative means of ensuring conformity and applying sanctions to deviant behavior” (Jary & Jary, 1995, p. 453).

According to Adler and Rodman there are three types of norms: social, procedural, and task. “Social norms govern the relationship of members to each other. How honest and direct will members be with one another? What emotions will and won’t be expressed, and in what ways? Procedural norms outline how the group should operate. Will the group make decisions by accepting the votes of the majority, or will the members keep talking until consensus is reached? Task norms focus on how the job itself should be handled. Will the group keep working on a problem until everyone agrees that its product is the best on possible, or will members settle for an adequate, if imperfect solution?” (Adler, 2000, p. 247).

In the following true case study, I reproduce portions of reports sent to me from a manager asked to shadow Ms. Wallace who, according to her staff, is breaking security protocol at one of the prison schools.

The True Story of Ms. Wallace: Teacher Socialization in a Prison Setting

“Throughout the training period and a matter, which continues to this date, is Ms. Wallace’s poor ability to adjust to a minimum security setting [prison] in some aspects . . . she is very lax in her security practices. Ms. Wallace has been taught repeatedly the Institutional Policy regarding inmate movement and control (Report from Angela, her subordinate).

Ms. Wallace’s story is about a novice school coordinator who seemed to be having problems as the school she had been hired to manage. Approximately eight months after she had been hired to run a small prison school, I was alerted to issues in the school that she managed on behalf of The Education Company I worked for, by one of three of her staff members who first called, and then came to see me because she was very concerned about Ms. Wallace’s management style. The extent of her concern was evident by the effort she made to come and see me in my office. The trip from the prison school to my office took over six hours over an often treacherous winter road. She even took personal leave for two days to discusss the problems at the school with me in person. When this staff member arrived at the office, she presented me with a nine-page report, documenting many security infractions she had witnessed at the school. This began my inquiry into her performance and it soon became clear to me that the prison authorities also were not happy with her work. Shortly after this visit, the calls from the prison staff (of the Correctional Service of Canada) expressing concern over Ms. Wallace’s management of the situation, became more frequent. A former Teacher Coordinator at this prison, (he was now employed by the Correctional Service of Canada) prepared a report about Ms. Wallace which he sent to me. In it, he writes about his concerns with her “management style;” according to him, her interaction with others is the key problem. He states:

Every time I was acting in a supervisory capacity, there were problems at the school. These inevitably involved confrontations with staff and/or offenders. Small problems quickly escalated and became much larger than were warranted due to her style of communication. Typically she would ask my advice and then argue with whatever solution I proposed. Her tone was inevitably abrasive and defensive, even when it was explained to her that her actions put her at risk in a correctional environment . . . . Frequently staff members expressed that Ms. Wallace was a security risk because she “wouldn’t listen.” This indeed was my experience. I frequently heard offenders complain about similar matters and enrolment in the school dropped dramatically. What was alarming was her unawareness of how she was affecting those around her . . . I am grateful that we were at a “Minimum Security” level during her time here.

I sent another Teacher-Coordinator, Sharon, to the school for one week to observe the situation, and she too, produced a lengthy report outlining Ms. Wallace’s infractions. Her style is inappropriate. Sharon describes a situation where one of the instructors is having quite a bit of difficulty interacting with a student and has gone to Ms. Wallace to have the student suspended, but instead, the Teacher Coordinator told the instructor to send the inmate home. The instructor suggested again that she see the problem student as it was the same student that the instructor had trouble with, just a few days ago. Sharon writes:

Again the Teacher Coordinator (T/C) disregarded the question and restated that the instructor was to send the inmate home. The instructor said again with more persistence that the Teacher Coordinator should speak with the student. The Teacher Coordinator then asked the instructor to send the student into the office. When the student came in, the T/C asked the student what the problem was. He explained that he did not want to do the assignment. When asked why, he stated that by responding on his views on women in the workforce, it may get back to the Parole Officer and affect his time here. (This should have been an alert!). The T/C agreed with him and said that they could change the assignment.

