773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

77
3Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group
Effectiveness
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Describe interpersonal skills and their importance in the
workplace.
• Explain how our basic interpersonal relations skill set is
formed and describe methods for further
development.
• Identify and describe the major elements of the
communication process.
• Identify the major communication flows in an organization
and the type of information associated with each.
• Identify and describe three significant models of
communication.
• Outline the basic obstacles to effective communication and
strategies for overcoming them.
• Describe the relationship between positive interdependence
and knowledge sharing.

• Define interpersonal communication and its impact on group
effectiveness.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 77 8/19/16 9:36 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Introduction
Pretest
1. Interpersonal skills are only important in face-to-face group
work; they are not really
applicable to virtual team settings. T/F
2. Our ability to recall the information we have heard degrades
within a short period of
time. T/F
3. Social skills are not trainable; like personality, you get what
you are born with. T/F
4. One of greatest challenges to communicating effectively lies
in how both the sender and
receiver filter the content of a message. T/F
5. In teams, members pool their KSAs through mass exchange
or information capture. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Bexco is a small engineering firm that takes a team-based
approach to the work environ-

ment. At Bexco, a team composed of five engineers has worked
together for a little over
2 years. About 6 months ago, the team’s manager informed the
team members that he
had hired a new engineer to join their team. Team members
received this news well, and
they have spent the past 4 months adjusting to and training their
new team member,
Erik. During this time, team members have all worked with Erik
in some capacity and
have all experienced the same problem—Erik has trouble
communicating with others.
The team is decentralized, meaning that all members share
leadership and task roles and
communicate directly with each other. There is no single leader
through which to fun-
nel communications, which allows members to easily share their
knowledge and view-
points. This has allowed the team to enjoy uninhibited
communication and collaboration.
Although the team members have demonstrated the way their
communication network
functions and have encouraged Erik to communicate directly
with his team, Erik contin-
ues to direct his communications toward the team’s supervisor
rather than to his fellow
team members. When Erik communicates with his team through
the supervisor, he limits
his ability to influence the team and its ability to influence him,
which inhibits relation-
ships. Additionally, when he does communicate with team
members directly, his messages
are often unclear and his colleagues cannot determine their
meaning or the importance
of the information. His communications typically contain

important information but lack
the context the rest of the team needs to understand their
significance.
The team members want to help Erik improve his
communication skills. They under-
stand that everyone makes mistakes when they communicate;
while such mistakes can
sometimes be revised or explained, the exchange can never be
undone. Both practice and
empathy—understanding the perspective of the person with
whom you are communicat-
ing—will improve interpersonal communications over time. The
team intends to help
Erik grow his skills in this area by providing feedback on his
communication and present-
ing him with some guiding principles to effectively
communicate.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 78 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Whether we are employees, managers, part of a work group, or
on a team, working
together requires cooperation, coordination, and social
interaction. Given adequate
technical skills and material resources, effective performance
largely depends on prop-
erly using essential interpersonal skills (Klein, DeRouin, &
Salas, 2006). Effective teams

are characterized by using interpersonal skills to facilitate:
• sharing knowledge and viewpoints,
• identifying problems (by voicing concerns),
• solving problems and making decisions, and
• resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative
ways (Cannon-
Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Stevens &
Campion 1994; Varney, 1989).
These processes are too complex to address in a single chapter.
Problem solving, deci-
sion making, and conflict management are individually dealt
with later in the text. In this
chapter, we define and discuss the interpersonal relations skill
set, examine interpersonal
behaviors and skills relating to communication, and explore
their impact on performance.
3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Interpersonal skills, or people skills, refer to a complex skill set
that encompasses KSAs and
behaviors that enhance the quality of our interpersonal
interactions (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1995). Interpersonal skills and the ability to work
constructively in groups and teams top the
list of the most valuable skill areas for job seekers, interns,
employees, and managers at all
levels and across virtually any operational setting, from
accounting to the armed forces (Mun-
son, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004; Klein et al.,
2006). Everybody wants interper-
sonal skills, but nobody seems to know exactly where they come
from, what they are, or how
to get them.

Where Do Interpersonal
Skills Come From?
As with skills of any type, interper-
sonal skills can be learned, prac-
ticed, and developed over time. We
can consciously begin the process
of honing these skills at any point in
our lives and across any setting, pri-
vate or professional. However, most
of us develop an unconscious level
of competency in interpersonal skills
simply by living and interacting with
others over the course of our life-
time. Humans are social by nature,
and from our earliest moments, most
of us try to communicate with those
around us via eye contact, facial
expressions, body language, and
KIM JAE-HWAN/Staff/GettyImages
Today U.S. Marines receive special training in people
skills and social interaction before going on overseas
duty assignments.
Section 3.1
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 79 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

physical sensations, and we eventually graduate to using verbal
communication as well (Klein
et al., 2006). We develop a sense of social and behavioral norms
from our early interactions
with family and friends, and as we learn to read and interpret
interpersonal behaviors and
social cues. The greater our experience with interpersonal
contact, the more easily and natu-
rally we develop interpersonal skills (Miller, 2004).
As we grow older and experience more complex social
interactions, we develop a standard
toolbox for all our interpersonal exchanges. However, the
experience and skills gained via
social development may not fully prepare us for interaction in
professional settings. Work-
place relations can be difficult to navigate because they feature
rapid development and fre-
quent changes in employee roles, interdependence, expectations,
and demands. Today’s
reliance on technology-assisted communication, online project
management, and virtual
teamwork add an extra dimension of complexity to an already
multidimensional process.
Consider the difficulty of communicating emotional nuance and
tone such as shared enthu-
siasm, attentiveness, teasing, or sympathetic encouragement via
text or e-mail. The limited
ability to translate traditional interpersonal behaviors and social
cues via technology make
the development of interpersonal skills even more important for
effective communication,
coordination, and cooperation in the contemporary workplace
(Caya, Mortensen, & Pinson-
neault, 2013; Kimble, 2011).

Prior to the use of interpersonal skills as an umbrella term for
the KSAs and behaviors we
use to navigate and manage our interpersonal interactions,
theorists approached this field of
study with a “divide and conquer” approach. Formal and
informal theories evolved, defining
our ability to relate to others as social or emotional intelligence
and connecting our level of
intelligence with specific personality traits. Contemporary
thought regarding the identifica-
tion and application of interpersonal skills grew out of this
early theory work (Landy, 2005),
and the multiple dimensions of intelligence and personality
represent factors that can poten-
tially influence our ability to acquire and effectively utilize
interpersonal skills. In the follow-
ing sections, we examine different facets of intelligence and
personality and their relationship
to interpersonal skills. Let’s begin with social and emotional
intelligence.
Social and Emotional Intelligence
Long before interpersonal skills, member attachment styles, or
social value orientation were
considered significant elements of organizational behavior, E.
L. Thorndike (1920) intro-
duced the idea of social intelligence. Thorndike’s discussion
was more a call to recognize
multiple forms of intelligence than a serious investigation into
interpersonal competencies;
however, it did open the doors on this area of study and
introduce the idea that cognitive abil-
ity is multifaceted (Landy, 2005). Today theorists describe
social intelligence as the ability
to understand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during

interpersonal situations and to act
appropriately on that understanding (Marlowe, 1986; Klein et
al., 2006).
Social intelligence has three basic components:
• Social sensitivity: the ability to perceive emotional and
behavioral cues from our-
selves and others; this represents our awareness of what is
going on during a social
interaction.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 80 8/19/16 9:36 AM
• Social insight: the ability to meaningfully connect emotional
and behavioral cues
within a given context and to understand why we or others feel
and behave in a par-
ticular way.
• Communicative competence: the ability to accurately
understand and interpret
verbal and nonverbal messages from others and strategically
control the messages
we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980).
In action, social intelligence translates into social skill, or the
ability to effectively read, com-
prehend, and manage social interactions (Witt & Ferris, 2003).

Social skill allows us to trans-
late goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially effective
behavior (Schneider, Ackerman,
& Kanfer, 1996; Schneider, Roberts, & Heggestad, 2002).
The idea that human intelligence has not one but multiple
dimensions inspired some research-
ers to focus on our cognitive ability to perceive, express, and
manage emotion (Gardner, 1983,
1999; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Emotional intelligence (EI)
describes our ability to
identify and express emotions, understand emotions and their
underlying causes, integrate
emotions to facilitate thought, and regulate positive and
negative emotions in ourselves and
others (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Our ability to
deal with an interaction’s emo-
tional content can profoundly affect interpersonal relations and
conflict management.
There is a major debate on whether EI is trait or ability based
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2000). The trait perspective views emotional intelligence as
innate (Petrides & Furnham,
2001), essentially treating EI as a collection of fixed personality
traits. This approach has met
with considerable resistance, both academically (see Locke,
2005; Landy, 2005)—because
a constellation of personality traits cannot be considered
“intelligence”—and in practice,
because it shuts out the possibility that emotional intelligence
can be learned or increased.
The ability-based perspective offers a more optimistic view,
conceptualizing EI as comprising
relatively trainable cognitive abilities, capacities, and skills
(Salovey, Mayer & Caruso, 2004).

