In this chapter, we examined some issues close to the hearts of many modern communication scholars. The chapter began with an analysis of four critical communication issues. We looked at the differences between intentional-unintentional, verbal-nonverbal, and defensive-supportive communication, and between the content and process of communication. Although these concepts apply to all communication contexts, our examples and specific applications focused on the small group context. These issues have considerable overlap with topics discussed in other chapters in this book. For example, how does one express leadership behavior, or establish a group norm, or manifest one's personality, or express one's values? All of these become manifest through behaviors that communicate to others in the group.
The systems perspective fits very well with the emphasis in communication theory on the transactional model of communication. Many authors stress that the participants in any communication event are highly dependent on one another: They are simultaneously influencing one another and are both senders and receivers at all times. Wilmot (1999) goes so far as to state that "the process of your creating a message may affect you more than it does the person receiving it" (p. 402). The transactional point of view can be summarized by stating that a person's communication can be defined only in relation to some other or others.
In this chapter, we discussed both verbal and nonverbal communication. The systems nature of nonverbal communication is wonderfully illustrated in an article about fights breaking out over space in aerobics classes (Wood, 1993). The primary conflict developed when one person in the exercise group encroached on the exercise space of another. One factor in the mix was the territoriality of an individual's personality. Some people are much more territorial than others. A second factor was gender. Men are generally more aggressive than women. A third factor was the person's level of skill and the resulting body shape. As one person stated, "If you don't know the routine by heart or if your body fat is higher than 2 percent, it's best not to go [in the front row]" (p. D2). This situation is a perfect example of the systems nature of small group interaction. The type of group and the personalities, genders, body shapes, and ability levels all interacted to produce the outcome (poor interpersonal relations). "Verbal and nonverbal communication should be treated as a total and inseparable unit." We might add that each of the communication types discussed in this chapter is, similarly, related to all the others.
In the second section of this chapter, we examined four problems related to language behavior—bypassing, inference making, polarizing, and signal reactions. Each of these problems is related to both the background factors of the individuals and the eventual consequences of group discussion. We saw that background factors were related to signal reactions in a study showing that former sailors experienced a physiological reaction to an alarm bell they had not heard for 15 years. We also saw that similar reactions can be elicited by such verbal stimuli as our own names or our parents' names. The influence of language on group productivity was illustrated with a discussion of idea killers, such as "It's impossible," "That's crazy," or "That will never work." The net effect of this type of statement is a decrease in potential group productivity in terms of both idea production and interpersonal relations, as we saw in the case study at the beginning of this chapter.
The third section of this chapter dealt with self-disclosure, answering the question, "How much should I reveal and how much should I conceal in a group?" The Johari window was offered as a useful model for understanding one's relationship to others. The chapter included guidelines for appropriate self-disclosure. Obviously, appropriate self-disclosure will vary considerably from group to group. High self-disclosure is probably appropriate in an encounter group with a highly supportive atmosphere and a norm of openness and trust. However, social groups, educational groups, work groups, and especially problem-solving groups are hardly the place for a high degree of very personal self-disclosure. Personality also interacts with self-disclosure. If we open up to those who are highly Machiavellian, they will turn around and use our revelations to benefit themselves and possibly to harm us. Appropriate self-disclosure, then, is very much contingent on a number of relevant variables. For this reason, Tubbs and Baird (1980) have developed a contingency model of self-disclosure that suggests how much to disclose and under what circumstances. For example, self-disclosure should follow the natural evolution of a relationship. As we get to know each other more, deeper levels of sharing information are appropriate. Too much self-disclosure too soon will be perceived as inappropriate.
The final section discussed roles members adopt in groups. Group task and group maintenance roles were described as roles that contribute to the group's needs. Individual, or self-centered, roles were identified as communication behaviors that are typically not useful to the group. Roles undoubtedly interact with a person's personality traits. For example, a person who is dominant and achievement oriented will probably adopt group task roles quite comfortably. Affiliators will naturally gravitate toward group maintenance roles. Finally, hostile or acquiescent personality types will be tempted to adopt the self-centered roles of aggressing and blocking or help seeking and special-interest pleading, respectively. One of the reasons for studying different types of roles is to increase our ability to adopt different roles in accordance with the demands of the situation.
The readings for this chapter deal with improving management communication skills and with defensive communication.
