- Email: [email protected]
Barriers to small group effectiveness
Harry E Munn, Jr, PhD
Barriers to small group effectiveness
“We work best as an operating room team under conditions of severe stress. Suddenly something goes wrong and you can immediately sense everyone working together toward a common goal. Whether we like one another is immaterial. We have one goal, and that goal is the welfare of the patient.” This statement by an anesthesiologist should not surprise anyone. Most work groups tend to pull together toward a common goal when
Harry E Munn, Jr, PhD, is assistant professor of speech communication at North Carolina State University. He received his BS degree from the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire; a master’s degree from Bradley University, and his PhD from the University of Kansas. Dr Munn was a speaker at the 1976 AORN Congress.
908
they are faced with conditions of severe stress. They realize that the task cannot be accomplished except through total group cooperation. However, we are not involved in stressful situations the major part of our time, and this is when we are most vulnerable. As a result, we do not achieve maximum effort from our work group. How can we get members of our work team to work together, under normal working conditions, to the maximum of their ability? Many decisions are made in the operating room, but important decisions are also made in preoperative and postoperative meetings. In fact, these decisions often help determine operating procedures. Therefore, communication is essential, and this small group communication requires members of the health care team to discuss issues openly and frankly. At these meetings, attempts are made to determine the patient’s normal and usual responses and other preoperative parameters. These meetings must provide an opportunity for the total staff to present their feelings and gutlevel reactions. To be effective, the health care team must meet four goals: 0 a justifiable reason for being
AORN Journal, April 1976, Vol.23, No 5
Dpayebehavior a show of fear.
realistic opportunities for progressive successes 0 a promise of continuity 0 a promise of intergroup status. Most OR teams successfully reach the first three goals toward group effectiveness but seem to have difficulty reaching the fourth. If the group is to recruit and retain able members and keep their interest, it must hold forth some promise of status within its surrounding world. These four goals must be reached to a sufficient degree for effectiveness and group growth to take place. Many times we fail to recognize the need to create a group environment that enhances freedom to speak, express ideas, and contribute to the total group. We are too caught up in our own uniqueness and fail to recognize differences. This failure can create a serious barrier to small group communication. Roethlisberger stated that because there are so many differences in background, experience, and motivation, it seems extraordinary that any two persons can ever understand one another. Many times we have small group communication breakdowns because we are unwilling to recognize differences which create behaviors that are characteristically defensive.’ Differences of opinion are what the decision-making process is about. Only through differences can we share in 0
910
each other’s past experiences. Each member must actively participate in the decision-making process. Research indicates that members of a group will not be strongly committed to its decisions unless they have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. However, differences of opinion can, a t times, be destructive because we fail to recognize different points of view. Under such conditions, our value systems are challenged. How, then, can a group deal with defensive behavior and ultimately make the group more cohesive through argumentative discourse? The nature of defensiveness. Gibb defines defensiveness as “behavior that occurs when a n individual perceives threat or anticipates threat.” Thus, according to Gibb, people who behave defensively devote a n appreciable portion of their energy to defending themselves, They think about how they appear to others, how they may be seen more favorably, how they may win, dominate, impress, or escape punishment. As group members, we should learn to recognize symptoms that depict defensive behavior so that we may become more supportive. Giffin and Patton state that defensive behavior may be a show of fear, including postural, facial, or verbal signals that warn the other person to be careful. Many times people tend to withdraw
AORN Journal, April 1976, Vol23, No 5
from group participation or turn their attention to some other p e r ~ o n . ~ Gibb has developed six categories that arouse defensive b e h a ~ i o r . ~ 1. Evaluation: to pass judgment on another; to make moral assessments of another; to question his standards, values, and motives. Even the simplest question asked by a professional may evoke defensiveness. This is a serious problem for the operating room nurse as she attempts to communicate with physicians or surgeons. Their title affords them status which can easily become a disruptive influence where cooperation is essential. The OR team has a need to question, to find out, and only through a climate of trust will people feel free to question. However, sometimes remarks, made without malicious intent, are interpreted that way. For example, how can a surgeon or physician ask Who did that? without being seen as accusing? We can overcome our tendency to evaluate if we perceive questions as genuine requests for information. An OR nurse can be supportive by presenting feelings, events, perceptions, or processes that do not ask or imply that the receivers of her message change their behavior or attitude. 2. Control: to try and do something to another; to attempt to change an attitude or behavior of another. The degree to which attempts to control the behavior of others produce defensiveness depends upon the openness of the effort. If hidden motives are suspected, resistance is heightened. The OR nurse can overcome this tendency by showing a desire to collaborate in defining a mutual problem and in seeking its solution. 3. Strategy: to manipulate others; to use tricks to involve another, to make them think they are making their own decisions, and to make them feel that the speaker has a genuine interest in
