FLDP.org

We may think of communication as the process whereby we convey ideas, sentiments, or beliefs to others. Though we usually envision communication in terms of speech or language we may also communicate by visual representations, gestures, and imitation. Language, however, constitutes the chief form of social interaction between humans. Through this medium we learn to know people, share experiences, ideas, sentiments, and beliefs. Hence we define, diagnose, and solve our common problems.

Many group problems result from the inability of leaders or group members to communicate with other group members. We mean to say one thing but perhaps say quite another. We assume everyone understands us or our point of view. The same words may mean different things to different people. A slight inflection or emphasis may be interpreted by others much differently than was intended. The meaning of a facial expression or a body gesture may be completely misinterpreted. It seems that the old axiom about army orders applies equally well to group communication, “If it can be misunderstood, it will be misunderstood.”

In heterogeneous groups – where there are people with different backgrounds, occupations, formal education, and levels of communication skills – it is particularly important that each group member makes sure he is communicating with all other group members.

Group members tend to feel left out and unsure of themselves when they do not have two-way communication. Even when acts of hostility are communicated, there seems to be less resentment between the sender and the receiver when there is firm understanding on both sides.

Where there is the desire to change the attitudes and subsequent behavior of group members, two-way communication in formal or informal discussions tends to be more effective than lecture or direct order from above.

A group member is more productive when he feels that he has access to relevant information. Of special importance is communication on matters that directly affect him and the definition of his role.

Those groups that are most productive have a more adequate communication network set up than those that are less productive. There is higher group participation, productivity, and satisfaction when members feel they have the right to enter into discussion and where means are provided for adequate give and take between leaders and other group members.

Successful supervisors and leaders often achieve their results by paying attention not only to the members as individuals, but to the relationships, interactions, and communications within the group.

When formal communications are suppressed or ignored, informal lines of communication usually appear. In organizations where there is dominating leadership the informal organization structures that arise often have goals that conflict with the goals of the formal group structure. For instance, a subgroup that feels its lines of communication are blocked may take up the goal of making it difficult for the leader or getting rid of him.

In most group situations a decrease of interaction will bring about a decrease in the strength of interpersonal feelings and sentiments and will decrease member identity with the group. In groups that have a rigid status system, communication between status levels seems to serve as a substitute for real mobility toward higher levels. The results of many studies show the necessity of trying to communicate in the language that other group members can understand and accept.

What About Your Group?

1. Does your group really work at insuring good communication within the group?
2. Are there definite means of communication that involve group members in goal setting, determination of means, and ongoing group activities?
3. Are there definite means of communication for sharing knowledge, plans, administrative decisions, etc.?
4. Is there really two-way communication or just one-way communication?
5. Does your group depend mainly on grapevine or informal communication?
6. Have weaknesses of the formal communication system encouraged the development of cliques with non group goal orientation?
7. Has enough information and knowledge been communicated to individuals and subgroups so that they may coordinate their activities with others effectively?
8. Do the formal leaders of your group have only a “the door is always open” policy or do they actively seek communication opportunities?
9. Do you often overestimate how much other group members really know or understand?
10. Do you depend heavily on written communication rather than personal communication?
11. How are you attempting to interpret your group and its activities to the parent organization or community?