The Importance of Simple Communication in Group Development

Group interaction and discussion has an important function in socializing and creating networks of people. When interaction is present groups begin to form around important core shared beliefs and values. Sometimes these groups are formed with a very specific purpose like product development or they are more general directed such as political parties. All groups follow similar patterns as all first start with a discussion.

Society is a group that develops off of the conversations that people partake. Whether you are discussing a group of friends, workplace or a nation, at the very core of its identity are the shared ideas and beliefs among its people. Groups that discuss and communicate begin to create agreement around shared values that form their identity. Separated groups form their own identity.

One of the first things we should understand about group discussions is that not everything that is said has value for education or research. Most information discussed is shared information while very little is unique (Reimer, et. al., 2010). People seem to engage more in social necessities than actual meaningful discussion. 

This could infer that informal groups are more for social purposes than product groups. The same could be said even for voluntary groups around hobbies and other life events. Most people repeat shared information because it helps solidify the group. It is a way of interrelating with one another and finding a place.

Group discussion is not passive enough though much of the information passed among group members is social by nature it has the goal of understanding each other and finding an order among events. It becomes a process socialization that offers familiarity of thought and concerted action.

When people are together longer than a short period of time they will move through stages until new rules are adopted. Usually there is also someone(s) that come to lead that group through the quality of their discussion and charisma. Once rules and norms are developed the group becomes goal directed in its behavior and more functional than informal groups.

When they develop a shared understanding, find a leader and have direction the maintenance of such groups becomes easier. Each member already knows the value systems, can express their needs in the group, and can receive support from the group. Steering group beliefs through influencing the conversation during the storming stage leads its lasting impact on its identity.

.

Reimer, T., Reimer, A. & Czienskowski, U. (2010). Decision-making a groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: a meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77 (1).

The Microfoundations of Solving Complex Business Problems

Solving problems is a natural part of business development. Every organizational will need to solve particular problems if they hope to overcome market challenges and economic environments. The complexity of today’s global business environment requires better decision making that ensures the best solutions are forthcoming to enhance opportunities. A study by Baer et. al (2013) delves into  a theory of the microfoundations of decisions that help to predict impediments to solution formation when complex and ill-structured problems present themselves.

Problem formation has always been the fundamental stumbling block and main activity of strategic decision making (Quinn, 1980). Without solutions to problems organizations cannot move forward in their development and may be derailed by personalities, vantage points, bounded rationality, and poor decision-making process that take their toll on profitability. 

Complex problems are more likely to be derailed by the microfoundations of decision making due to the inherent self-interest of the decision makers themselves. In complex problems there are simply many more places for them to insert their own needs and interests into the solution thereby creating poor results. A problem is complex when it has lots of varying variables, a high degree of connectivity among the elements, and dynamic actions that change the situation over time (Watson, 1976). 

Teams are naturally limited by their bounded rationality or knowledge and cognitive capacity to understand and solve these complex problems (Simon 1957). Heterogeneous teams allow for greater diversity of thought and the loosening of social structure to incorporate new perspectives and vantage points into the problem. They can help avoid “tunnel vision” or the need to use their limited cognitive capacity on well-worn solutions and selective approaches. 

The authors believe that framing the problem and then formulating the root of the problem is the best approach to handing complex problems. Framing includes the writing down of symptoms of the problem, correlating those symptoms, and then settling on the important ones.  Solutions should not be discussed until all of the symptoms are agreed upon to ensure tunnel vision doesn’t make its way into the process. Once the problem is framed the seeking it is important to see determine the root cause. That root can be used as the catalyst to finding effective solutions.  

Baer, et. al. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (2). 

Quinn J. (1980). Strategies for Change: Local Instrumentalism. Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Simon H. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. Wiley: New York.

Watson C. (1976). The problems of problem solving. Business Horizons, 19: 88–94.

Using Groups to Create Company Innovation

Companies that don’t continue to improve eventually decline. Innovation fosters organizational transformation while encouraging the finding of new revenue streams. Research by Dew and Hearn (2009) help understand how hybrid groups can be as beneficial as nominal groups in promoting organizational innovation. Teams that work well together generate more ideas and find more solutions to organizational problems. 

Innovative development isn’t a wishful tactic. It has practical dollar and cents outcomes. Organizations that do not change, develop, grow, or adjust fall behind on the market. They stagnate while their competitors blast forward. Product development suffers and revenue declines. Innovation is about breathing new life into a company.

The very design of teams will determine their level of success. For example, social loafing occurs when one person doesn’t put enough effort into the team but receives the same benefits. Cognitive and social benefits from interaction can help in reducing the damaging effects of social loafing. Hybrid groups require individual effort during small group work while holding the entire focus group responsible to a bigger group. 

All groups are based on some level of interaction. The benefits of regular communication is that brainstorming in groups leads to more idea generation (Parnes & Meadow, 1959). Members build off of each other’s ideas to create new ideas. It is a process whereby one concept builds onto the next until a solution is forthcoming.

Before a problem can be solved it should be understood. Well defined problems can be converted to goals. Poor ideas are thrown out and the group settles on feasible solutions.  The generation of ideas offers opportunities to find and explore multiple solutions. 

The study included 672 participants and broke them into nominal and hybrid groups that engaged in problem solving. What they found was that hybrid groups work well and can be more effective for fostering innovation under the right circumstances. When group members are focused in small nominal groups, but must interact with larger groups, they are capable of creating greater idea generation and performance accountability. 

Dew, R. & Hearn, G. (2009). A new model of the learning process for innovation teams: networked nominal pairs. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13 (4). 

Parnes, SJ and A Meadow (1959). Effect of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem

solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 171–

176.