912
them. No one likes to be the victim of hidden motivation. People in groups look for spontaneity rather than strategy. They want to communicate with someone who is straightforward and honest. The OR nurse who behaves spontaneously in response to an immediate situation arouses minimal defensiveness. 4. Neutrality: to express lack of concern for the welfare of a fellow group member; the clinical, detached, the person-is-an-object syndrome. In the health care field, we talk about TLC, tender loving care, but do we exhibit this same degree of concern for our coworkers? How long has it been since we told a coworker we enjoyed working with him? The OR nurse must learn to develop a rapport with the people in her group. She must identify with their problems, share their feelings, and accept their emotional values at face value. This behavior within a group is also analogous to leadership within a group. A group must be able to identify with its leader. If it can’t, there is no leader. There may still be a designated leader, but without followers, there is no one to lead. An OR nurse who combines understanding and empathy with another’s emotions with no accompanying effort to change them is supportive at the highest level. 5 . Superiority: to communicate the attitude that one is superior in position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, physical characteristics, or other ways to another; to arouse feelings of inadequacy in another. When this attitude is transmitted, the receiver may react to the message by not hearing it, forgetting it, competing with the sender, or becoming jealous of him. For a group to become effective, there must be a feeling of equality within the group. The OR nurse must be willing to enter into participative planning
AORN Journal, April 1976, Vol23, No 5
with mutual trust and respect. Little importance is attached to differences in talent, ability, worth, status, appearance, or power. Thus, a person expresses a genuine desire for feedback and a willingness to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship. 6. Certainty: to appear dogmatic; t o seem to know the answers, to require no additional data; to manifest inferiority by needing to be right. A dogmatic person is perceived as one who would rather win an argument than solve a problem. To become an effective group member, the OR nurse must learn to investigate issues rather than taking sides on them. Differences do not become an end in themselves. Rather, an attitude is communicated in such a manner the other person may have some control over the shared quest for ideas. Accordingly, i f a p r son is genuinely searching for information and data, he does not resent help or company along the way. Gibb has suggested that a defensive climate can best be countered by an accepting or supportive climate. To participate consciously in his own growth, a person must learn to create for himself, in his dyadic and group relationships, defensivereducing climates that will continue to reduce his own fears and distrust~.~ Thus, defensiveness is destructive regardless of the source. Defensiveness interferes with open communication, often to the extent that ideas become garbled and problem solving becomes impossible. Small group communication is difficult enough as one has to contend with differing philosophies, value systems, and ideas. Defensive behavior closes channels of communication, which defeats the basic purpose of a group to share ideas, solve common problems, implement programs, and sometimes even have fun.
914
Characteristics of effective groups. As groups grow, they tend to develop certain characteristics that provide insights into their degree of effectiveness. Effective groups tend to have a high degree of operational efficiency. This enables the group to use every person as a valuable resource. The group assigns tasks on the basis of people’s skills and interests. Ineffective groups assign tasks with little thought or planning. Effective groups exhibit intergroup status where all members share in the recognition and rewards of group achievement. To become effective, groups need successes, and from success, the group builds confidence and is able to meet new challenges. Finally, to become effective, a group must constantly work toward a common goal. Only through team work and mutual concern for one another can the group truly become productive. To be an effective group requires tremendous effort, but the satisfaction of group achievement will always be greater than individual achievement.
0
Notes 1. F J Roethlisberger, “Barriers to communication between men,” The Use and Misuse of Language, S I Hayakawa, ed. (Greenwich, Conn,
1962) 42. 2. Jack Gibb, “Defensive communication,” The Journal of Communication II (September 1961) 141-140. 3. Kim Giffin, Bobby Patton, Fundamentals of lntefpersonal Communication (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) 171. 4. Jack Gibb, “Defensive communication.” 5. Jack Gibb, “Climate for trust formation,“ in 1-Group Theory and Laboratory Method, L P Bradford, J Gibb, K D Benne, eds. (New York, 1964) 279.