Either way, emotional intelligence has been effectively used as
a tool for selecting and training
employees whose primary tasks involve interpersonal
interactions (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002;
Cherniss, 2003). There is a tendency to confuse interpersonal
skills with personality traits,
and while they are different, there is some connection between
the two. Let’s explore these
topics more closely.
Personality and Interpersonal Skills
Personality traits are often confused with social skills. They
tend to be lumped together, par-
ticularly in our evaluations of an individual’s positive or
negative interpersonal skills. For
example, in an interview-based study of the interpersonal
communication skills human
resources managers most valued in other managers, many cited
personality traits as well as
effective communication and other interpersonal skills
(Bambacas & Patrickson, 2009). This
is understandable, since our personality traits, and others’
perception of them, can signifi-
cantly impact our ability to acquire and use interpersonal skills
in the real world. Individu-
als who tend toward introspection and shyness, for example,
will likely have less interaction
experience and thus lower skill development in areas such as
cooperation and verbal com-
munication. However, these individuals may also be more
practiced—and skilled—in areas
such as being mindful of others and listening effectively.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 81 8/19/16 9:36 AM

However interrelated they may seem, personality traits and
social skills are distinct. Indi-
vidual personality traits are considered relatively fixed and
enduring, whereas social skills
are relatively trainable (Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Leary, 1995).
Another major difference lies in
their practical use: Social skills can counteract the presence of
less sociable personality traits,
but the reverse tends not to be true (Klein et al., 2006). For
instance, socially pleasing per-
sonality traits such as extraversion and agreeableness will not
make up for a serious lack in
social skills. However, personality can affect our ability to
acquire and strategically use inter-
personal skills, thereby affecting performance effectiveness in
group work and teamwork. We
all have areas within our interpersonal skill set that our
personality and background have
brought to the fore. Capitalizing on these and improving areas
in which we have less experi-
ence or skill can counteract potentially negative personality
effects on group performance
(Leary, 1995).
So just what are interpersonal skills? Now that we have some
background on where they
come from and understand the theoretical foundations of
contemporary concepts, it’s time to
look inside the interpersonal skills toolbox.

The Interpersonal Skills Toolbox
Although there are more than 400 individual skill and
behavioral components recognized as
part of the interpersonal skill set, most are related to the basic
issues surrounding commu-
nicating, managing interactions and relationships, and correctly
interpreting social dynam-
ics and cues (Klein et al., 2006; Bedwell, Fiore, & Salas, 2014).
The components originally
perceived to make up social intelligence—social sensitivity,
social insight, and communicative
competence—are nice and concise, but tell us little about how
people are supposed to achieve
these abilities or which skills will strengthen them. In today’s
workplace, expertise in using
interpersonal skills calls for competence across several key
areas that represent both subtle
and overt skills. The basic subtle and overt skill sets are
outlined in the paragraphs below.
The Subtle Skill Set
Subtle skills affect interactions indirectly. They deal primarily
with how we think and perceive
or are perceived by others. Although we can actively engage
these skills during an interaction,
they are not an overt part of the exchange. The subtle skill set
includes critical competencies
in the following:
• Perceptiveness
• Self-presentation
• Mindfulness
• Cognitive flexibility
• Intercultural sensitivity
Perceptiveness involves acute sensitivity to and observation of

interpersonal behaviors, atti-
tudes, and communications; the interaction and its context; and
the elements affecting each
of these. Unlike perception, which is often skewed, skilled
perceptiveness requires seeing
and hearing things with as little distortion and bias as possible.
This is a necessary compo-
nent of effective group performance (Trower, 1979; Klein et al.,
2006). Nowhere is this more
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 82 8/19/16 9:36 AM
apparent than in interpersonal interactions, in which each
individual has a unique perception
of the situation, the interaction, others, and him- or herself.
During and after the interaction,
the group generates another shared perception of what happened
and what was (or was not)
accomplished within the exchange. As we will see later in the
chapter, what we perceive and
how we interpret it profoundly affect our interpersonal
relations.
Self-presentation involves influencing the reactions and images
others have regarding our
ideas, image, and self. This is a vital aspect of social interaction
and is key to organizational
success at any level (Baumeister, 1989; Klein et al., 2006). We
all engage in self-presentation

behaviors that are motivated by our desire to establish, manage,
and maintain an appropri-
ate personal image in the minds of others (DuBrin, 1997; Klein
et al., 2006). The process by
which we attempt to influence others’ perception of and
reaction to our image is referred to
as impression management. It includes demonstrating
punctuality, good humor, sensibility,
helpfulness, appropriate dress, friendliness, and approachability
(de Janasz, Dowd, & Schnei-
der, 2002). People working within an organization, either
individually or as part of a group
or team, are all to some degree dependent on the goodwill and
cooperation of others. Self-
presentation is therefore an important skill regardless of our
specific position or job require-
ments (Klein et al., 2006).
Mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves
during interactions in order to
inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). To do this,
we must be able to read and
evaluate our own and others’ reactions, as well as an
interaction’s efficacy in terms of how
the process is (or is not) accomplishing desired outcomes.
Mindfulness is always useful, even
after an interaction is over. However, as we grow in practice
and competency, being mindful
during an interaction allows us to read the situation and adjust
our interaction or communi-
cation tactics to be more effective. Mindfulness is also a key
factor in strengthening existing
skill areas and developing new ones.
Cognitive flexibility reflects our ability to shift perspective,
supplement and revise existing

mental models, consider conflicting information and evidence,
and create new mental mod-
els when existing ones are no longer effective (Hayes, 2002;
Ionescu, 2012). This helps us
avoid jumping to conclusions, making biased assumptions, and
stereotyping or prejudging
people or situations. Cognitive flexibility is useful to both task
work and teamwork processes.
It enhances our critical-thinking and creative problem-solving
skills and supports the devel-
opment of positive attitudes and relations between members.
Intercultural sensitivity reflects our awareness and
understanding of cultural differences
and our ability to perceive and relate to how people from other
cultures will interpret an
interaction, communication, situation, or event (Dunbar, 1996;
Klein et al., 2006). Key pro-
cesses involve keeping an open mind, viewing differences as
interesting rather than frighten-
ing, developing understanding and empathy for other people and
worldviews, acknowledg-
ing that “normal” is a flexible concept, seeking feedback on
perceptions of our own behavior
and customs, adapting to the unfamiliar, and constructively
managing confusion and conflict.
Intercultural sensitivity is a valuable competency within today’s
organizational environ-
ments, which are characterized by an increasingly diverse
workforce. Employees at all levels
can benefit from understanding how differences in cultural
values and norms affect behavior
and communication (Arai, Wanca-Thibault, & Shockley-
Zalabak, 2001; de Janasz et al., 2002).
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 83 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Next, we describe the overt skill set competencies that complete
our toolbox.
The Overt Skill Set
Overt skills directly affect interactions. When these skills are
engaged, they become active
elements of an exchange. The overt skill set includes critical
competencies in the following:
• Verbal expression
• Nonverbal expression
• Listening
• Persuasion
• Cooperation
• Coordination
• Conflict resolution
Verbal expression involves communicative competency in both
writing or speaking. This
requires us to accurately interpret verbal messages from others
and strategically control the
messages we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980). Language
is complex in that certain
aspects of grammar, word selection, word meaning, and vocal
tone can significantly change
or be differently perceived because of context. To be effective,
not only must communications
be clear, but the sender’s intention and the receiver’s

interpretation must align as closely as
possible. Learning to effectively express ourselves is one of the
most valuable and critical
interpersonal skills we can develop, and communication is
considered one of the most desir-
able skills when making hiring or promotion decisions (Klein et
al., 2006).
Nonverbal expression involves communicative competency in
both reading and nonverbal sig-
nals and cues. This is an important feature of interpersonal
interactions. Nonverbal commu-
nication encompasses a diverse range of sensory and behavioral
cues, including facial expres-
sions, physical gestures, movements, postures and orientations,
interpersonal spacing and
touching, and vocal and visual cues (DePaulo, 1992).
Individuals with poor social skills tend
not only to miss or misunderstand nonverbal communications,
they also underutilize or mis-
use them when communicating with others (Trower, 1980).
Listening involves mindfully and perceptively assimilating
verbal communication, paying
attention to the speaker and the content of his or her message,
and recognizing and acknowl-
edging the speaker’s communicative intent and expectations
regarding our response. Listen-
ing is a critical competency for collaboration, particularly in
interactions involving decision
making, problem solving, conflict resolution, and negotiation.
Teams engage in all of these
processes from the moment they begin collaborative goal
setting. We will discuss specific
dimensions and processes of competent/skilled listening in more
detail later in the chap-

ter. Listening is considered one of the most valuable
interpersonal skills that employees, and
especially managers, can employ in the workplace (Klein et al.,
2006; Robbins & Hunsaker,
1996).
Persuasion involves consciously manipulating interactions to
encourage others to adopt spe-
cific attitudes, behaviors, viewpoints, or courses of action
(Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996; de
Janasz et al., 2002). People employ three basic vehicles for
persuasion: credibility, rationality,
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 84 8/19/16 9:36 AM
and emotional appeal (Verderber & Verderber, 1986).
Persuading others through credibility
requires that the persuader be perceived positively and have the
ability to inspire confidence.
This aspect involves self-presentation. Persuading others with
rationality involves logical rea-
soning skills—part of the critical-thinking skill category.
Persuading others through emotional
appeal requires perceptiveness, mindfulness, self-presentation,
cognitive flexibility, listening,
and some aspects of intercultural sensitivity, enabling one to
identify and understand others’
emotional buttons and adjust tactics midstream. All of these
require communicative compe-