After describing this incident, the writer of the report faults her [Ms. Wallace] for not appropriately managing the interaction with the student, citing issues that

. . . include support towards staff, institutional issues in regard to his (the inmate’s) views and crime, accommodation towards the inmate, and the potential hazard caused by sending an inmate back into class who was just removed for not complying with direction by the instructor . . . It was also explained to her that she must listen closely to what the staff are saying and should have a plan of action that is consistent with every incident of noncompliance.

Ms. Wallace is faulted for not supporting CSC and not “sticking to the facts” She engages in gossip. Significantly, she also encourages alliances among staff: “This is very dangerous when staff is involved in playing games.” Along similar lines, she fails to share information with the teachers she manages. Sharon writes in her report: “Lines of communication must be open. Instructors must be kept informed of dealings and discussions with inmates.” Keeping the other teachers and the CSC informed is not possible in this school because the T/C has not prepared casework records that would help her to process the “problem” student/prisoners so they can be “actioned” by the CSC. The casework record of student/prisoners should be a “record of the dealings of every inmate and the counselling that took place.” Sharon believes that Ms. Wallace’s lack of attention to record management is important “for security purposes.”

It is clear to Sharon that Ms. Wallace’s “style of management was very accommodating to the inmate’s wishes and that there was no clear sense of control or expectations defined for consistency.” Her final recommendations consist of the following (emphasis and format in the original):

Always keep the lines of communication open.

Share all discussions/meetings with inmates with affected staff.

Never side with the inmates against staff (CSC or The Education Company).

Try to always look on the positive side of things. You are the staff’s strongest cheerleader.

When an instructor brings an inmate in to speak with you because of inappropriate behaviour, you must deal with the issue. It is imperative that you calm the situation down first, if at all possible.

Always try to hear the story from the staff member first, if at all possible. This better prepares you for the inmate’s arguments justifying his actions and you have a stronger stand in keeping to the real reason why the inmate is in your office.

There are some trivial discussions you can have with inmates without having the instructor present. However, always support the instructor, stick to the expectations of students in the classroom, let the inmate know that you always talk with the instructor, and follow-up with a discussion to the instructor of what was discussed. These interactions are important and should be documented. This is the only way people (Parole Officers, Program Delivery Officers and other instructors) can identify patterns of behaviours or thought processes.

Sharon concludes her report with the following recommendations: “Document everything. Be prepared for the worst. Be consistent.”

Identity the social, procedural and task norms implied in this passage. What role has been identified for her? (“Roles refer to the patterns of behavior expected of [group] members” (Adler, 2000, p.248). Functional roles identified in the book include as task roles such as information giver, seeker, giver, clarifier. Social/maintenance roles, such as supporter/encourager, harmonizer, tension reliever, conciliator) are rarely identified, but formal roles such as coordinator certainly are. What dysfunctional role for Ms. Wallace has been identified by the group (Adler, p. 269)? Think about the term: communicative competence defined as the process through which “…a meaningful and stable social reality is created and maintained through skillful interaction, and thus through the exercise of communicative competence” (Edgar and Sedwick, Key Concepts in Cultural Study, p. 73). What does this case study tell you about the nature of communicative competence? In other words, is it possible that Ms. Wallace would be “competent” in a different school setting? In the critical study of communication, one theorist uses the term “systematically distorted communication” (SDC) to refer to the ways that institutions are biased so that reality is constructed in ways that are favorable to those with power, capital, and wealth. (In EDUC 605 we discuss SDC as hegemony and ideology.) How is the information here an illustration of SDC? You can find out more about this topic and its implications for it at: http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/cohort/theory/ch20.pdf" http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/cohort/theory/ch20.pdf. In terms of relational dialectics, which one of the polarities is being emphasized in this case study? What kind of communication is recommended (monological or dialogical) and is it ethical. You are now prepared to discuss this week’s topic.

Applied Sciences

Architecture and Design

Biology

Business & Finance

Chemistry

Computer Science

Geography

Geology

Education

Engineering

English

Environmental science

Spanish

Government

History

Human Resource Management

Information Systems

Law

Literature

Mathematics

Nursing

Physics

Political Science

Psychology

Reading

Science

Social Science

Home

Blog

Archive

Contact

google+twitterfacebook

Copyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com