AORN Journal, April 1976, Val 23,No 5
Barriers to small group effectiveness
“We work best as an operating room team under conditions of severe stress. Suddenly something goes wrong and you can immediately sense everyone working together toward a common goal. Whether we like one another is immaterial. We have one goal, and that goal is the welfare of the patient.” This statement by an anesthesiologist should not surprise anyone. Most work groups tend to pull together toward a common goal when
Harry E Munn, Jr, PhD, is assistant professor of speech communication at North Carolina State University. He received his BS degree from the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire; a master’s degree from Bradley University, and his PhD from the University of Kansas. Dr Munn was a speaker at the 1976 AORN Congress.
908
they are faced with conditions of severe stress. They realize that the task cannot be accomplished except through total group cooperation. However, we are not involved in stressful situations the major part of our time, and this is when we are most vulnerable. As a result, we do not achieve maximum effort from our work group. How can we get members of our work team to work together, under normal working conditions, to the maximum of their ability? Many decisions are made in the operating room, but important decisions are also made in preoperative and postoperative meetings. In fact, these decisions often help determine operating procedures. Therefore, communication is essential, and this small group communication requires members of the health care team to discuss issues openly and frankly. At these meetings, attempts are made to determine the patient’s normal and usual responses and other preoperative parameters. These meetings must provide an opportunity for the total staff to present their feelings and gutlevel reactions. To be effective, the health care team must meet four goals: 0 a justifiable reason for being
AORN Journal, April 1976, Vol.23, No 5
Dpayebehavior a show of fear.
realistic opportunities for progressive successes 0 a promise of continuity 0 a promise of intergroup status. Most OR teams successfully reach the first three goals toward group effectiveness but seem to have difficulty reaching the fourth. If the group is to recruit and retain able members and keep their interest, it must hold forth some promise of status within its surrounding world. These four goals must be reached to a sufficient degree for effectiveness and group growth to take place. Many times we fail to recognize the need to create a group environment that enhances freedom to speak, express ideas, and contribute to the total group. We are too caught up in our own uniqueness and fail to recognize differences. This failure can create a serious barrier to small group communication. Roethlisberger stated that because there are so many differences in background, experience, and motivation, it seems extraordinary that any two persons can ever understand one another. Many times we have small group communication breakdowns because we are unwilling to recognize differences which create behaviors that are characteristically defensive.’ Differences of opinion are what the decision-making process is about. Only through differences can we share in 0
910
each other’s past experiences. Each member must actively participate in the decision-making process. Research indicates that members of a group will not be strongly committed to its decisions unless they have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. However, differences of opinion can, a t times, be destructive because we fail to recognize different points of view. Under such conditions, our value systems are challenged. How, then, can a group deal with defensive behavior and ultimately make the group more cohesive through argumentative discourse? The nature of defensiveness. Gibb defines defensiveness as “behavior that occurs when a n individual perceives threat or anticipates threat.” Thus, according to Gibb, people who behave defensively devote a n appreciable portion of their energy to defending themselves, They think about how they appear to others, how they may be seen more favorably, how they may win, dominate, impress, or escape punishment. As group members, we should learn to recognize symptoms that depict defensive behavior so that we may become more supportive. Giffin and Patton state that defensive behavior may be a show of fear, including postural, facial, or verbal signals that warn the other person to be careful. Many times people tend to withdraw
AORN Journal, April 1976, Vol23, No 5
from group participation or turn their attention to some other p e r ~ o n . ~ Gibb has developed six categories that arouse defensive b e h a ~ i o r . ~ 1. Evaluation: to pass judgment on another; to make moral assessments of another; to question his standards, values, and motives. Even the simplest question asked by a professional may evoke defensiveness. This is a serious problem for the operating room nurse as she attempts to communicate with physicians or surgeons. Their title affords them status which can easily become a disruptive influence where cooperation is essential. The OR team has a need to question, to find out, and only through a climate of trust will people feel free to question. However, sometimes remarks, made without malicious intent, are interpreted that way. For example, how can a surgeon or physician ask Who did that? without being seen as accusing? We can overcome our tendency to evaluate if we perceive questions as genuine requests for information. An OR nurse can be supportive by presenting feelings, events, perceptions, or processes that do not ask or imply that the receivers of her message change their behavior or attitude. 2. Control: to try and do something to another; to attempt to change an attitude or behavior of another. The degree to which attempts to control the behavior of others produce defensiveness depends upon the openness of the effort. If hidden motives are suspected, resistance is heightened. The OR nurse can overcome this tendency by showing a desire to collaborate in defining a mutual problem and in seeking its solution. 3. Strategy: to manipulate others; to use tricks to involve another, to make them think they are making their own decisions, and to make them feel that the speaker has a genuine interest in