tency. Persuasion is a pervasive element in interpersonal
interactions (Klein et al., 2006).
Cooperation involves working together and/or in support of one
another to achieve a mutu-
ally beneficial outcome. Essential processes include identifying
and making positive associa-
tions between our own and others’ interests and goals;
determining mutually beneficial tasks,
activities, and processes; modeling and encouraging prosocial
and supportive behaviors such
as offering assistance; pacing activities to fit team schedule and
needs; monitoring others’
reactions to our behavior; and clarifying misinterpretations or
miscommunications (Salas,
Sims, & Klein, 2004). Although different personality types and
backgrounds can predispose
us to or away from cooperative attitudes, cooperation
competency—like any skill—requires
time and practical experience to develop. Being able to work
cooperatively is a highly valu-
able skill in today’s job market (Klein et al., 2006).
Coordination involves managing task interdependencies within
the performance process flow
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Essential processes include mapping
tasks and activities to sup-
port specific and measurable goals; handling resource
allocation, task and activity assign-
ment, sequencing, and synchronization; and integrating member
contributions and effort
(Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Cooperation and coordination are both
integral to effective group and team performance. Their value is
not limited to group work,
however; both are considered critical skill competencies for

interpersonal interaction in the
workplace, regardless of whether one is working alone or in a
group or team (Klein et al.,
2006).
Conflict resolution involves reconciling people, ideas, and
viewpoints; discussing and achiev-
ing closure on negative reactions and behaviors; negotiating a
mutually acceptable outcome;
and restoring positive relations between participants. Although
conflict resolution requires
a variety of skills, core competencies include perceptiveness,
listening and communicative
competencies, mindfulness, self-presentation, intercultural
sensitivity, and mediation. Key
processes include fostering constructive communication and
feedback, avoiding or mitigating
destructive communication and feedback, keeping an open mind,
engaging in rational rather
than emotional debate, identifying similarities and demystifying
differences, modeling and
encouraging a climate of cooperation and positive perceptions
of diversity, and synthesizing
viewpoints and perspectives to construct mutually beneficially
outcomes (Johnson & John-
son, 2013; Smith, 2001). Conflict resolution is another
competency that is high on the list of
most desirable employee skills (Klein et al., 2006).
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 85 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Next, we will overview some of the techniques and strategies
for developing interpersonal
skills.
Developing Interpersonal Skills
With an increasing awareness of the effect that interpersonal
skills have on the workplace,
organizations are now spending more to train employees in this
skill set. In fact, more than
half the training budget in organizations across all industries is
dedicated to improving
employees’ interpersonal skills (O’Sullivan, 2000; Landy &
Conte, 2004). Common sense sug-
gests that training methods should be carefully selected based
on specific abilities and needs;
however, selection is more typically determined by
organizational and individual constraints
(i.e. time, money, and other resources, as well as employees’
willingness to participate). While
Business Applications: Interpersonal Relations Are Critical in
the New Millennium
In the age of virtual workspaces, we might assume that
technology skills would be more impor-
tant than people skills. Management, human services, and even
sales are increasingly moving
into virtual realms where teams coordinate, customer service
reps placate, and negotiators . . .
negotiate—all in the intangible office space of the Internet. The
lack of physical connection in
our workplace interactions can lead us to think that
interpersonal skills are obsolete—but in
fact, it is just the opposite. Now that we have less tangible

interactions, it is more important
than ever that we pay attention to the people behind the
computer screen.
Rather than downgrading people skills, our transformation from
an industrial society to an
information-based one has many employers placing a premium
on interpersonal relations,
effective communication, and integrity (Zehr, 1998; Robles,
2012). Technical skills, though
necessary, are not enough to keep us employed in the new
millennium (James & James, 2004).
Current and future managers and leaders emphasize the
importance of interpersonal rela-
tions and other soft skills in the tech-assisted workplace
(Robles, 2012; Mast, Jonas, Cronauer,
& Darioly, 2012)—and these skills have some unlikely
advocates.
While the armed forces have a reputation for creating
ultrastrong bonds that last years beyond
members’ active duty, they are not well known for managing
with soft skills. This, however,
has begun to change. In his 2011 TED Talk, Brigadier General
Stanley McChrystal described
how managing teams in active duty after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, fostered
a realization that in this era of techno-communication and
virtual management, interpersonal
skills are profoundly important to managers and leaders.
Critical-Thinking Question
In his TED Talk, McChrystal describes the need to personally
connect, build trust, and mean-
ingfully communicate over distance via technological
interfaces. As an online class, you, your

classmates, and your instructors face a similar issue. Describe
some of the methods you think
facilitate meaningful communication and build bonds within
this class on the online forum, as
well as areas where you feel there has been a significant failure
to connect.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 86 8/19/16 9:36 AM
interpersonal skill training can be directed toward specific areas
of cognitive and behavioral
ability, the most successful development occurs when these
areas are woven together in a
training program that combines information, demonstration,
practice, and constructive feed-
back (Bailey & Butcher, 1983; Harrison, 1992). Here we
examine formal and informal strat-
egies that have acknowledged success rates and are frequently
selected by organizations
(Klein et al., 2006).
Formal Training Strategies
Of the formal strategies employed to develop interpersonal
skills, role playing is by far the
most popular and successful (Berry, 1998; Connerley, 1997;
Muchinsky, 2003). In particu-
lar, a specific role-playing technique known as behavior
modeling is often used. Applying
the principles of Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory to

interpersonal skill development,
behavior modeling consists of a multistep process in which
employees:
1. observe real-time or filmed interactions in which participants
demonstrate both
positive and negative behaviors (Baldwin, 1992),
2. practice recognizing negative behaviors and engaging in
positive behaviors by par-
ticipating in role-playing exercises, and
3. experiment with using these new behavioral skills in real-
world settings.
In a study of behavior modeling exercises used to improve
listening skills, researchers found
that role-playing sessions that broke tasks into smaller, more
manageable practice units expe-
rienced greater success in skill development (May &
Kahnweiler, 2000).
Sophisticated technology has increasingly enhanced the
effectiveness of computer-based
role-playing and virtual simulation training as well (Holsbrink-
Engels, 1997). One such role-
playing simulator is used in Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) training centers, where a
computer-based training program allows agents to practice
picking up verbal and nonverbal
cues to detect deception during interviews (Olsen, Sellers, &
Phillips, 2004). Teams in both
the military and civilian industrial sector are using computer-
based role-playing and simula-
tion training to improve communication and other interpersonal
skills (Salas, Burke, Bowers,

& Wilson, 2001).
Informal Training Strategies
More commonly and easily applied than their formal
counterparts, informal strategies can be
highly effective and have the added benefit of being useful to a
teamwork process. Common
informal training strategies include the following:
• Goal setting
• Coaching
• Mentoring
• Providing feedback
These strategies can all help informally develop interpersonal
skills, and they pull double
duty in teams because of their usefulness in facilitating
effective performance. Let’s take a
quick look at how informal strategies accomplish all this.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 87 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 3.2 The Communication Process
As we learned in Chapter 2, goal setting helps team members
stay motivated and focused on
team tasks and activities by providing a framework of clearly
understood, specific, and mea-
surable performance goals and expectations; a system for
evaluation; and planned discussion
and revision points. Goal setting is often one of the first

collaborative activities in which a
team engages. When a formal strategy such as the SMARTER
goals model is used, collabora-
tive activities and objectives are clearly identified, organized,
and broken down into manage-
able segments. The whole process is mapped out to be
accomplished in a relatively short time
frame. For these reasons, goal setting makes excellent practice
for developing interpersonal
skills such as coordination, cooperation, mindfulness,
perceptiveness, listening, and verbal
expression.
Coaching involves analyzing the performance of a team and
each of its members, offer-
ing insight into problem areas, and providing encouragement
and making suggestions for
improvement at both the individual and team level (DuBrin,
2005). Coaches can objectively
assess team members’ individual interpersonal skill
competencies and needs, as well as make
recommendations for how to consciously work on developing
skills during team interactions.
Mentoring is similar to coaching, yet distinct. Whereas coaches
take a more general approach,
mentors are committed to developing a long-term personal
relationship with individual
team members whom they feel can benefit from their knowledge
and experience (DuBrin,
1997). Like coaches, mentors objectively observe and offer
members specific feedback and
suggestions for developing interpersonal skills. Unlike coaches,
however, mentors will engage
in one-on-one training exercises (such as role playing and
behavior modeling) to help their

