Interpersonal and Small Group Communication - Research Paper Example

Interpersonal and small group communication Communication is a very complex process that involves a lot of other numerous sub processes. Communication is defined as the exchange or sharing of ideas or information (Lakoff & Johnson, 3). Interpersonal communication is the process by which information is swapped between or among people. In interpersonal communication also involves imparting of feelings through non-verbal and verbal messages .Small group communication is the interpersonal communication in groups of 3 to 20 individuals. Small group communication takes place where interpersonal interactions are mixed with social clustering (Frey, 50). This paper details a group project carried out to illustrate the theories and principles of small group communication as discussed in the course. Body The first part of the project involved planning the group and various activities the group would undertake with reference to various theories and principles of communication. Basing the group to actual theories and models would help bring the course teachings and lessons learnt out well. Also basing the group on theory would help ease interpretation, systemize the way members of the group thought and the actions executed. The group consisted of 10 members. Among the ten, five were men and five women. Through consensus a group leader was selected. Through a unanimous decision I was elected the group leader. According to our model the group leader was to be influential to the merits of the group. As the group leader I would deliberate on the issues the group would discuss at any given time. The group leader was also expected to ensure that every group member participated in the discussion process. A decision or conclusion made by the group would also be a decision arrived at, after thorough discussion and consensus from every group member. Group members were expected to take part in every group activity. All group members were also supposed to ensure that everybody was given the rightful chance to participate in the group. Under guidance of the group leader, a final decision in every discussion or activity was to be derived through equal participation and the best result was determined according to the level of consensus within group members. All group members then agreed on various rules that entailed÷ When making any contribution to the group, the contribution should be relevant to what the group is discussing or doing. Any group member should not interrupt the other while contributing but should wait for his/her chance to contribute. The group leader should be as impartial as possible and should not consider his/her opinions over others. Decisions were to be arrived at through a consensus. The group leader was to come up with the group’s activity through consultations with the members. If any member of the group disagreed with any member’s opinion or the group’s decision, he/she should state it to the other members for deliberation rather than heckle or cajole any group member. After laying the basic group rules framework, the group came up with the objectives of the group. The objectives of the group were÷ Bring out the outlines of various small group communication theories clearly. Put to practice the principles of communication. The group set out for discussion after coming up with the group’s objectives and rules. The first discussion was about analyzing the principles of communication a speaker uses while addressing an audience. The aim of the discussion was to come up with the correct speaker’s principles the president employed to convince the public to vote for him after one of his campaign team members gaffed in the public. Group member no. 2 pointed out that the president’s main principle was to understand his audience well. Group member no. 3 objected saying that the president’s main strength was innate oratory skills. After member no. 3’s opinion the group members were almost all up in objection. As the group leader I controlled the objection process by giving each group member his/her own time to respond. At the end of the discussion the group concluded that the president understood the American audience well and that was his main strength. The above illustration in the group shows the Functional theory in use. This theory studies the results of structures and behaviors of a group. In this theory communication is the tool group members use to make decisions and solve problems within the group. Through communication also according to the theory members are able to make rational decisions and judgments through the use of critical thinking. For instance, in the group’s case a rational judgment was arrived at through communication. The group concluded that an innate oratory skill as suggested by member no.3 was irrational (Giroun & Hirokawa, 55-80). Several conditions of functional theory existed in the group. These conditions include÷ Group members are committed to coming up with the best decision. Group members would determine various procedures the group would follow. Group members had articulated on interaction practices and procedural rules for the group. Group members could develop alternative solutions to any issue. Each group member understood the charge of the group. The group was able to use evaluation to choose between alternatives (Giroun & Hirokawa, 58). In the above illustration the principle of knowing the topic is seen among the group members. The principle requires that each group member understands the topic the group is discussing prior to contributing to the group’s proceedings. Each group member understands what is being discussed hence the outstanding objection to member no. 3’s opinion. Member no. 3 also understands the topic being discussed hence her contribution that the president has innate oratory skills. The principle of anticipating for objections is also seen in the group especially with me as the leader. As the leader I am able to control the objection process effectively to enable the correct decision being arrived at. The group members also show this principle by objecting to member no.3’s opinion (Poole, 37-70). The group went on with its discussion on the second day now to put to use various speech analysis terminologies. Member no. 7 suggested that the president appealed to the pathos of the American people by citing his heritage as the child of an American teenager and a Kenyan man. Member no.10 objected saying that the president appealed to pathos by giving a brief history of the United States as a united nation. All the members of the group came up with their own examples as to whereby the president appealed to pathos appropriately. As the group leader I gave each and every member of the group a chance to give the part of the president’s speech that appealed to pathos. A heated debate ensued and the final decision was hard to discern. After much discussion with no progress, through a consensus the group decided to give me as their leader a chance to come up with two examples that they would vote on to come up with the correct answer. This had become a norm in the group in the two days the group was in existence. My leadership was both participative and delegative. Group members had come to like my style and thus were convinced of my unbiasness and impartiality (Frey, 54). In the group activity shown above the theory of structuration is seen in use. The theory assumes that over time depending on the level of communication that takes place between the group members, group members follow particular rules in their interactions that produce some sort of outcome. The theory concerns the processes the group members utilize while they are together. The processes soon become a part of the system used by the group (Poole et al, 72-74). In the group, group members had become accustomed to seeking my guidance and judgment every time they were in disarray. In this case they decided to use my good leadership skills to come up with the best answer. In the example the role of environmental factors is seen at play in the group members. The members education and knowledge influences the outcome of the group’s activity. From the members vast and profound knowledge they are able to determine which part of the president’s speech appeals best to the pathos of the American people (NYT, 2007). The principle of use of multiple communication techniques is seen at play in the above illustrated example. Communication is a complex procedure. It doesnt only entail the obvious technical communication like talking and verbal language. Use of a medium or arbitrator to get the final result in the group shows the maturity of communication and participation within the group. When the group members chose me as the arbitrator, it shows not only the credibility I had attained as their leader but also the ability of the group members by using numerous techniques to communicate (Frey et al, 23). The principle of incorporating major anticipated objections in the group’s procedure in decision making is seen. The first opinion by member no. 7 seems clear as the best point to sum up the appeal to pathos of the president in his speech but the final decision is different from it. Objections always help in coming up with the appropriate decision for the group. In a small group the leader should earn credibility among the group members. As the group leader I earned not only the credibility as a good problem solver but an impartial unbiased leader. Good leadership techniques such as active participation and leaving the members to come up with topics and issues to be discussed by the group also contributed in building my credibility and authority in the group (Sunwolf & Selbold, 395-431). Conclusion Our group of ten members was able to put to practice and illustrate various principles and theories of communication. The group having been founded on the principles of communication in small groups with each member knowing all technicalities of a small group exceeded expectations. Since all the group members belonged to one course, the group is used today in the discussion of various topics in the course. Works cited Frey, L. (Ed.). (1994). Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Frey, L., et al. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gouran, D., & Hirokawa, R. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view.. (pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage “Interpersonal Communication Tips” (2007), The New York Times Company, retrieved from http//www.about.com. on 02nd April 2013. (NYT) Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Poole, M. (1999). Group communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp. 37-70). Poole, M. et al (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, (p.71-74). Sunwolf & Seibold, D. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes. (pp. 395-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Read More