912
them. No one likes to be the victim of hidden motivation. People in groups look for spontaneity rather than strategy. They want to communicate with someone who is straightforward and honest. The OR nurse who behaves spontaneously in response to an immediate situation arouses minimal defensiveness. 4. Neutrality: to express lack of concern for the welfare of a fellow group member; the clinical, detached, the person-is-an-object syndrome. In the health care field, we talk about TLC, tender loving care, but do we exhibit this same degree of concern for our coworkers? How long has it been since we told a coworker we enjoyed working with him? The OR nurse must learn to develop a rapport with the people in her group. She must identify with their problems, share their feelings, and accept their emotional values at face value. This behavior within a group is also analogous to leadership within a group. A group must be able to identify with its leader. If it can’t, there is no leader. There may still be a designated leader, but without followers, there is no one to lead. An OR nurse who combines understanding and empathy with another’s emotions with no accompanying effort to change them is supportive at the highest level. 5 . Superiority: to communicate the attitude that one is superior in position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, physical characteristics, or other ways to another; to arouse feelings of inadequacy in another. When this attitude is transmitted, the receiver may react to the message by not hearing it, forgetting it, competing with the sender, or becoming jealous of him. For a group to become effective, there must be a feeling of equality within the group. The OR nurse must be willing to enter into participative planning
AORN Journal, April 1976, Vol23, No 5
with mutual trust and respect. Little importance is attached to differences in talent, ability, worth, status, appearance, or power. Thus, a person expresses a genuine desire for feedback and a willingness to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship. 6. Certainty: to appear dogmatic; t o seem to know the answers, to require no additional data; to manifest inferiority by needing to be right. A dogmatic person is perceived as one who would rather win an argument than solve a problem. To become an effective group member, the OR nurse must learn to investigate issues rather than taking sides on them. Differences do not become an end in themselves. Rather, an attitude is communicated in such a manner the other person may have some control over the shared quest for ideas. Accordingly, i f a p r son is genuinely searching for information and data, he does not resent help or company along the way. Gibb has suggested that a defensive climate can best be countered by an accepting or supportive climate. To participate consciously in his own growth, a person must learn to create for himself, in his dyadic and group relationships, defensivereducing climates that will continue to reduce his own fears and distrust~.~ Thus, defensiveness is destructive regardless of the source. Defensiveness interferes with open communication, often to the extent that ideas become garbled and problem solving becomes impossible. Small group communication is difficult enough as one has to contend with differing philosophies, value systems, and ideas. Defensive behavior closes channels of communication, which defeats the basic purpose of a group to share ideas, solve common problems, implement programs, and sometimes even have fun.
914
Characteristics of effective groups. As groups grow, they tend to develop certain characteristics that provide insights into their degree of effectiveness. Effective groups tend to have a high degree of operational efficiency. This enables the group to use every person as a valuable resource. The group assigns tasks on the basis of people’s skills and interests. Ineffective groups assign tasks with little thought or planning. Effective groups exhibit intergroup status where all members share in the recognition and rewards of group achievement. To become effective, groups need successes, and from success, the group builds confidence and is able to meet new challenges. Finally, to become effective, a group must constantly work toward a common goal. Only through team work and mutual concern for one another can the group truly become productive. To be an effective group requires tremendous effort, but the satisfaction of group achievement will always be greater than individual achievement.
0
Notes 1. F J Roethlisberger, “Barriers to communication between men,” The Use and Misuse of Language, S I Hayakawa, ed. (Greenwich, Conn,
1962) 42. 2. Jack Gibb, “Defensive communication,” The Journal of Communication II (September 1961) 141-140. 3. Kim Giffin, Bobby Patton, Fundamentals of lntefpersonal Communication (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) 171. 4. Jack Gibb, “Defensive communication.” 5. Jack Gibb, “Climate for trust formation,“ in 1-Group Theory and Laboratory Method, L P Bradford, J Gibb, K D Benne, eds. (New York, 1964) 279.
AORN Journal, April 1976, Val 23,No 5