protégés succeed.
Feedback represents any form of communication that offers
individuals information about
themselves, their attitudes, their behavior, their performance,
and/or the effect they have on
others (Mill, 1976; Klein et al., 2006). Feedback can be positive
and indicate areas in which an
individual has succeeded in some way, or it can be negative and
focus on failures or shortcom-
ings. Both positive and negative feedback can be constructive,
however. Constructive feed-
back is intended to aid personal development and performance.
Giving constructive feedback
on an individual’s performance and interpersonal skills can
instill confidence in his or her
existing skills, identify areas in need of improvement, and offer
practical assistance in further
skill development.
Communication is paramount to all of these techniques, as it is
to all interpersonal interac-
tions. While communication skills are encompassed within the
interpersonal skill set, com-
munication itself is a process, and one that occurs within any
interaction. The remaining sec-
tions in this chapter deal with the communication process,
overcoming basic obstacles to
effective communication, and the relationship between
communication and group effective-
ness. Let’s begin with an overview of the communication
process.
3.2 The Communication Process
Communication represents the comprehensive exchange of
interpersonal, contextual,

and task-related information. It is the process of sending and
perceiving meaning via sig-
nals and messages. These activities can be both conscious and
unconscious. In face-to-face
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 88 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Message
Channel
Sender Receiver
Hello!
interactions, for example, we pay conscious attention to both
the messages we are sending
and those we receive. Body language, however, may
simultaneously send signals by which we
unconsciously perceive each other’s apparent emotional or
affective states (i.e., confidence,
excitement, anxiety, or disdain). Though often unintended, these
signals influence our per-
ception and interpretation of conscious communications. As we
become more practiced in
interpersonal skills and develop our understanding of the
communication process, we can
more easily shift from unconscious to conscious control of our
verbal and nonverbal commu-

nications and our perception of these in others.
At a minimum, communication requires a sender, a receiver, and
a message sent via a com-
munication channel between them (see Figure 3.1). Senders
initiate messages by encoding
the information they want to share. When we encode, we
translate information-
encompassing mental models into informative and expressive
language. Knowledge, ideas,
feelings, and thoughts are translated into a message, or a
symbolic representation of infor-
mation in a condensed form. Spoken or written words, images,
physical models, and body
language are all messages that have been encoded and sent
through a particular medium, or
channel. Personal and tech-assisted conversation, phone, e-mail,
texting, and social media are
just some of the channels through which we communicate. Once
a message has been sent,
receivers accept and decode the message—by processing and
interpreting the information—
and take appropriate action or respond.
Figure 3.1: Basic components of communication
The most basic components of communication are a sender, a
receiver, a message, and a
communication channel.
Message
Channel
Sender Receiver

Hello!
Direction of Message Flow
Workplace communication is often categorized in terms of the
direction a message takes on
its “journey” through organizational hierarchies (Lunenburg &
Ornstein, 2008). Table 3.1
provides an overview of the directional message flows found in
the workplace, including
downward, upward, lateral, external, and grapevine
communications.
As shown in Table 3.1, the separate categories are typically
associated with specific types of
messages (Canary & McPhee, 2011). Whatever direction they
travel in, messages are sent via
communication channels.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 89 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Communication Channels
Communication channels represent the media through which
messages travel. Channels
can be characterized by media type, degree of receiver
participation, media richness, and
organizational acceptance. Each of these dimensions can be
used to describe communication
Table 3.1: Workplace communications categorized by message

flow
Message
direction Description Examples
Downward
communication
Messages that move from higher to
lower levels of organizational hierarchy
(i.e., from managers to group or team
members, or from upper to middle
management).
• Procedural, goal, and task directives
• Initiative and change announcements
• Clarifications and explanations
• Employee feedback and appraisal
Upward
communication
Messages that move from lower to higher
levels of organizational hierarchy (i.e.,
from team member to project manager, or
from midlevel to upper management).
• Job- and task-related issues and
activities
• Accounting and performance reports
• Requests or suggestions for
improvement and change
• Grievances and disputes
• Employees’ feelings or needs

concerning their work, their
coworkers, and the organization
Lateral
communication
Messages that travel between employees
of equal or equivalent hierarchical rank
(i.e., between team members, between
same-level managers, or between union
leaders and corporate managers). It can
also include coordination communications
that flow diagonally across organizational
departments and hierarchy.
• Usually task- or project-related
messages
• Activity coordination within or across
groups and departments, and related
project responsibilities and issues
• Discussion among colleagues or
peers regarding messages from
higher or lower levels of hierarchy in
order to process the information or
problem solve an issue
External
communication
Messages that flow between organiza-
tional employees or representatives to
a variety of contacts and stakeholders
outside the organization. Messages in

this category tend to fall into two major
subcategories: Most are related to the
organizational business process, and
some are related to organizational public
relations.
• Organizational business process:
Sales, customer service,
advertisement, financial reports
to stakeholders, acquisitions, and
negotiations
• Organizational public relations:
Press releases and product,
marketing, and productivity
announcements
Grapevine
communication
Messages that travel outside of organiza-
tionally established lines of communica-
tion. These typically include work-related
information, happenings, or issues that for
whatever reason feel more comfortable or
accepted in an informal conversation or
interaction.
• Unpublicized organizational needs,
issues, or happenings
• Prospective transitions or changes
• Issues or relationships between
organizational employees or between
various divisions and groups

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 90 8/19/16 9:36 AM
channels in a different way. Together, they offer a
comprehensive understanding of what
media channels are and how they affect our communications.
Media Type
Channels characterized by media type are fairly self-evident and
easy to identify (Berger,
2011). Face-to-face channels include all same time, same place
in-person interactions (e.g.,
speeches, team meetings and discussions, brown bag lunches,
conversations in formal and
informal gatherings and groups, and so on). Digital channels
include technology-based inter-
personal interactions (e.g., texting, voice mail, intranets, social
media, wikis, etc.), as well as
real-time virtual communication spaces (e.g.,
videoconferencing, chat, electronic meetings,
and so on). Print channels include online and offline written
media that do not integrate social
interaction (e.g., reports, memos, written announcements,
newsletters, informational web
pages, books and e-books, journals, articles, and so on).
Degree of Receiver Participation
Marshall McLuhan, who predicted the Internet 30 years before
its invention and coined the

modern usage of the terms surfing and global village (Levinson,
1999; Getto, 2011), also
proclaimed, “the medium is the message” (McLuhan 1964/2001,
p. 25). He argued that the
communication channels we choose impact our messages by
engaging receivers in different
ways. McLuhan used the terms hot and cool to differentiate
between the receiver participa-
tion levels associated with each media format. Hot media (e.g.,
lecture, film, radio/podcasts,
and print) provide a wealth of information stimulus and require
little participation. We are
engaged through passive involvement—we need only to watch
and listen. Cool media (e.g.,
the web, social media, and face-to-face interactions) require a
significantly higher degree of
participation, since we are actively involved in communicating
informative and expressive
details. Meaningful communication via cool media depends
heavily on an individual’s ability
to communicate information, express emotion, and engage
communication partners.
Media Richness
Daft and Lengel (1984) developed the concept of media richness
to help communicators
select the best channel for a given situation. They proposed that
a channel’s communicative
ability should match a message’s complexity, in terms of how
much and what type of informa-
tion is conveyed. For example, complex personal messages that
require expression and tone
to be interpreted are not well expressed through a quick e-mail
or text message. The degree
to which a channel can convey message complexity represents
its media richness. Factors

that affect a media channel’s communicative ability include its
capability to convey multi-
dimensional information, effect communication, and change
understanding, as well as the
availability and speed of feedback along the channel. Daft and
Lengel outlined a continuum
running between rich media, those with the highest
communicative capabilities, and lean
media, those with the lowest capabilities (see Figure 3.2).
Face-to-face channels are considered to hold the richest media,
followed by interactive, real-
time digital channels. Media rich channels are considered
optimum for complex, multidi-
mensional exchanges such as negotiation or problem solving.
Tech-assisted communications
such as e-mail, phone calls, and live chats lack some elements
of sensory input and therefore
rest midcontinuum. Finally, print channels and other
noninteractive media, such as recorded
announcements, are considered media lean.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 91 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Lean Media Rich Media
Print
Tech-
Assisted
Exchange

Face-to-
Face
Exchange
Organizational Acceptance
Media selection is also influenced by organizational culture and
social norms, which affect
member thinking and attitudes toward specific channels and
how they should be used (Fulk,
Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1987). Formal channels are those
established by the organiza-
tion or its members specifically for communications related to
professional activities and pro-
cesses (such as company e-mail or official memos). Informal
channels spontaneously emerge
according to individual choices for transmitting personal,
social, and even work-related mes-
sages (Langan-Fox, 2001). Multioption, tech-assisted personal
messaging has become the
norm, blurring the lines between established and emergent
channels.
Listening—which thanks to technology can span all of the
descriptive categories discussed
here—is also considered a communication channel. According
to Harris and Nelson (2008), it
is the channel most commonly used. Ironically, listening is also
the most commonly fallible of
all communication channels. Before we get into the details of
what makes or breaks effective
communication, let’s round off our examination of the basic
components with some visual
models of the communication process.

Communication Models
Researchers have been modeling the communication process for
years, each one building
a new layer of understanding for this complex interaction. There
are three communication
models of particular note to our study of interpersonal relations
within groups and teams: the
transmission model, the interaction model, and the
constructionist model. Each focuses on a
single aspect of contemporary communication. Taken together,
they build a comprehensive
picture of the basic communication processes that occur today.
We will begin with the oldest
and most simplistic communication model, which
conceptualizes messages as transmissions.
Figure 3.2: Media continuum
Media channels move from lean to rich on the media continuum.
Noninteractive channels are
considered the leanest form of media, while face-to-face is the
richest.
Lean Media Rich Media
Print
Tech-
Assisted
Exchange
Face-to-
Face
Exchange
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 92 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Message Message
Signal Received
signal
Information
source
Transmitter Receiver Destination
Channel
Transmission Model
The transmission model describes communication as a linear,
one-directional process in
which messages move from a sender to a receiver (Ellis &
McClintock, 1990). In this model,
the sender or transmitter is the primary actor during
communication. The receiver is a rela-
tively passive target that serves as an end point for the
transmission process (see Figure 3.3).
First developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949),
the transmission model was
originally built to mirror radio and telephone technologies.
Although it still does a fair job of
modeling one-way, asynchronous, technology-aided
communication (i.e., tweets, posts, and

some forms of e-mailing), the transmission model lacks the
depth and complexity needed
to accurately describe dynamic interactions. It does, however,
provide a firm foundation for
later, more sophisticated theories, such as the interaction model.
Interaction Model
Slightly more complex than the transmission model, the
interaction model describes com-
munication as a cyclical, two-way process in which the sender
and receiver alternate roles
and interactively generate meaning via messages and contextual
feedback (Schramm, 1954,
1997). In this model, both parties actively engage in message
exchange, alternating quickly
and easily between the roles of sender and receiver (see Figure
3.4).
The interaction model acknowledges that senders and receivers
are mutually influencing
entities and that communication takes place within various
contexts that range from psycho-
logical to environmental. We discuss contexts in greater detail
later in this chapter. The inter-
action model simplifies and describes the ongoing
communication and feedback cycles that
fuel our interaction; however, it does not entirely capture what
actually occurs as we interre-
late. This is addressed more clearly in the constructionist model
of communication.
Figure 3.3: Transmission model of communication
The transmission model of communication assumes messages
move in a linear, one-directional
process.

Source: From The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Copyright 1949, 1998 by the Board of Trustees of the
University of
Illinois. Used with permission of the University of Illinois
Press.
Message Message
Signal Received
signal
Information
source
Transmitter Receiver Destination
Channel
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 93 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Encoder
Interpreter
Decoder
Decoder
Message

Message
Interpreter
Encoder
Message
Sender/
Receiver
Message
Sender/
Receiver
Negotiated/
Constructed
Meaning
Constructionist Model
The constructionist model describes communication as an
interactive negotiation of mean-
ing (Cronen & Pearce, 1982). Under this model, meaning is not
a set construct. Rather, the
meaning of a single word can change depending on its context,
the way it is used, the physical
and emotional cues given during an interaction, and its socially
accepted meanings. Accord-
ing to the constructionist model, communicating is not just a
simple exchange of information.
When we communicate we share meaning, and that meaning is
jointly constructed (see

Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5: Constructionist model of communication
According to the constructionist model of communication, as we
communicate, we negotiate and
coconstruct meaning.
Message
Sender/
Receiver
Message
Sender/
Receiver
Negotiated/
Constructed
Meaning
Figure 3.4: Interaction model of communication
In the interaction model, communication is perceived as an
interactive exchange cycle that takes
place within multiple contexts.
Source: Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W.
Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp.
3–26). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Encoder
Interpreter

Decoder
Decoder
Message
Message
Interpreter
Encoder
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 94 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
In many cases jointly constructed meaning occurs before any
communicative interaction. This
occurs when certain gestures or expressions have been
indoctrinated into our cultural under-
standing, such as using a thumbs-up to indicate approval or
readiness (good job; all set) or
using the abbreviation LOL (laugh out loud) to indicate humor
in text-only communications.
At other times, we discover the need to co-construct and
negotiate meaning during an inter-
action. Consider this exchange between 39-year-old Kylie and
her 72-year-old mother, Ailene:
After setting up Ailene’s online account, Kylie says, “Great,
let’s test it out. Who do you want

to chat with?” “What do you mean?” asks Ailene. Kylie points
out Ailene’s contact list and tells
her she can chat with any of the people who are currently
online. “But won’t they be too busy
to talk to me if they are already online?” Ailene asks. “If they
are,” says Kylie, “they’ll just refuse
to chat. It’s OK Mom, pick one.” Ailene looks at the list and
picks up her phone, “Ok,” she says,
“I guess I’ll see if Cindy has time to chat.” “What are you
doing?” asks Kylie. “I’m calling to chat
with Cindy, like you said,” answers Ailene. Kylie sighs.
What just happened? Before texting or online chatting became
the norm, saying “let’s chat”
had a whole different meaning. Kylie and Ailene both assumed
they had the same under-
standing of what the word chat means. However, it is clear that
they are talking about two
different things. In order to communicate, each person must
realize what the term means to
the other. They must establish a common ground and negotiate a
shared meaning in which
understanding can occur. Here, the common ground is that both
Kylie and Ailene expect to
test Ailene’s new online account by chatting. To negotiate
meaning, Kylie must acknowledge
Ailene’s understanding of the word chat and expand on it by
sharing her own. Ailene may
adopt Kylie’s use of the word, or together they may decide to
use a qualifier, like online chat.
Once a shared meaning is understood, Kylie and Ailene can
communicate: “Let’s try this
again,” says Kylie. “Just click on Cindy’s name to start an
online chat.” “Ok!” answers Ailene.
To sum up, the transmission model views communication as a

linear, one-directional process
that features an active sender and passive receiver. The
interaction model describes commu-
nication as a two-way, interactive exchange of messages and
feedback between two or more
active sender–receivers. The constructionist model
acknowledges that sender–receivers
interact not only to share information, but also to negotiate and
co-construct meaning. The
addition of this perspective is particularly important in fostering
group effectiveness because
it facilitates positive interdependence and helps maintain
member relations. Coming to a
mutual understanding and shared meaning can be difficult,
however, and diverse perspec-
tives and interpretations can become barriers to effective
communication. We will address
basic obstacles to effective communication and strategies for
overcoming them in the follow-
ing section.
3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
The complex coordination and interpersonal cooperation that
enable group and team work
depend on clear, concise communication (Kanki & Palmer,
1993; McIntyre & Salas 1995, Stan-
ton 1999). Yet communicating effectively is no easy task.
Ironically, part of the problem is that
we tend to think we are already good at it—we have plenty of
practical experience, after all.
Most of us spend 70% to 80% of our waking hours
communicating in one form or another
(Bebe, Bebe, & Redmond, 2011). However, effective
communication goes beyond our ability
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 95 8/19/16 9:36 AM

to hold our own during a conversation (Stevens & Campion,
1994) or to chat on- or offline.
Effective communication describes the clear and accurate
exchange of information, con-
cepts, and contextual meaning (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995).
This may not sound difficult, but as anyone who has ever played
the game of telephone can
attest, even simple communications can be misheard,
misunderstood, or misinterpreted.
Teams are particularly vulnerable to miscommunication because
members are highly inter-
dependent and tend to work in complex, dynamic conditions.
Operational settings that fea-
ture multiple information sources and recipients wreak havoc on
effective communication
and information management. Information loss and distortion
can obstruct the team, leading
directly to task and performance failures. They can also
indirectly contribute to negative out-
comes by creating or exacerbating misunderstanding and
conflict. Mismanaged communica-
tion is one of the most commonly cited causes for interpersonal
conflict and performance
failure in teams (Salas et al., 2000; Jelphs, 2006).
Why is miscommunication such a common failing? The answer
is complex, but like many

complex things it can be broken down to its base components.
The communication process
depends on a series of interpretative interactions that occur
when we process and filter infor-
mation, translate linguistic meaning, and listen to
communications. Each of these represents
a basic obstacle to effective communication—a point in the
communication process where
information loss and distortion will inevitably occur. In the
following sections, we will exam-
ine each of these obstacles in turn and outline strategies for
overcoming them. Let’s begin
with information processing and filtering.
Information Processing and Filtering
Information loss and distortion can occur at any point in the
communication process. The
first opportunity for mishap occurs as the sender begins to
condense and encode informa-
tion to produce a message. The information we want to
communicate does not sit placidly in
our heads, prepackaged into attractive and appropriate servings
like groceries on supermar-
ket shelves. Instead, we generate continuously evolving mental
models that encompass our
ideas, feelings, and thoughts, as well as all of the situational
variables, knowledge, history, and
expectations that are associated with or attached to them. To
produce a message, we must
first process all of that information, assigning values based on
our expectations and desired
outcomes for the communication. Next, we filter information to
encode it into the message we
believe most likely to promote our desired outcomes. Message
quality depends on our skill
and experience in managing these processes.

Sending a clear, concise message increases the likelihood that
we will experience effective
communication but does not guarantee it. The most common
cause of loss and distortion lies
in the fact that when we encode and decode a message, senders
and receivers use separate
and unique codebooks. That is, we process information within a
personal framework based
on individual viewpoints, experience, knowledge,
understanding, and values. The differences
between these frameworks are even more distinct when a
message travels across cultures.
Just as senders hold a mental model of the information they
want to send, and a framework
for processing, evaluating, and encoding it, receivers decode
messages by interpreting and
extrapolating meaning subjectively, altering the intended
message—potentially beyond rec-
ognition (Barnlund, 1970). This distortion occurs because
decoding represents a second
round of information processing and filtering, performed within
a new framework that results
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 96 8/19/16 9:36 AM
in a revaluation and reinterpretation of message content,
associated expectations, and desired
outcomes. Effective communication occurs when the sender and

receiver get similar results—
the closer the match, the more effective the communication
(Tubbs & Moss, 2006). This pro-
cess is made more difficult by the presence of communication
noise.
Communication noise represents
various distortional elements that
affect communication clarity. These
can include excessive information
(such as redundant, superfluous, or
overwhelming message content);
communication barriers (from func-
tional, cultural, or cognitive diver-
sity); and channel-specific limita-
tions (for example, the inability to
view body language via e-mail, or the
tendency to remember only half of
what we hear). Communication noise
comes from several sources. Some is
included in the initial message from
the sender. Other noise is associated
with channels we choose, and still
more is introduced during message
decoding.
Groups and teams can mitigate the loss and distortion inherent
in the communication pro-
cess—and thereby facilitate effective communication—by
developing shared mental models.
Shared mental models capture the communal, organized
understanding and conceptualiza-
tion of knowledge or beliefs that are relevant to how the group
or team functions (Klimoski
& Mohammed, 1994; Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Shared mental
models significantly increase

the likelihood of sender/receiver matchup. This is one of the
prime reasons they are so useful
in teamwork. Next, we take a closer look at information
filtering and processing styles and
outline some strategies for managing these for effective
communication.
Unconscious and Conscious Filtering
Every moment of an interaction floods us with sensory and
communicative data. This is true
even for online communications, for although we experience
limited sensory input from mes-
sage senders, we still take in sensory information from our own
context that influences how
we perceive a message. Cognitively, we simply cannot give
equal attention to all the informa-
tion we take in. Instead, we automatically filter, or pick and
choose the aspects or character-
istics that seem to be most relevant and meaningful (Fitousi &
Wenger, 2011). Information
filtering can be an unconscious or conscious part of our
communication process, and there
are three basic styles in which it occurs: selective perception,
emotional filtering, and practi-
cal filtering.
Ever hear the saying, you see what you want to see? Selective
perception occurs when we
selectively see, hear, or pay attention to (or alternatively, do not
see, hear, or pay attention to)
specific aspects or characteristics of an interaction or event.
Selective perception is a largely
Stockbyte/Thinkstock Images/Thinkstock
Communication noise can come from various sources

to distract the receiver from decoding the intended
meaning of a message.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 97 8/19/16 9:37 AM
unintentional consequence of the way we unconsciously filter
information based on personal
experiences, background, expectations, motivations, or
interests. We might be predisposed to
see the best or worst in someone based on our expectations. A
belief that nonnative English
speakers communicate poorly, for example, can cause us to
overly focus on relatively small
grammatical errors, even if the speaker is actually doing a good
job of getting his or her point
across overall.
Selective perception can be tied to our personal interests as
well. For example, in an early
study on selective perception in the workplace, researchers
asked 23 mid-management exec-
utives from various organizational departments to read a case
study that described a steel
company’s organizational processes and activities (Dearborn &
Simon, 1958). The executives
were then asked to identify the issue of highest priority within
the organization. Answers
were varied; some prioritized sales, marketing and distribution,
others prioritized organiza-

tional alignment, and still others focused on human relations
and teamwork. This disparity
of results occurred because each executive selectively perceived
the situational aspects that
most closely related to their department’s priorities and needs.
Our emotional outlook during an exchange can also influence
the way we perceive and inter-
pret information, resulting in unconscious emotional filtering.
For example, individuals
with a negative outlook tend to scrutinize communications with
suspicion and in great detail,
whereas individuals with a positive outlook tend to feel more
confident about their opinions
and take information and messages at face value (Sinclair,
Moore, Mark, Soldat, & Lavis, 2010;
Griskevicius, Shiota, & Neufeld, 2010). Consequently, happy
people are easier to persuade
(Brinol, Petty, & Barden, 2007). Under extreme emotion—good
or bad—we tend to disregard
our objective and rational thinking processes altogether and turn
to emotional judgments
instead. Emotional filtering is at play when a conflict between
coworkers escalates to a per-
sonal level, with each perceiving the other as deliberately
working against them regardless of
the facts of the matter.
Practical filtering reflects a conscious intent and effort to filter
information toward a par-
ticular purpose or goal. This can include filtering message
content:
• for clarification, brevity, and tone;
• to infer specific intentions or expectations; or
• to guide or persuade others toward a particular outcome,

viewpoint, or opinion.
Sometimes our desire to avoid conflict or be perceived
positively causes us to consciously
filter information to give it a particular slant or spin. We may
present only positive aspects
of a situation and avoid sharing concerns or problems because
we fear censure, loss of face,
or negative response. Or we may manipulate messages to
present the information—or our-
selves—in a favorable light. A good example of this is when we
tell colleagues or a manager
what we think they want to hear instead of our true opinion.
Similarly, we may also con-
sciously filter our communications to support a particular idea
or viewpoint that we wish
others to adopt. These spin tactics are a go-to tool for media and
public relations experts, who
routinely filter information to creatively present facts and/or
present a biased interpretation
of a product, event, choice, or situation.
Strategically managing both conscious and unconscious filtering
is a key to effective com-
munication. So how do we achieve this? Mindfulness plays an
important role. Recall that
mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves
during interactions in order to
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 98 8/19/16 9:37 AM

inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). Effective
communication requires us to
be mindful of our potential to skew or warp messages via the
filtering process. To mitigate
nonproductive filtering, we must do the following:
• Strive to be aware of and understand unintentional filters (in
others and ourselves)
that can engage selective perception and/or shift message
meaning or interpreta-
tion. This includes reading emotional cues and being sensitive
to cultural differences
between group or team members.
• Consciously choose how we process message information, and
understand the way
in which this affects our ability to interpret important
communications.
We take a closer look at message processing next.
Message Processing
When we process information, our first decision is how much of
our attention and cognitive
ability to engage. When deciding which brand of strawberry
yogurt to buy in the supermar-
ket, for example, we tend not to worry about doing preliminary
taste comparisons or brand
research. Instead, we often opt for a habitual or familiar brand
choice or simply select the one
with the most appealing picture or price. This is an example of
automatic processing (Petty
& Brinol, 2008), a relatively superficial consideration of
information and evidence involv-

ing generalizations based on our past experiences and what we
do or do not like, value, or
believe. In automatic processing, unconscious filtering is high.
Now imagine shopping for a new car. For most of us this
involves more than simple compari-
sons of size, color, or price. We might research the durability,
efficiency, and safety of various
makes and models, as well as special characteristics, styles, and
accessories. Then, once we
select a vehicle, we may compare the cost to lease or buy, and
shop around for the best deal.
This detailed consideration of information and evidence relying
on logic, critical evaluation,
and the gathering of significant facts and data represents
controlled processing (Petty &
Brinol, 2008). Controlled processing requires far more time and
effort than automatic pro-
cessing, but it also helps reduce unconscious filtering and
counteract conscious nonconstruc-
tive filtering because we pay far more attention to the realities
of the information or situation
we are taking in.
So how do we consciously select how to process messages
during communication? We can be
better prepared to shift between automatic and controlled
processing by understanding that
certain factors increase our tendency to engage in one or the
other:
• Interest level. When we are interested in message content or
outcome, we tend to
process information more carefully. Team members who are
invested in communi-
cations via commitment to task work or teamwork will be more

likely to engage in
controlled processing during communication exchanges. Interest
level is one of the
greatest predictors of whether we use controlled or automatic
processing (Blanken-
ship & Wegener, 2008).
• Knowledge. We are more likely to engage in controlled
processing when we are well
informed of a communication’s context or subject matter. This
is because we have
already tagged the content as important or of interest and
outlined some of our own
ideas and conclusions regarding the situation or information.
Well-informed receiv-
ers are more likely to demand more detailed information and
will also require more
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 99 8/19/16 9:37 AM
logical persuasion to change an opinion or agree to a solution or
tactic that differs
from their own expectations (Petty & Brinol, 2008).
• Personality. Some people simply desire or require more
information than others to
process a situation, form an opinion, or make a decision
(Worthington, 2003). These
individuals will opt for controlled processing. Others may be

more impulsive or
intuitive with their processing or lack the patience to get into
more detail (Briggs-
Myers & Myers, 1980). Automatic processing is likely habitual
for these individuals.
• Message characteristics. Combined message characteristics
such as media richness,
required participation level, and available processing time all
help determine our
tendency toward automatic or controlled processing. For
example, a video commer-
cial may be higher in media richness than a magazine article,
but neither requires
the viewer to actively engage and respond. The determining
factor here would be
processing time—the video offers very little, while the article’s
process time and
depth are chosen entirely by the reader. We tend to use
automatic processing with
video commercials, whereas we use more detailed processing
with an article we
take the time to read.
By understanding what type of processing we use for which
situations, we can more strategi-
cally plan how filtering affects our communication process.
Next, we look at how language
barriers challenge effective communication and how those
challenges can be overcome.
Language Barriers
Language is our basic means of communication, and the
foundation for knowledge shar-
ing and creation (Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005). But
language can either bring us

together or keep us apart. The normalization of the Internet and
the use of tech-assisted
communication have shaped an increasingly global workplace
with virtually networked
employees and teams. This environment creates a high potential
for miscommunication or
misunderstandings based on language and contextual
differences. Obviously, people who
work together require a basic level of competence in a shared
language. Until recently, it was
generally believed that adopting English as the lingua franca, or
common working language,
for global business would effectively erase language barriers
(Tietze & Dick, 2013; Youssef
& Luthans, 2012). However, simply speaking the same language
does not guarantee shared
meanings (Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013).
Language codes are culturally agreed-upon dynamic systems of
symbols that help us orga-
nize, understand, and generate meaning (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1993).
With around 6,000 language
codes in use around the world (Crystal, 2005), language is
simultaneously one of our most
useful communication tools and most easily erected barriers.
Learning a language is not just
about learning its words, however. Many words have several
definitions, to be used in dif-
ferent contexts. Meanings can further shift depending on how
we use particular words, who
we are talking to, and the tone of our presentation (Hayakawa &
Hayakawa, 1990). A bed of
roses, for instance, is quite different from the type of bed we
sleep in. Likewise, the saying “it’s
no bed of roses” refers to a difficult or unpleasant situation.
Language codes also have other

rules we need to follow in order to effectively communicate. To
achieve language competency,
we must learn the following:
• Word definitions and how they shift in context and
conversation.
• Proper grammar, so we can connect and communicate our
concepts.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 100 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• Conversational patterns for how to communicate smoothly
across various topics and
settings.
• Language conventions for acceptable topics, conversational
politeness, and for
addressing others in particular settings or of particular status
(compared to our
own). For example, we may call our boss by his or her first
name outside of formal
work settings but use a title in the office.
Failure in any of these areas can result in language barriers, or
communication difficulties
that arise from the inability to speak, interpret, or comprehend a
shared language at a level
sufficient for developing common understanding. So how do we
overcome language barriers

if establishing a lingua franca is not enough?
On a practical level, there are several guidelines both native and
nonnative speakers can fol-
low (Berger, 1996; Leung, Lu, & Liang, 2003):
• Be patient and persistent when communicating information
and concepts and when
explaining contextual meaning.
• Recognize contextual differences but resist stereotyping,
which blocks our ability to
get to know one another and develop mutual understanding.
• Be sensitive and accept differences in cultural scripts and
norms for interaction.
• Be mindful that in interactions, discomfort and conflict may
stem from differences in
cultural scripts and norms for social exchange, rather than
personal issues between
members.
Language barriers tend to aggravate existing frictions between
group members, which
impedes collaborative problem solving and constructive conflict
(Von Glinow, Shapiro, &
Brett, 2004). Furthermore, linguistic diversity itself can be a
source of negative emotions
between native and nonnative speakers of the lingua franca on
the team (Tenzer & Pudelko,
2015). Whether the team’s working language is English or
something else, nonnative speak-
ers can feel restricted by their language skills, perceive
themselves as lacking professional
standing or respect, fear negative performance appraisals, and

experience stress, embarrass-
ment, frustration, apprehension, or shame during interactions
(Harzing & Feely, 2008; Hinds,
Neeley, & Cramton, 2012).
These reactions influence nonnative speakers’ perceptions of
native speakers, and vice versa.
For example, overwhelmed by negative emotions during team
interactions, nonnative team
members tend to distrust or resent native speakers and view
them as arrogant (Tenzer &
Pudelko, 2015). They may cope by avoiding or withdrawing
from interactions that involve
comprehensive discussion (e.g., knowledge sharing,
collaborative discussion, and problem
solving) or by reverting to their native tongue, if member
diversity permits the creation of
cultural subgroups (Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014). Native
speakers often feel excluded and
disrespected by these behaviors and perceive them as rejection
or unwillingness to collabo-
rate or knowledge share as a team (Hinds et al., 2012).
Consequently, all team members end
up feeling excluded, devalued, and disrespected.
These dynamics are not limited to linguistic differences based
on nationality—they can also
arise within teams that bring together different functional
cultures. One study noted, for
example, that a divisive subgroup formed when two members
specializing in IT intention-
ally lapsed into highly technical language during disagreements.
By excluding other mem-
bers from the conversation, they effectively took control of the
debate (Ranieri, 2004). As

cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 101 8/19/16 9:37 AM
would happen in the context of national linguistic diversity, this
damaged the team’s ability
to resolve the conflict and effectively collaborate, and it caused
frustration and other negative
emotions among team members.
Negative emotions triggered by linguistic and cultural diversity
drive interpersonal conflict
and erode collaborative efforts (Hinds et al., 2014; Tenzer &
Pudelko, 2015). This further
damages communication between members, strengthens the
tendency to form divisive sub-
groups, and can instigate a vicious cycle of negative emotions
and process dynamics (Hinds et
al., 2012, 2014). The resultant losses to team performance and
effectiveness adversely affect
outcomes at the organizational level as well (Harzing & Feely,
2008; Hinds et al., 2012). While
intercultural sensitivity is key, listening is perhaps the most
critical skill competency for deal-
ing with language and contextual barriers.
Learning to Listen
Listening is the mental process of extracting meaning from
sound. This seems easy in theory,
but in practice it is quite complex. Listening involves a cyclical
process of receiving sensory

input and interpreting that which we receive into meaningful
elements. This process is made
more or less difficult by the amount and complexity of the
information we receive. When
we listen to recorded music, for example, we can close our eyes;
this sensory deprivation
has little effect on our interpretation of what we hear. During
interpersonal communication,
however, we can receive potentially meaningful information
from all of our senses. When our
listening skills are engaged in interpersonal interactions, the
interpreting process involves
combining what we hear with what we see, feel, experience, and
know.
Skilled Listening
Skilled listening is one of our most valuable tools for
interaction (Klein et al., 2006; Robbins
& Hunsaker, 1996). It requires more than simply extracting
meaning from sound. Listening
competence requires a veritable web of other interpersonal skill
competencies, including per-
ceptiveness, intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and
mindfulness. While we practice
all of these, we must also remember to pay attention to what is
actually communicated during
an interaction. Although more than half of our communication
time is spent listening (Johnson,
1996), we typically retain only 25% of the information we hear
(Treasure, 2011). The abil-
ity to recall verbally communicated information is also an
important facet of skilled listening.
Nobody’s memory is absolute, and our ability to recall what we
hear degrades quickly over
time. Most of us will forget roughly 50% of what we hear
immediately after hearing it, accu-

rately recall about 35% after 8 hours have passed, and around
20% the next day (Hargie, 2011).
This is because most people do not fully listen when others talk.
Typically, we are also busy:
• making judgments,
• preparing our response,
• contemplating our own ideas, or
• thinking about other things we need or want to do.
So what exactly does skilled listening entail? In the workplace,
listening can be broken down
into five practical dimensions:
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 102 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• Informational listening prioritizes complete understanding and
recall. Rather than
evaluating or interpreting communications, we primarily direct
energy toward accu-
rately recalling what we heard. When we listen to news or
progress briefings or ask
for directions to the nearest coffee shop, we are engaging in
informational listening.
• Critical listening prioritizes the analysis of communication
based on what is pre-
sented verbally and what is inferred from the message context.
Critical listeners can

accept, dismiss, or withhold judgment on messages while
seeking out more informa-
tion. This is particularly useful in persuasive exchanges or when
the speaker’s logic
or objectivity is in doubt.
• Empathetic listening prioritizes putting ourselves into
someone else’s shoes and
trying to understand what others are thinking or feeling. This is
considered the
most challenging form of listening because stepping outside our
own experience
and worldview is counterintuitive and not easy to do (Bruneau,
1993). Empathetic
listening is key to conflict resolution and helps maintain
positive interpersonal
relations.
• Active listening prioritizes pairing externally perceivable
positive listening behav-
iors (such as making eye contact, adopting an encouraging
posture, and referencing
statements made by the speaker) with positive cognitive
listening practices (such as
paraphrasing, summarizing, and asking clarifying questions).
• Passive listening prioritizes quiet attentiveness that fosters the
feeling of “being
heard” and absorbing both informational content and the
meaning the speaker is
trying to convey. In a way, passive listening combines
informational and empathetic
listening. Like active listening, it requires physical cues of
attentiveness, such as
adopting an encouraging posture. However, passive listeners
refrain from making

comments or having interruptive reactions; they give the
speaker “room” to express
him- or herself without interference.
Developing Effective Listening Skills
So how do we become more effective listeners? First, it is
useful to know and understand
our default listening orientation. As seen in Figure 3.6, listeners
can be categorized into four
basic orientations. Although some people shift listening
orientations on a situational basis,
many unconsciously revert to a single preferred orientation,
particularly in times of emo-
tional or cognitive stress (Worthington, 2003). Identifying our
default listening orientation
and the ways in which it affects our interactions allows us to
focus mindfully on these aspects
of our behavior during an exchange. This helps us consciously
redirect our tendencies during
important communications and strategically organize our
interactions to work synergisti-
cally with our default style. We’ll take a look at how to do this
in just a moment. First, examine
Figure 3.6 and try to identify your own listening style.
Mindfulness, perceptiveness, cognitive flexibility, constructive
feedback, and practice can
enable us to evaluate our existing listening skills, identify areas
to further develop or use to
better effect, and develop more effective listening skills over
time. The following steps offer a
helpful guideline for this process.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 103 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Action Oriented
Prioritizes addressing the
needs and feelings of others
over task-related content.
Easily frustrated by
information that is
inaccurate, excessive,
or poorly organized.
Enjoys processing complex
messages and prefers
detailed information with
multiple perspectives.
Prioritzes task completion
and goal accomplishment.
Tends to be impatient
with detailed or
irrelevant information.
People Oriented Action Oriented
Content Oriented Time Oriented
Step 1: Evaluate existing listening skills and identify a default
listening orientation. It is use-
ful to engage in both self-evaluation and assisted evaluation
involving constructive feedback

from others. Although self-evaluation does not require
knowledge sharing, it can certainly
benefit from it. Beginning with self-evaluation, moving to
assisted evaluation, and following
up with a more informed self-evaluation allows us to enhance
our mindfulness and make our
perception more accurate. We become able to practice these
skills throughout the process,
noting differences in how others perceive our listening skills.
We can also observe how our
own perceptions change after we receive constructive feedback.
Once we clearly understand
our default listening orientation, we can move on to the next
step.
Step 2: Review the five practical dimensions of listening and
analyze potential strengths and
weaknesses within them. Our existing listening skills will likely
be strongest in the areas that
engage our default listening orientation. We can identify areas
of potential strength and
weakness by comparing our default listening style to elements
of the five dimensions. For
example, a people-oriented listener will likely be better at
empathetic listening than a time-
oriented listener, but he or she may be less skilled in critical
listening. Both people- and time-
oriented listeners may struggle to stay focused during
informational listening. Another round
of assisted evaluation and feedback can help confirm our
evaluation of our listening strengths
and weaknesses.
Step 3: Engage in conscientious practice. With conscious
attention and effort, we can learn
to listen more effectively in all the dimensions. This requires

self-monitoring and control to
note when we fall into a default orientation that runs counter to
our listening needs and to
strategically shift our energies toward those areas where we are
not naturally strong. We can
also adapt the way we interact to better align our orientation
with listening requirements. For
example, action- or time-oriented listeners can strategically
manage information exchanges
by setting formal meeting rules or by simply informing others
of their preference (e.g., “I’m
pressed for time, just give me the highlights”). Likewise,
content- or people-oriented members
Figure 3.6: Basic listening orientations
Which listening orientation describes you?
Action Oriented
Prioritizes addressing the
needs and feelings of others
over task-related content.
Easily frustrated by
information that is
inaccurate, excessive,
or poorly organized.
Enjoys processing complex
messages and prefers
detailed information with
multiple perspectives.
Prioritzes task completion
and goal accomplishment.

Tends to be impatient
with detailed or
irrelevant information.
People Oriented Action Oriented
Content Oriented Time Oriented
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 104 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness
can ask constructive questions during information listening
(e.g., by asking for details or
clarification, or personalizing the information by asking about
member roles and opinions
regarding the information).
To sum up, effective communication depends on our
communicative competence and our
ability to overcome the major obstacles that impact
communication. The next section covers
how communication contributes to group effectiveness.
3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness
Group effectiveness is a highly studied area of group dynamics.
The multiple perspectives
from which it has been examined have identified many factors
that influence it in different
settings. Strategies for improving effectiveness include
cohesion, mental models, transac-

tive memory, diversity in KSAs, communication, leadership,
and interpersonal dynamics. At
the heart of all of these concepts, however, is the fact that
effective performance depends on
(a) facilitating positive interdependence and (b) maintaining
member relations. We accom-
plish these through two key communication processes:
knowledge sharing and interper-
sonal communication. Let’s examine these key processes by
taking a look at the relationship
between positive interdependence and knowledge sharing.
Positive Interdependence and Knowledge Sharing
As you may recall from Chapter 2, we defined positive
interdependence as the constructive
interrelations between members that support the group’s
existence and enable cooperative
action. In that chapter, we described group performance as a
state of positive interdependence
in which members work cooperatively toward a mutually
beneficial outcome. We also estab-
lished the concept that group energies and interactions work
along two distinct but simulta-
neous activity tracks: teamwork and task work (Morgan et al.,
1993). We can use this informa-
tion as a framework to better understand positive
interdependence by separating it into its
base components of interdependence and cohesion, as seen in
Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: The components of positive interdependence
Activity dimension Interdependence component Cohesion
component
Teamwork Socioemotional interdependence repre-

sents mutual dependence and influ-
ence on social relations and standing,
emotional state, and well-being.
Interpersonal cohesion refers to the
level of attachment and camaraderie
between team members.
Task work Task interdependence reflects the
degree to which members rely on each
other to perform tasks and achieve
goals.
Task cohesion reflects the team’s
shared valuation and commitment to
tasks, task work activities, and goals.
Sources: Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Beal et al., 2003; Kozlowski &
Bell, 2001, 2003; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 105 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Attachment
Knowledge
Sharing
Trust

Different types of groups must develop and maintain each of
these components to different
degrees. To illustrate this, let’s revisit the differences between
work groups and teams. Though
both are task groups, their interdependence and cohesion
requirements are quite different.
Work groups are led by a single, clear leader who controls
positive interdependence by
directing and managing individual motivation, efforts, and
accountability. Task interdepen-
dence is low, since group tasks and activities are coordinated
and connected only through
the work group leader. Task cohesion is largely superfluous in
this case, although a well-run
work group may develop a shared identity, with the group
leader as a rallying point. Likewise,
interpersonal cohesion needs only to be sufficient to foster a
positive working environment,
although long-standing work group members often develop
some level of informal attach-
ment. Socioemotional interdependence is mainly expressed by
adhering to designated roles
and hierarchy and by members’ respectful interactions.
Team members are largely self-coordinating, and positive
interdependence is reflected in the
basic elements of collaborative performance, demanding high
levels in each of the teamwork
and task work components. Despite their differences, both work
groups and teams foster
positive interdependence and maintain member interrelations
through a self-supporting
cycle of attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing (see Figure
3.7).

Attachment encompasses the extent to which team
members feel they are part of the team, are included
in team activities and processes, and look forward to
working with other members. In work groups, this
translates to a sense of being valued and appreci-
ated by the work group leader and an air of mutual
respect among work group members. In both types
of task groups, trust reflects members’ intention
and ability to be vulnerable to each other and to
the group. In teams, this is founded on the expecta-
tion without guarantee that all members will act in
support of the team and treat each other consider-
ately and benevolently (Rousseau et al., 1998; Whit-
ener et al., 1998; Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al.,
2003). Work group members trust that the group
leader will monitor and manage interactions so that
members are treated fairly and in a considerate and
benevolent manner. So how does knowledge sharing
fit in?
The Integral Role of Knowledge Sharing
In both work groups and teams, attachment, trust, and
knowledge sharing form a system of
mutual support. This is because knowledge sharing is the
primary means of accomplishing
the following:
• Script sharing and assimilation
• Clarifying group agendas and goals
Figure 3.7: Self-supporting
cycle of attachment, trust, and
knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is the key component
in actively maintaining this cycle.
Attachment
Knowledge
Sharing
Trust
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 106 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• Coordinating group tasks and activities
• Giving and receiving feedback
• Demonstrating trust and inclusion
Knowledge sharing is also a prime factor in developing shared
mental models, putting every-
one on the same page regarding the following (Cannon-Bowers,
Salas, & Converse, 1993):
• Physical resources (e.g., equipment and tools)
• Human resources (e.g., member KSAs, preferences, and work
methods)
• Tasks, goals, performance requirements, and problems
• Developmental and task-oriented processes
Knowledge sharing is not always a direct exchange or
assimilation of information, however. It

is also a way that group and team members can access diverse
KSAs.
Tapping Diverse KSAs
In work groups, leaders access the KSAs of subordinate group
members as needed, keep-
ing track of individuals’ expertise and accumulated task
knowledge. By contrast, team mem-
bers pool their own KSAs, but they do not do this by mass
exchange or information capture.
Instead, they create a kind of information network based on a
general awareness of everyone’s
task-relevant KSAs (Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Understanding
who knows what allows team
members to keep each other updated with relevant task
information and access distributed
KSAs at need (Wegner, 1995). When this behavior is adopted as
a shared script, it becomes a
collective system for encoding, storing, and retrieving
distributed information (Wegner, 1986,
1995; Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985). Within this system of
transactive memory, indi-
vidual team members are responsible for knowing one piece of
the cognitive puzzle, collect-
ing and sharing information relating to their particular KSAs,
and passing along information
that falls outside their area to other team members. The patterns
by which information is
accessed and shared reflect—or are mirrored by—a group or
team’s internal hierarchy.
Communication and Hierarchy
When we consistently interact within small groups, we develop
patterns of communication.
Referred to as communication networks, these patterns reflect
the way in which group mem-

773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

Similar to 773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx (12)

More from blondellchancy

More from blondellchancy (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx