eBook (EPUB) In Mixed Company Communicating in Small Groups and Teams 11e Dan Rothwell.pdf

Get complete eBook Order by email at goodsmtb@hotmail.com

In Mixed Company
Communicating in Small Groups and Teams
Eleventh Edition
J. Dan Rothwell
New York Oxford
Oxford University Press

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and
education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© 2022, 2019 by Oxford University Press
© 2016, 2013, 2010 by Cengage Learning
For titles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education Opportunity Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the latest information about
pricing and alternate formats.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford
University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Rothwell, J. Dan, author.
Title: In mixed company : communicating in small groups and teams / J. Dan Rothwell.
Description: Eleventh edition. | New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2022] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021015032 (print) | LCCN 2021015033 (ebook) | ISBN 9780197602812 (paperback) | ISBN 9780197602843 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Communication in small groups.
Classification: LCC HM736 .R678 2022 (print) | LCC HM736 (ebook) | DDC 302.34—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015032
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015033
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by LSC Communications, Inc., United States of America
Created on: 20 September 2021 at 9:04 p.m.

Dedication
To my family: Marcy, Hilary, Geoff, Barrett, and Clare

Table Of Contents
Preface
Chapter 1: Communication Competence in Groups
Myths about Communication
Myth 1: Communication Is a Cure-all
Myth 2: Communication Can Break Down
Myth 3: Effective Communication Is Merely Skill Building
Myth 4: 93% of Meaning Is Communicated Nonverbally
Myth 5: Effective Communication Is Just Common Sense
Communication Defined
Communication as Transactional: Mutually Influential
Communication as a Process: The Continuous Flow
Communication as Sharing Meaning: Making Sense
Verbal Communication: Telling It Like It Isn’t
Nonverbal Communication: Wordless Meaning
Communication Competence
Effectiveness: Achieving Goals
A Matter of Degree: From Deficiency to Proficiency
We (Not Me) Oriented: Primacy of Groups
Appropriateness: Following the Rules
Rule Violations: Consequential Effects
Rule Changes: Context Specific
Achieving Communication Competence
Knowledge: Learning the Rules
Skills: Showing, Not Just Knowing
Sensitivity: Receptive Accuracy
Commitment: A Passion for Excellence
Ethics: The Right and Wrong of Communication
Culture and Communication Competence
Individualism-Collectivism Dimension: The Prime Directive
Applying the Communication Competence Model: Several Steps
Definition of a Group

Groups: More than People Standing at a Bus Stop
Interpersonal Communication and Public Speaking: Ungroups
TED Talks and YouTube Videos
Video Case Studies
Chapter 2: Groups as Systems
Interconnectedness of Parts
Ripple Effect: A Chain Reaction
Synergy: One Plus One Equals a Ton
Negative Synergy: Results Beyond Bad
Adaptability to a Changing Environment
Dynamic Equilibrium: Regulating Stability and Change
Dealing with Difficult Group Members: Disruptive Change
Boundary Control: Communication Methods for Regulating Input
Physical Barriers: Protecting Group Space
Psychological Barriers: Member in Name Only
Linguistic Barriers: Having to Speak the Language
Rules: Permission Not Granted
Roles: Staying in Bounds
Networks: Controlling Information and Interaction Flow
Open and Closed Systems: Setting Effective Boundaries
Influence of Size
Group Size and Complexity
Quantitative Complexity: Exponentially Complicated
Complexity and Group Transactions: Size Matters
An Organization: A Group of Groups
Video Case Studies
Chapter 3: Meetings: Standard and Virtual
Standard Meeting Preparation
Clarify the Purpose: Avoid Aimlessness
Create an Effective Meeting Agenda: Simple Steps
Get There First: Expect Problems
Conducting a Meeting
Type of Meeting: Formal or Informal

Begin on Time; End on Time: Punctuality Is a Virtue
Communicate Ground Rules: Avoid Chaos
Use the Best Processes: No One-Size-Fits-All
Stay on Track: Parking Lots, Jellyfish, and Perception Checks
Concluding the Meeting: Don’t End with a Whimper
After the Meeting: Clean-Up Time
Participating in Meetings
Be Prepared: Don’t Act Like a Potted Plant
WAIT: Avoid Stage Hogging
Be Attentive: Monitor Your Nonverbal Communication
Recognize Cultural Diversity: Is Silence Golden?
Increase Participation: Constructive Engagement
Virtual Meetings
Types of Virtual Meetings: Audio and Visual
Pros and Cons: A Mixed Bag
Facilitating a Virtual Meeting: New Challenges
Virtual Meeting Participation: A Few Unique Considerations
Video Case Studies
Chapter 4: Group Development
Primary Dimensions of Groups
Task and Social Dimensions: Working and Relating
Building Cohesiveness: Bringing Us Together
Encourage Compatible Membership
Develop Shared Goals
Accomplish Tasks
Develop a Positive History of Cooperation
Increase Proximity
Nurture Virtual Group Social Relations
Periodic Phases of Group Development
Forming: Gathering Members
Reasons We Join Groups: Motivation
Member Diversity: The Benefits and Challenges of Difference
Storming: Feeling the Tension
Primary Tension: Initial Uneasiness

Secondary Tension: Later Stress and Strain
Norming: Regulating the Group
Types of Norms: Explicit and Implicit
Degree of Conformity: Strength of Group Pressure
Why We Conform: Fitting In
Conditions for Conformity: When We Bow to Group Pressure
Addressing Nonconformity: When Groups Get Tough
Performing: Group Output
Motivation to Perform: Social Loafing and Social Compensation
When Groups Outperform Individuals: Three Heads Are Better than One
When Individuals Outperform Groups: No Group Magic
Video Case Studies
Chapter 5: Developing the Group Climate
Positive versus Negative Climates
Negativity Bias: Short-Circuiting a Positive Climate
Positive Emphasis: The “Magic Ratio”
Competition and Cooperation
Definitions: Conceptual Clarity
Constructive Competition: Tempering Hypercompetitiveness
Cooperative Group Climates: Cultivating Positivity
Communication and Group Climate
Praise and Recognition: Basic Building Blocks
Defensive and Supportive Communication: Shaping Climates
Criticism versus Description
Control versus Problem Orientation
Manipulation versus Assertiveness
Indifference versus Empathy
Superiority versus Equality
Certainty versus Provisionalism
Incivility versus Civility
Listening: Enhancing Positivity
Shift Response versus Support Response: Focusing on Me or Thee
Competitive Interrupting: Seizing the Floor
Ambushing: Preparing Rebuttals

Virtual Group Climate
Video Case Studies
Chapter 6: Roles in Groups
Influence of Roles
Role Status: Playing by Hierarchical Rules
Role Conflict: Torn Between Two Roles
Role Reversal: When Students Become Teachers
Types of Roles
Task Roles: Focusing on Maximum Productivity
Maintenance Roles: Focusing on Cohesiveness
Disruptive Roles: Focusing on Self
Role Emergence
Group Endorsement: Accepting a Bid
Role Specialization: Settling into One’s Primary Role
Role Adaptability
Role Flexibility: Adapting to Context
Role Fixation: Failure to Adapt
Newcomers and System Disturbance
Nature of the Group: The Challenge of Acceptance
Group Socialization: Mutual Adaptation to Change
Video Case Studies
Chapter 7: Group Leadership
Definition of Leadership
Leadership and Followership: Let’s Dance
Leader and Manager: Different Types of Influence
Difference #1: Positional versus Interpersonal Influence
Difference #2: Maintaining versus Changing
Differences Not Categorically Exclusive: Matter of Emphasis
Leadership Emergence
How Not to Become a Leader: Communication Blunders
General Emergence Pattern: Process of Elimination

Two Phases of Emergence
Virtual Group Leader Emergence
Additional Factors: Implicit Theories of Leadership
Perspectives on Competent Leadership
Traits Perspective: The Born Leader View
Styles Perspective: One Style Doesn’t Fit All
Situational Perspective: Matching Styles with Circumstances
Distributive Leadership: Sharing Functions
Servant Leadership Perspective: Ethical Necessity
Culture and Leadership: Are There Universal Theories?
Communication Competence Perspective: The Overarching View
Virtual Group Leadership
Video Case Studies
Chapter 8: Developing Effective Teams
Standard Groups versus Teams
Distinctions: The Foremost Four
Level of Cooperation: The Working Together Imperative
Diversity of Skills: Looking for Complementarity
Group Identity: Operating as a Unit
Time and Resources: Commitment to the Team
Definition of a Team: A Special Kind of Group
Team Members
Team Slayers: Members’ Bad Attitudes and Bad Behavior
Egocentrism: Me-Deep in Omnipotence
Cynicism: Communicating a Can’t-Do Attitude
Communicating Abuse: Incompetent Behavior Kills Teams
Team Builders: Choosing and Developing Team Members
Experience and Problem-Solving Abilities: Core Competencies
Communication Training: Developing Members’ Competence
Developing Teamwork
Developing Team Goals: The Four Cs
Clear Goals: Everyone on the Same Page
Cooperative Goals: Interdependent Challenges
Challenging Goals: Denting the Universe

Commitment to Goals: A Passion to Succeed
Developing a Team Identity: Unifying Members
Symbolic Convergence: Communicating Fantasy Themes
Solidarity Symbols: Unifying Nonverbally
Team Talk: The Language of We
Designating Roles: Room for One Quarterback
Team Empowerment: Enhancing Members’ Capabilities
Definition of Empowerment: Four Dimensions
Hierarchical Organizations: The Enemy of Team Empowerment
Self-Managing Work Teams: The IDEO Model
Impediments to Team Empowerment: No Buy-In
Establishing Individual Accountability: Providing Feedback
Competent Team Leadership
Nurturing Empowerment: A Shared Responsibility
Requiring a Psychologically Safe Environment: Killing Fear and Ego
Virtual Teams
Video Case Studies
Chapter 9: Defective Decision Making and Problem Solving
Information Overload
Scope of the Problem: The Information Avalanche
Consequences: The Downside of Information Overload
Critical Thinking Impairment: Separating Wheat from Chaff
Indecisiveness: Conclusion Irresolution
Inattention: Difficulty Concentrating
Diminished Creativity: Preoccupation with the Mundane
Coping with Information Overload: Wrestling the Beast
Ruthlessly Filter Information: Scan for Spam
“Eat the Frog”: Tackle the Unpleasant Tasks First
Shut Down Technology: Hitting the Off Switch
Become Selective: On a Need-to-Know Basis
Limit the Search: When Enough Is Enough
Discern Patterns: Recognizing Irrelevant Information

Focus: Don’t Multitask
Information Underload
Mindsets: Critical Thinking Frozen Solid
Confirmation Bias: One-Sided Information Searches
The Problem: Poor Decisions and Solutions
Combating Confirmation Bias: A Plan
False Dichotomies: Either–Or Thinking
Collective Inferential Error: Uncritical Thinking
Prevalence of the Problem: It’s a Group Thing
Sources of Inferential Errors: Distortions and Correlations
Unrepresentativeness: Distorting the Facts
Correlation Inferred as Causation: Covariation
Error Correction: Practicing Critical Thinking
Group Polarization: Extremely Uncritical Thinking
Polarization: From Gambling to Guarded
Why Groups Polarize: Comparison and Persuasion
Combating Group Polarization: Necessary Steps
Groupthink: Critical Thinking in Suspended Animation
Conditions: Excessive Cohesiveness and Concurrence Seeking
Identification of Groupthink: Main Symptoms
Overestimation of the Group’s Power and Morality: Arrogance
Closed-Mindedness: Clinging to Assumptions
Pressures toward Uniformity: Presenting a United Front
Preventing Groupthink: Promoting Vigilance
Video Case Studies
Chapter 10: Effective Decision Making and Problem Solving
Group Discussion Functions and Procedures
Phases and Functions: General Considerations
Multiple Sequence Model: Phases of Decision Making
Functional Perspective: Being Systematic
The Standard Agenda: Structuring Group Discussion
Problem Identification: What’s the Question?
Problem Analysis: Causes and Effects

Solution Criteria: Setting Standards
Solution Suggestions: Generating Alternatives
Solution Evaluation and Selection: Deciding by Criteria
Solution Implementation: Follow-Through
Decision-Making Rules: Majority, Minority, and Unanimity
Majority Rule: Tyrannical or Practical
Minority Rule: Several Types
Unanimity Rule: Consensus
Evaluating Information: Countering “Truth Decay”
Credibility: Is It Believable?
Currency: Is It Up to Date?
Relevance: Looking for Logical Connections
Representativeness: Reflecting the Facts
Sufficiency: When Enough Really Is Enough
Creative Problem Solving
General Overview: The Creative Process
Creative Techniques: Systematic Procedures
Idea Generation: Several Techniques
Framing/Reframing: It’s All in the Wording
Virtual Groups and Decision Making
Pace of Decision Making: Synchronous and Asynchronous Media
Virtual Creativity: Finding Your Comfort Zone
Video Case Studies
Chapter 11: Power in Groups
The Nature of Power
Forms of Power: Dominance, Prevention, and Empowerment
Communication Indicators of Power
General Indicators: Defining, Following, and Inhibiting
Verbal Indicators: Language Choices
Nonverbal Indicators: Silent Exercise of Power
Status Cues: Virtual Groups
Power Resources: The Raw Materials of Influence
Information: Good and Plenty
Expertise: Information Plus Know-How

Legitimate Authority: You Will Obey
Rewards and Punishments: Pleasure and Pain
Personal Qualities: A Powerful Persona
Consequences of Power Imbalances
Bias Against Women and Ethnic Minorities: Leadership Gap
Bullying: Verbal and Nonverbal Aggression
Power Distance: Cultural Variation
General Description: Horizontal and Vertical Cultures
Communication Differences: With Whom May You Communicate?
Balancing Power: Prevention Strategies
Defiance: Digging in Your Heels
Resistance: Dragging Your Feet
Sluggish Effort: How Slow Can You Go?
Strategic Stupidity: Smart People Acting Dumb
Loss of Motor Function: Conscious Carelessness
The Misunderstanding Mirage: Confusion Illusion
Selective Amnesia: Fake Forgetfulness
Tactical Tardiness: Late by Design
Purposeful Procrastination: Deliberate Delays
Balancing Power Positively: Enhancing Empowerment
Developing Assertiveness: Exhibiting Confidence and Skill
Alliances: Forming Coalitions
Increasing Personal Power Resources: Benefiting the Group
Video Case Studies
Chapter 12: Conflict Management and Negotiation
Nature of Conflict
Definition: Incompatible, Interconnected Struggle
Benefits of Conflict: Dissent Can Be Productive
Destructive and Constructive Conflict: Differences
Communication Styles of Conflict Management
Collaborating: Problem Solving
Confrontation: Directly Addressing the Problem
Integration: Seeking Joint Gains

Smoothing: Calming Troubled Waters
Accommodating: Yielding
Compromising: Halving the Loaf
Avoiding: Withdrawing
Competing: Power-Forcing
Comparing Styles: Likelihood of Success
Situational Factors
Task Conflict: Routine and Nonroutine
Relationship Conflict: It’s Personal
Values Conflict: Deeply Felt Struggles
Culture and Conflict: Communication Differences
Negotiation Strategies
Positional Bargaining: Hard and Soft Negotiating
Principled Negotiation: Interest-Based Bargaining
The Four Principles: Appropriate Rules
Remaining Unconditionally Constructive: Sound Judgment
The BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
Anger Management
Constructive and Destructive Anger: Intensity and Duration
Managing Your Own Anger: Taking Control
Managing the Anger of Others: Communication Jujitsu
Virtual Groups and Conflict
Video Case Studies
Appendix A: Group Oral Presentations
Appendix B: Critical Thinking Revisited: Arguments and Fallacies
Glossary
References
Index

Preface
J. Dan Rothwell
With each new edition, I find it ever more challenging to make significant changes that improve In Mixed Company.
With the Covid-19 crisis, however, and the abrupt transition to online learning and pervasive virtual group
communication, significant revisions naturally emerged and are comprehensively addressed in this eleventh edition.
Even with the abundant changes made for this edition, listed later, I have preserved the essence of previous
versions. The communication competence model continues to guide discussions of key small group concepts
and processes. Systems theory also remains as a key theoretical component of the text, providing a conceptual
framework for analysis and insights. A comprehensive, atypical chapter on roles continues to inform on the
dynamic, complex nature of group communication. Finally, the unique focus on power in groups remains. Power
is a central underlying element in small group conflict, teamwork, decision making, problem solving, normative
behavior, roles, and leadership. No other small group communication text provides the breadth and depth of
coverage on this significant topic.
In addition, I continue to place great emphasis on readability. Textbooks are not meant to read like spy thrillers, but
neither should they induce a coma by reading like instructions for filling out your income tax forms. I have searched
in obvious and not-so-obvious places for the precise example, the poignant instance, and the dramatic case to
enhance reader enjoyment. I have employed a more narrative or storytelling style than is usual in textbook
writing. Chapter 7, for example, lists several perspectives on effective leadership, but I try to connect these
perspectives to the story of how each evolved one from the other. The several case studies, vivid examples, and
personal experiences are also narrative in nature, included to illustrate ideas and concepts and trigger reader
interest. Research confirms that the narrative style not only adds interest but also increases comprehension and
recall of information (Dahlstrom, 2014).
I also have attempted to enliven and personalize the writing style by incorporating colorful language and lively
metaphors that bring interesting images to mind, and to depart from standard academic practice by employing the
“perpendicular pronoun” I. Occasional use of first-person singular speaks more directly and personably to readers
than the more impersonal style of writing commonly used in textbooks (such as “in this author’s view”). Although it
has been suggested that I employ the “editorial we” instead of the first-person singular, I tend to agree with Mark
Twain, who said that “people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we,’” but others should avoid it.
Finally, I am a great believer in the potential of humor to gain and maintain the attention of my readers. Humor can
often cross generational divides and spark interest in scholarly subjects that can seem distant and abstract until a
humorous example, quip, or story enlivens the reading and ignites interest, even promotes understanding. There is
humor to be found throughout In Mixed Company. I have attempted to infuse some amusement whenever possible.

Significant Substantive Changes
There is often the suspicion, not always without merit, that a new edition of a textbook offers mostly cosmetic
changes (a few new photos or an occasional new example or reference). This is emphatically not the case for In
Mixed Company. This eleventh edition incorporates the most comprehensive revision I’ve ever
undertaken. Major changes include:
1. A completely new chapter on meetings, both standard and virtual, co-authored with my colleague and
friend Michelle Waters, a past instructor at Cabrillo College in the Communication Studies Department and a
longtime, highly successful international business consultant, has been added. This chapter reflects the radically
changing environment triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic and the changing landscape of international
business. Both standard and virtual meetings are discussed with detailed analysis and specific advice offered far
beyond the relatively short treatment of this subject that appeared in earlier editions. This has become the new
Chapter 3, which recognizes the more immediate needs of students to receive credible advice on how to navigate
the often tricky virtual environment now that teaching and learning have become increasingly an online small
group experience.
2. Virtual groups and teams receive significant additional treatment throughout the text. Chapter 12, on
technology and social media in previous editions, has been dismantled and that material has
been disseminated to various relevant chapters. Virtual groups and teams, once more of a fledgling
enterprise, are now a centerpiece of small group activity in countless venues and contexts, especially since the
inception of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, leaving a direct discussion of virtuality in small groups mostly until a
final chapter seems too much like an afterthought when an infusion of new research and insights should be
incorporated much earlier and more comprehensively. I am reasonably confident that no more thorough
treatment of virtual groups is available in a foundational small group communication text.
3. Research and theory, as always, have been thoroughly updated in every chapter. Almost 400 new references,
a third of the total number of citations, incorporate the most current research and theory on small group
communication. More than half of all references are dated from 2015 to 2021.
4. A vastly improved visual package of photos, custom cartoons, and graphics has been included. In
some cases, new photos make a point not noted in text material. In other cases, new photos illustrate important
concepts. Custom cartoons, created by Marcy Wieland, who has skillfully rendered cartoons for other textbooks
that I have authored, add a unique quality to the text.
5. New, sharper examples have replaced shopworn illustrations. I have also included numerous recent events,
especially incorporating the Covid-19 challenges, to illustrate key points and to give the text a contemporary feel.
6. Expanded and extensive treatment of culture is blended throughout this edition. The breadth and depth of this
coverage can be easily ascertained by simply glancing at the Table of Contents and the index under “culture.”
Blending the discussion of culture throughout In Mixed Company underlines the inseparable nature of this
subject from an abundance of topics.
7. Expanded coverage of diversity is apparent. Diversity issues are incorporated throughout the text, not as mere
sidebars or afterthoughts, but in carefully developed embedded segments.
8. Expanded coverage of “truth decay,” an increasingly important topic in this age of polarized politics, has been
included.

9. Listening has received additional treatment, with special emphasis given to active, empathic, and competitive
listening, including discussions on impediments to competent listening. Check the index for a delineation of
extensive discussion of this important subject.
10. Considerable new material has been added. For example, emotional contagion and the ripple effect, creating
a psychologically secure group environment, the fallacy of 93% of message meaning being communicated
nonverbally, conducting Zoom meetings, virtuous cycles of respect and servant leadership, steps for choosing a
mentor, and much more have been included.
11. Some new case studies have been added, and others have been deleted.
12. Additional coverage of nonverbal communication has been highlighted. Trust has also received expanded
treatment.
Continued and Expanded Pedagogical Features
Several acclaimed features of previous editions have been maintained and expanded. A few new features have been
introduced.
1. Oxford University Press offers extensive tutorials on teaching online, available at
https://oupeltglobalblog.com/2020/03/12/online-teaching-getting-started/ for the more technical aspects, and
https://oupeltglobalblog.com/2020/03/13/online-teaching-practical-tips/ for practical teaching tips, and
https://oupeltglobalblog.com/2020/03/17/online-teaching-engage-motivate/ for tips to engage students online.
2. Enhanced e-book version. The e-book version of In Mixed Company will incorporate easily accessible links
to short video clips in every chapter that illustrate points and can provide opportunities for thoughtful
analysis.
3. Tables, each called Second Look, act as succinct summaries of complicated or detailed material. These can be
useful when studying for exams.
4. Self-Assessment Instruments in previous editions were well received. Some of these instruments have been
slightly revised.
5. The very popular Video Case Studies segment appearing at the end of every chapter has been expanded and
includes many recent examples. Some reviewers have requested a DVD with all of the video case studies
provided as a free ancillary. As advantageous as this would obviously be, the cost of gaining permission to use
copyright-protected videos for such a DVD would require a major donation from Bill Gates or would send the
price of the text into the stratosphere. Given my commitment to drastically lowering the price of In Mixed
Company, such an option is unfortunately not feasible.
6. A new feature has been added—TED Talks and YouTube videos for illustration and analysis. These
appear at the end of each chapter, and students can easily access them on the Learning Link.
7. A glossary of key terms for quick reference appears at the end of the text. Terms that are boldfaced in each
chapter are included in the glossary. Many new terms have been added for this edition.
8. Practice exams, called “Quizzes Without Consequences,” appear at the end of each chapter in the
enhanced e-book. These quizzes help prepare students for graded exams. Students frequently mention to me
how helpful these practice quizzes have been to them.

9. PowerPoint slides have been prepared for classroom presentation of material. Most instructors prepare their
own slides, but a potpourri of slides is available for those who may want to supplement their file.
10. The comprehensive Instructor’s Resource Manual has been revised. Extensively classroom tested activities,
simulations, exercises, and suggested video clips provide an abundance of options for enriching the learning
experience for students. The Test Bank of exam questions for each chapter has been expanded with more than
one version of each question (single answer or multiple answers) available. Both the extensive activities and the
test bank included in the manual have been extremely well received.
Text Organization
Although there is no ideal organizational pattern, my schema for the sequence of chapters is quite simple. A
theoretical foundation is discussed first (Chapters 1 and 2). Given the recent necessary embrace of virtual group
meetings, a new detailed chapter has been composed addressing not just standard meetings but especially virtual
group meetings (Chapter 3). This is then followed by how groups are formed and developed (Chapter 4). Then a
discussion of how to establish the proper climate for the group to work effectively is presented (Chapter 5). An
explanation and analysis of what roles group members are likely to play comes next (Chapter 6), followed by a
discussion of group leadership (Chapter 7). Then, how to build teams and instill effective teamwork in groups is
addressed (Chapter 8). A discussion of decision making/problem solving—the primary work to be performed by most
groups—with special focus on critical thinking is next (Chapters 9 and 10). The close connection between power and
conflict is then explored (Chapters 11 and 12). I can see other ways of organizing this same material, and instructors
are obviously free to shift the order as they please, but the order I have chosen works well for me, students seem
satisfied with the sequence of topics, and reviewers have praised the organization.

Acknowledgments
My sincere thanks are extended to all those who reviewed this edition of In Mixed Company. They
include: Marlene Adzema, Red Rocks Community College; Michelle R. Bahr, Bellevue University; Evan Billingsley,
Arizona State University; Samantha L. Gonzalez, Manchester Community College; Richard Groner, Ivy Tech
Community College; Kyle Hanners, Arizona State University; Jami Blaauw-Hara, North Central Michigan College;
Richard A. Knight, Shippensburg University; Marla Lowenthal, University of San Francisco; Christine J. Moore,
Texas State University; and Nancy Stillwell, Madison College.
I also wish to extend a sincere thanks to Steve Helba, acquisitions editor, and Alyssa Quinones, associate editor.
Finally, to my amazing and immensely talented wife, Marcy, who lovingly endured my persistent requests for her to
create new custom cartoons, which she did with great imagination and skill, I offer a special thanks. Artist, singer,
writer, musician, computer program analyst—her talents seem boundless. Our three decades as partners have been a
joy that words cannot adequately reflect.

About the Author
J. Dan Rothwell
J. Dan Rothwell is the former chair of the Communication Studies Department at Cabrillo College after 30 years
heading the department. He has a B.A. in American History from the University of Portland (Oregon), an M.A. in
Rhetoric and Public Address, and a Ph.D. in Communication Theory and Social Influence. His M.A. and Ph.D. are
both from the University of Oregon. He is the author of four other books: In the Company of Others: An
Introduction to Communication, Telling It Like It Isn’t: Language Misuse and Malpractice, Interpersonal
Communication: Influences and Alternatives (with James Costigan), and Practically Speaking. He is also working
on a sixth textbook, with his colleague and friend Michelle Waters, on business communication, to be published by
Oxford University Press.
During his extensive teaching career, Dr. Rothwell received more than two dozen teaching awards, including the
Ernest L. Boyer International Award for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Technology conferred by the Center
for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, Florida State College, and the National Council of Instructional
Administrators; the Cabrillo College “Innovative Teacher of the Year” award; the National Communication
Association “Community College Educator of the Year” award; an official resolution by the California State Senate
acknowledging Dr. Rothwell’s excellence in teaching; and the “Master Teacher” award from the Western States
Communication Association.
Finally, Dr. Rothwell’s public speaking book, Practically Speaking, received the national Textbook Excellence Award
from the Textbook and Academic Authors Association. Having never achieved one of his early goals in life—to be a
Hall of Fame major league baseball pitcher—this, and his teaching awards, will have to partially compensate for his
lifelong disappointment.
Professor Rothwell encourages feedback and correspondence from both students and instructors regarding In Mixed
Company. Anyone so inclined may communicate with him by email at jdanrothwell@gmail.com.

1
Communication Competence in Groups
J. Dan Rothwell
objectives
The purpose of this chapter is to begin the exploration of how to improve the small group and
team experience. Toward this end, there are three chapter objectives:
1. To correct common misconceptions regarding the human communication process.
2. To explain what communication is and is not.
3. To establish the theoretical groundwork for a communication competence approach to small
groups and teams.
If you want to find out what people think about participating in groups, ask them. I have on numerous occasions.
Comments include: “If God had ordered a committee to create the world, it would still be discussing proposals.”
“Working in groups is like eating tofu. I’m told it’s good for me, but it makes me gag.” Then there is this caustic gem:
“I’ve had the flu and I’ve had to work in groups. I prefer the flu.” Another student offered this biting assessment: “I
hate groups. I hate group assignments. I hate teachers who require group assignments. Take the hint.” Finally, there
is this tongue-in-cheek suggestion: “Group work can be improved only if we threaten actual duels-to-the-death
between slackers and perfectionists.” This hyperbolic and negative view of working in groups is a common student
reaction (Isaac, 2012; Muir, 2019). Surveys of full-time workers in the United States find similar results. One survey
found that 95% of more than a thousand respondents agree that working in teams serves an important function in
the workplace, but only 24% preferred to do so (“University of Phoenix Survey,” 2013). Another survey found that
fewer than 10% of employees prefer to work exclusively in teams, while 43% prefer to work alone (“Organizational
Dynamics Survey,” 2016).
Why is there such widespread antipathy for working in groups? A survey of almost 19,000 workers found that the top
“pet peeves” that spark actual hatred for group work include: unfair workload, having to depend on others, and lack
of full control over a project (Jerabek & Muoio, 2017). Having to depend on others who may not have the same
motivation or commitment to produce excellent results can be annoying, even nightmarish. Groups can be time
consuming, sometimes indecisive, conflict provoking, and slow to react to urgent needs. Personality clashes,
irritating communication behaviors, and having to deal with difficult group members all encourage reticence to work
in groups. Sorensen (1981) coined the term grouphate to describe how troublesome the group experience is for
many people.

Despite these negative views of groups, almost everyone can point to positive group experiences,
including some that are profoundly rewarding. The rewards include a feeling of belonging and affection gained
from primary groups (family and friends), social connection from social media networks (Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter, and numerous developing sites—see “101+ Social Media Sites,”
2021), and social support in difficult times from support groups (Alcoholics Anonymous, cancer survivors groups).
Also, you gain satisfaction from solving challenging problems by working in project groups (task forces, self-
managing work teams), you enhance your knowledge from participating in learning groups (class study groups,
Bible study groups, mock trial teams), you experience thrills and entertainment from participating in activities
groups (chess club, sports teams), and you gain a sense of community from joining neighborhood groups
(homeowners associations). Finally, you can acquire an identity and achieve pleasure from helping others through
social and service groups (fraternities, sororities, Rotary, Lions, Habitat for Humanity), and you may find a
creative outlet in music and artistic groups (bands, choirs, quilting circles). This is an impressive list of potential
rewards from participating in small groups.
Not surprisingly, the most successful groups are composed of members who enjoy working in groups and who
experience the rewards. The least successful groups are composed of members who dislike working in groups and
primarily experience the disadvantages (Karau & Elsaid, 2009). Communication plays a central role in achieving
group success and producing rewarding experiences. Thus, competent communication is a principal means of
counteracting grouphate.
Whatever the degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with groups, there is no escaping them, unless you plan to
live your life alone in a cave as an out-of-touch survivalist. Reliance on groups will increase, not diminish, in the
future. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Council of Teachers of English, and
the National Communication Association, among other organizations, all recommend frequent group activity in the
college classroom. Four-fifths of both Fortune 1000 companies and manufacturing organizations use self-
managing work teams—teams that regulate their own performance free from outside interference while
completing an entire task (MacDonald, 2019). Organizations are increasingly becoming “team-centric” (Singh,
2019). A broad study by Microsoft found that the prevalence of working in teams has doubled in the workplace and
will continue to increase (Wright, 2018). A survey of 1,372 respondents from 80 countries concluded that virtual
groups—groups whose members rarely, if ever, meet face to face, and are connected by electronic technology—are
an integral part of conducting business globally (Solomon, 2016). With the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic,
virtual group work has become even more prevalent. For example, a broad study showed that 64% of organizations
expected virtual group work to be a permanent change even after the Covid-19 pandemic (Meluso et al., 2020).
Maximizing the benefits of your unavoidable group experiences is obviously a worthy goal.
The central purpose of this textbook, then, is to teach you how to be a competent communicator in
small groups and teams. Because we all have participated in many groups, it may be tempting to conclude that
these experiences already prepared you for group success. Experience, however, sometimes teaches us bad habits
and misinformation (note the myths discussed in the next section). I will not presume to tell you what you do and
don’t know about small group communication. That is for you to assess, perhaps with the help of your instructor.
When making this initial self-assessment, however, please consider this: Most Americans have a common
tendency to overestimate their communication proficiency in groups. A long-term study of 600 teams and
6,000 team members in a wide variety of organizations found that assessments of leaders by team members were a
whopping 50% lower than the leaders’ self-assessments (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). A more recent study parallels
these findings. An exceedingly generous 96% of self-identified leaders of corporate virtual teams rated themselves as
“effective” or “very effective.” Only 19% of team members, however, agreed that most team leaders were adequately

prepared to lead virtual teams effectively, and 58% rated their own team leaders as underprepared (Solomon, 2016).
Ironically, it is the poorest communicators who inflate their self-assessments the most (Dunning, 2003).
It is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
We participate in a wide variety of small groups that serve many purposes and provide numerous rewards. Identify the potential purposes
and rewards illustrated in these images. BluIz60/Shutterstock.com Iakov Filimonov/Shutterstock Hero Images/Getty Images fizkes/Shutterstock
VIDEO 1.1
[Please note: You must be using an online, browser-based eReader in order to view this content.]

Myths about Communication
Before tackling the question “What is communication?” and then “What is competent communication?” let’s sweep
out some of the musty misconceptions many people have stored in their intellectual attics regarding the
communication process. As American humorist Will Rogers reputedly remarked, “It isn’t what we don’t know that
gives us trouble; it’s what we know that ain’t so.” Foolishness springs from holding firmly to indefensible myths—
beliefs contradicted by fact. Consider five prominent ones.
Myth 1: Communication Is a Cure-All
Improving communication is not the magical answer to all your group woes. Research reveals that some problems
between individuals are not solvable (Fulwiler, 2018). A group member may never develop a sunny disposition and a
less cynical view of the world. Your group leader may never be more than an imperious, narcissistic, inconsiderate
tyrant. Competent communication can help us cope with our recurring disagreements and challenges, but it may not
change some people for the better.
Some problems, such as an arrogant, imperious, bullying boss, may not be improved even if you communicate competently. Does this
person even look approachable much less interested in possibly improving his communication competence? Looks can be deceiving, but

they also can either invite or repel others from confronting communication difficulties. Communication is a significant tool, but not a
panacea for all problems that arise in small groups. Ysbrand Cosijn/Shutterstock
In addition, a dysfunctional organizational system characterized by unclear roles and responsibilities and poorly
designed decision-making processes may be the root cause of poor communication (see Chapter 2). Training to
improve communication in such circumstances is likely to prove futile without systemic changes (Baker, 2015).
Sometimes groups dismantle, not because the communication is poor but because members simply don’t like each
other or because they have contradictory visions for the group.
Communication is a tool that, in the possession of someone knowledgeable and skillful, can be used to help solve
most problems that arise in groups. Communication, however, is not an end in itself, but merely a means
to an end. You will not solve every conceivable problem in groups by learning to communicate more effectively,
because not all group problems are communication based.
Myth 2: Communication Can Break Down
Communication does not break down. Machines break down; they quit, and if they belong to me, they do so
with amazing regularity. Human beings continue to communicate even when they may wish not to do so. For
example, not showing up for a group meeting, remaining silent during group discussions, or walking out in the
middle of a group discussion without saying a word does not bring communication to a halt. Group members infer
messages from these nonverbal acts—perhaps incorrect messages, but potentially important ones nonetheless.
The view that communication can break down comes partly from the recognition that we do not always achieve our
goals through communication; the group may disband in failure. But failure to achieve group goals may occur even
when communication between the parties in conflict is exemplary. So, where’s the breakdown?
Myth 3: Effective Communication Is Merely Skill Building
The skills orientation to communication assumes that if you learn a few key communication skills, you will become a
much better communicator. Without understanding the complexities of the communication process, no
amount of skills training will be meaningful, and it may be harmful. Merely teaching the skill of
assertiveness to a battered woman, for example, without addressing the volatile and often unpredictable
circumstances of abusive relationships in families, could prove fatal for the abused woman and her children
(Dombeck, 2010). Assertiveness with your boss or team leader may get you fired or demoted to a position equivalent
to cleaning up after parading elephants. Effective communication is not a one-size-fits-all skill set.
Teaching communication skills in isolation is like constructing a house without a carefully developed set of
blueprints. The blueprint offered later in this chapter that provides the foundation to help you succeed in small
groups and teams, to learn when and how to employ acquired communication skills, is the communication
competence model.

Myth 4: 93% of Meaning Is Communicated Nonverbally
Some communication texts and numerous Internet sites misinterpret research by Albert Mehrabian and assert that
93% of all meaning in messages is communicated nonverbally (see Konstantinova & Astakhova, 2018; Lapakko,
2007, for detailed critiques). Mehrabian (1971) never drew such a broad conclusion from his research. In fact, he
repudiated it directly. In 2009, BBC reporter Tim Harford asked Mehrabian if 93% of communication meaning is
nonverbal. He responded: “Absolutely not, and whenever I hear that misquote or misrepresentation of my findings I
cringe” (quoted by Lovett, 2016). Mehrabian’s research consisted of a speaker uttering a single word in an
inconsistent voice, with no context provided, and a judgment required from a very small sample of subjects regarding
the feelings of the speaker. That’s it!
Why bother learning a language, a difficult undertaking, if only a minuscule 7% of meaning is derived from verbal
communication while the remaining 93% is from nonverbal cues? Consider how many English proficiency classes are
required throughout your education, even if you are a native speaker of the language. Turn off the sound when
watching a movie scene of two characters quarreling and see if you can ascertain 93% of the meaning of their
argument. Yes, you can know they are quarreling, ascertain emotional expression (anger), and even gauge the
intensity of that emotion, but can you discern the informational content? What are they fighting about? Who has the
stronger arguments? Travel to China without understanding the language and observe people in casual conversation.
Can you understand more than a hint of the meaning in their transaction? Why do movies whose dialogue is in a
language other than English come with translation captioning as an option if verbal communication is so
insignificant? As I will explore later, nonverbal communication can be highly significant, especially in
certain contexts, but don’t fall for this oft-repeated massive exaggeration of its importance to the
communication process.
Myth 5: Effective Communication Is Just Common Sense
Consider hindsight bias—the “I-knew-it-already” tendency (Cherry, 2020). We are inclined to overestimate our
prior knowledge once we have been told the correct answers. Anything can seem like mere common sense when
you’ve been given the correct answers, or as psychologist David Myers (2002) observes, “How easy it is to seem wise
when drawing the bull’s-eye after the arrow has struck.” Everybody knows that opposites attract, right? When told
this by Myers, most students find this conclusion unsurprising. But wait! When college students are told the opposite
(“Birds of a feather flock together”), most also find this result unsurprising and merely common sense.
The hindsight bias may influence us to view competent communication as mere common sense once we have
received communication training. If, however, competent communication is just common sense, why does
miscommunication occur so often? For example, a survey of a thousand U.S. employees conducted by Dynamic
Signal warned businesses: “Repair the way we communicate with employees at work or risk crippling financial
consequences” (Hannah, 2019). Another study found that 86% of corporate executives, employees, and educators say
that poor communication is a key reason for widespread workplace failures (Sanders, 2020). As one expert
concludes: “That communication problems are omnipresent in companies or organizations is simply an
understatement” (Odine, 2015).

SELF-ASSESSMENT: Hindsight Bias Test
Although a huge majority of recent college graduates believe they have the necessary communication skills to be
successful in their careers, employers mostly disagree (Bauer-Wolf, 2018). Principal deficiencies are in verbal
communication and working in teams, sometimes referred to as “soft skills” (Gould, 2016). As Michael Hansen, chief
executive officer of Cengage Publishing, notes, “There is a need for more soft skills training, both in college and on
the job, and today’s learners and graduates must continue to hone their skills to stay ahead” (quoted by Bauer-Wolf,
2019). This is not a one-and-done process. It is a lifelong enterprise that requires constant updating as
our world changes. Just contemplate the enormous, unexpected communication challenges and often clumsy
attempts to adapt initially that have emerged as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic!
The simple way to test whether competent communication in groups is merely common sense and you knew it all
along is to be quizzed before training is received. For years, I tested my students at the beginning of a term on
general knowledge of small group communication. I did not ask technical questions or definitions of concepts
(making this the least challenging test of the term). Consistently, students did very poorly on this quiz (most
flunked). Such results are not surprising or cause for ridicule. It is foolish to expect students to do well on this exam
before they’ve taken the class.
Learning requires a degree of humility, a willingness to recognize and address our shortcomings. To
paraphrase Alfred Korzybski, no one knows everything about anything. Communication is not mere common sense.
It is arguably the most complicated, pervasive activity we humans do, and learning how to do it better should
never end. Everyone has more to learn. You are invited to approach this text, not with an attitude of contentment
with your knowledge and skills (whatever their level), but with a strong desire to learn more and to improve your
communication in small groups.

Communication Defined
Thus far, I have indicated what communication is not, but not what it is. The definition of communication involves
several fundamental attributes discussed in this section.
FOCUS QUESTIONS 1.1
Communication as Transactional: Mutually Influential
Human communication is transactional. This means that all parties engaged in communicating mutually influence
one another. Each person is both a sender and a receiver simultaneously, not merely a sender or a receiver.
Thus, as you speak, you receive feedback (responses), mostly nonverbal, from listeners. This, in turn, influences the
messages that you continue to send. Skillful communicators read feedback accurately and adjust their ensuing
message appropriately.
You can see this mutual-influence process clearly by examining the two dimensions of a message—content and
relationship (Watzlawick et al., 1967). The content dimension refers to the information transmitted. The
relationship dimension refers to how messages define or redefine the relationship among group members.
Consider the following transactional dialogue:
anne: We should meet to prepare our group presentation.
benny: I can’t meet until Wednesday night after 6:30. I work.
charise: Wednesday, say about 7:00, works fine for me. How about the rest of you?
david: No can do! I’m busy.
eduardo: Well, get unbusy because our project is due in a week, and we’re way behind.
david: Hey, Satan’s spawn, come up with another time.
benny: Come on, everybody. No need to get ugly.
anne: Exactly how busy are you on Wednesday night, David? Can’t you change plans?
david: I’m busy. Let’s leave it at that.
eduardo: Why don’t you come up with a time that works with your “busy” schedule.
charise: How about next Monday evening?
anne: Now I’ve got a schedule conflict.
The content of this group transaction is the need to schedule a group meeting and the schedule conflicts that exist.
The relationship dimension, however, is far more complex. Group members are not merely identifying scheduling
difficulties; they’re maneuvering for power positions in the group. Who gets to tell whom what to do is a subtext.
How messages are spoken (as a demand or a request) influences group members’ responses. Whether group
members are being cooperative or competitive with each other affects the discussion.

When you are in a group, every utterance, choice, and action continually defines and redefines who you are in
relation to other group members and who they are in relation to you. This is ongoing and unavoidable. Individuals
affect the group, and the group influences the individual. Communication in groups is a continuous series of
transactions.
Communication as a Process: The Continuous Flow
Identifying communication as a process recognizes that nothing stands still, or as the bumper sticker proclaims,
“Change is inevitable—except from a vending machine.” Communication reveals the dynamic nature of relationships
and events.
Communication is a process because changes in events and relationships are part of a continuous
flow. You can’t understand the ocean by freezing a single wave on film. The ocean is understood only in its
dynamism—its tides, currents, waves in motion, plant and animal life interacting symbiotically, and so forth.
Similarly, communication makes sense not by isolating a word, sentence, gesture, facial expression, or exclamation,
but by looking at currents of thought and feelings expressed verbally and nonverbally as a whole.
As a student, for instance, you affect the quality of instruction by your attitude and degree of interest in the subject
matter. Show indifference by exhibiting inattention and you will suck the life out of a teacher’s enthusiasm and invite
a negative reaction. Relationships between teachers and students may change in the short span of a single class
period or in the flash of an ill-chosen phrase, especially when controversial material is presented.
We cannot freeze relationships in time. Every conversation is a point of departure for an ensuing conversation. Every
communication experience is the result of the accumulation of experiences preceding the present one. Each new
experience affects future transactions. Human communication is a process.
Communication as Sharing Meaning: Making Sense
The term communication is derived from the Latin word communicare, which denotes “to share.” Sharing from this
perspective does not mean merely exchanging information like one would exchange gifts. Communication is not just
transferring “stuff” from one person to another. This isn’t just the postal service delivering packages or Door Dash
delivering takeout. You attempt, and often achieve, something deeper when you communicate with other humans.
You attempt to share meaning, which is “the conscious pattern humans create out of their interpretation of
experience” (Anderson & Ross, 2002). You construct meaning by making connections and patterns in your
mind that “make sense” of your world. You then attempt to share this constructed meaning with others, who in
turn reconstruct your message to try to understand your meaning. For example, when you view a relationship with a
team member as a friendship and the other person sees it likewise, there is an overlap, and meaning is shared,
approximately. The depth of that friendship, or even what constitutes friendship, however, is not identical between
two people. There are always subtle differences. Those subtle differences can be quite meaningful, as when one party
views the friendship as potentially romantic but the other party does not. Welcome to the world of the awkward! You
share this meaning both verbally and nonverbally.

Verbal Communication: Telling It Like It Isn’t
We share meaning verbally with language. Language is a structured system of symbols for sharing meaning.
Symbols are representations of referents—whatever the symbol refers to. Because symbols represent referents but
are not the objects, ideas, events, or relationships represented, symbols have no meaning apart from us. Meaning is
in the mind of the beholder. Words are symbols, so meaning is not contained in words. We aren’t “telling it like it is”
(identifying objective reality); we’re telling others what our subjective perception of the world is.
The meaning and usage of words depend on common agreement. As a speech community, English speakers
tacitly agree to certain meanings and appropriate usages for words, even if this sometimes seems odd. For example,
comedian Steven Wright asks, “Why is it that when you transport something by car it’s called a shipment but when
you transport something by ship it’s called cargo?” Why does slow down and slow up mean the same thing? Why
does fat chance and slim chance also mean the same thing? The simple answer is that when decoding words, we give
them agreed-upon meanings.
Common agreement among language users determines the meaning of words, even though at times literal meaning would seem odd at
best. For example, our feet can smell but our noses can run. Misunderstandings, especially cross-culturally, can easily occur because
common agreement also has to be understood for language to function effectively. Those group members who speak English as a second
language may struggle with deciphering common understanding of word choices.
This common agreement, however, doesn’t always avoid misunderstandings because words can be
ambiguous; they can have double or multiple common meanings, as Groucho Marx famously illustrated
with the quip: “Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.” A booty call could be an invitation to a treasure
hunt or a search for something quite different. Consider actual newspaper headlines reported by the Columbia
Journalism Review: “Prostitutes Appeal to Pope”; “Kids Make Nutritious Snacks”; and “City Manager Tapes Head to
District Attorney.” Imagine a nonnative speaker of English trying to decode this sentence: “The woman was present
to present the present to her friend, presently.” A study of “problematic communication” among crew members and
in pilot–air traffic controller interactions concludes that “it is almost certain that communication has played a
central role in a significant proportion of aviation accidents” (Howard, 2008, p. 371). “Multiple meanings of words
and phrases” was listed as one of the principal problems. A survey of 2,070 airline pilots likewise found that “words,

phrases, and sentences with more than one meaning” was “the biggest communication issue” with ground control
(Wilson, 2016).
Culture further complicates verbal misunderstandings. Electrolux, a Scandinavian vacuum cleaner
manufacturer, once used the sales slogan in the United States, “Nothing sucks like an Electrolux.” In preparation for
the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China, a retired army colonel named David Tool, who resided in the capital
city, was hired to correct notoriously poor translations featured on English signs. “Beijing Anus Hospital” was
changed to “Beijing Proctology Hospital,” and “Deformed Man Toilet” thankfully was changed to “Disabled Person
Toilet” (Boudreau, 2007).
Ambiguous verbal communication between cockpit crews and ground control has caused near disasters and actual catastrophes.
Seemingly simple messages can produce potentially deadly incidents when multiple meanings for words create misunderstandings.
Tatiana Popova/Shutterstock
The increasing globalization of business makes even the choice of language to communicate within
and among multicultural groups and organizations an important consideration (Weedmark, 2019). “Those
who share a mother tongue have a linguistic bond that differs from those who speak the same language as a second
language” (Victor, 2007, p. 3). If English is chosen as the preferred language of business, this can create an in-
group/out-group dynamic between those who speak it easily and those who do not. The choice of language to
conduct business can directly affect teamwork and long-term business relationships for good or ill (Tenzer et al.,
2017). When a group speaks a language not well understood by all its members, as can occur in our increasingly
multicultural workplaces, those left out of the conversation because of difficulties fully understanding the language

spoken may feel socially ostracized and angry (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). This linguistic divide can reduce
group productivity (Dotan-Eliaz et al., 2009).
The emergence of global virtual teams has also created an international linguistic challenge.
Increasingly, virtual teams in the realm of international business are composed of members from diverse cultures,
many of whom speak English as a second language. English is the dominant language of the Internet (“Internet
World Users by Language,” 2021). Inevitably, the nuances and complexities of mastering a language such as English
lead to problems of interpretation and translation. One study of virtual groups showed that 75% of respondents
found language difficulties challenging (Solomon, 2016).
Seemingly straightforward messages can also produce difficulties sharing exact meaning. Consider, for example,
whether the email from your team leader saying that the team project “is fine” should be interpreted as damning with
faint praise or as giving a genuine thumbs up for a job well done. In addition, “maybe” to an American means
possibly yes, but to a Japanese, “maybe” typically means a polite no (Kameda, 2014).
Finally, we indicate linguistically our identification with a group (Van Swol & Kane, 2019). A study of
language used by group members on Reddit, for example, found that their language styles and word choices
converged. Redditors revealed their group identification by adopting the linguistic norms of their social media group
(McEwan, 2016). In other words, Redditors share a common language to indicate group affiliation.
Nonverbal Communication: Wordless Meaning
We share meaning nonverbally as well as verbally. Nonverbal communication is sharing meaning with others
without using words. Our facial expressions, eye contact, personal appearance, tone of voice, gestures, posture,
touch, and use of space and time all have the potential to communicate messages to group members. For example,
the strength of your handshake can communicate degree of confidence. The intensity of your anger is exhibited
mostly nonverbally (e.g., tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, and posture). Anxiety is chiefly communicated
nonverbally. Touch can be a source of comfort and compassion or a key indicator of sexual harassment in the
workplace. Direct eye contact can be critical to presentational effectiveness. The top nonverbal mistake candidates
make when interviewing is failure to make eye contact (Hayes, 2018). A smile can communicate a host of differing
messages (e.g., approval, affection, sarcasm, contempt, discomfort). As noted previously, however, the
significance of nonverbal communication has often been wildly exaggerated. Nevertheless, if it were
merely incidental to verbal messages few would pay it notice or experience difficulties sharing
messages accurately.
One of the difficulties with communicating in virtual groups can be the absence of nonverbal cues, in whole or in
part, that accompany verbal, face-to-face messages (Yang et al., 2018). One study of virtual teams revealed that
“lack of face-to-face contact” was identified by 89% of respondents as a significant problem (Solomon,
2016). The emotional tone of an online written message can easily be misinterpreted as hostile, impersonal, or
disagreeable because vocal tone, facial expressions, posture, gestures, and the normal array of nonverbal cues are
missing (Myers, 2017). One study found that the tone of our emails is misinterpreted 50% of the time (Kruger et al.,
2005). Internationally recognized consultant Erica Dhawan (2021) notes that we are often “tone-deaf not tone-deft”
when writing our emails. This can be a generational issue. A study conducted by Grammarly “found workers under
35 were 50% more likely than older workers to be told their tone was too informal, even though more younger
workers said they spent time agonizing over meaning, tone and grammar in their emails” (Carino, 2019). Even
assuming that friends are more likely to interpret accurately emotions conveyed in emails better than strangers is not
supported by research (Riordan & Trichtinger, 2017).

Emojis help with tone but are still limited. Individuals may also be hesitant to use them in business communication
for fear of appearing too informal and unprofessional, but the increasing prevalence of virtual group work has
encouraged some researchers to advocate their wider use in employment environments (Meluso et al., 2020). One
study, however, found that smiley emojis, “contrary to actual smiles … do not increase perceptions of warmth and
actually decrease perceptions of competence” (Glikson et al., 2017).
Skyping or Zooming can add a nonverbal element to business meetings, but it has its own limitations (Morrison-
Smith & Ruiz, 2020). For example, “a frozen screen or a weird echo makes it hard for attendees to feel that their
contributions are being heard and valued” (Dhawan, 2021). Staring at your own image on screen during a video
meeting amongst an assemblage of additional participants’ images isn’t the same as communicating while physically
present with others. We’re not accustomed to seeing ourselves as we converse. Myriad additional challenges of
engaging in videoconferences are discussed later.
Nonverbal communication, like verbal communication, is often ambiguous. When group members look
down for several minutes while you are speaking, does it mean they are bored, uncomfortable with your message, not
listening, carefully considering your message, or devising a plan to exit the meeting early? When a group member
frowns, is he or she showing confusion, taking offense at something said, disagreeing, or suddenly remembering the
dog was left alone in the house with no exit for using the outdoors as a toilet? Rich Matthews, a jury consultant with
Decision Analysis in San Francisco, states that it is “practically impossible and it’s just dangerous to interpret facial
expressions and gestures and reactions” during a trial (quoted in Sulek, 2004, p. 9A; see also Hoffer et al., 2013).
Research from Decision Quest, a U.S. legal support company, concludes that jurors “overestimate what you can know
about a person based on his or her nonverbal behavior. Jurors assume that a person whose lips are pursed is rigid or
arrogant, that someone who cocks his head back is condescending, that a person who fidgets is lying.” As this report
notes, however, such interpretations fail to consider “that the witness is trying to concentrate, is likely nervous about
being in a new situation, and is trying to make a good impression” (“Jurors’ Body Language,” 2017).
Sharing meaning nonverbally between cultures can be equally problematic (Cotton, 2013; Manolaki,
2016). For example, the “A-OK” gesture that forms a circle with the index finger and the thumb is obscene in Brazil,
and it means “worthless” in France, “money” in Japan, and recently has become a white power sign in the United
States. Raising the index finger to signify “one,” as Americans often do to signify “We’re number one,” means “two”
in Italy, so the gesture becomes “We’re number two,” a less satisfying source of celebratory pride. In Japan, however,
the upright thumb means “five” (counting begins with the index finger, and the thumb is the last digit). Nodding the
head up and down means “yes” in the United States, and shaking it side to side means “no.” In Bulgaria, Turkey,
Iran, and Bengal, however, it is the reverse. In Greece, tipping the head back abruptly means “no,” but the same
gesture in India means “yes.” (Nod your head if you understand all of this.) You can imagine the potential for
misunderstandings and even international incidences when gestures are misinterpreted during intercultural team
negotiations.
Even though nonverbal communication can be ambiguous and difficult to read accurately, it can
nevertheless have a big impact on our impressions of others (Knapp et al., 2014). In 2004, Scott Peterson
was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife and unborn child. Jurors revealed after the trial that they chose the
death penalty as his punishment partly due to Peterson’s nonverbal communication. Juror Richelle Nice said, “For
me, a big part of it was at the end—the verdict—no emotion. No anything. That spoke a thousand words—loud and
clear. Today—the giggle at the table. Loud and clear.” Jury foreman Steve Cardosi echoed this reaction: “He lost his
wife and his child, and it didn’t seem to faze him” (quoted in Sulek, 2004). Similarly, one study of jurors’ reactions to
nonverbal communication by judges during mock trials showed a negative reaction to a judge’s perceived lack of

involvement (e.g., pen tapping, paper shuffling) and apparent bias (e.g., scornful facial expressions) during trial
proceedings (Burnett & Badzinski, 2005).
Gestures, such as the thumbs-up, do not necessarily have universal meaning. In some cultures, thumbs-up is obscene, even when done
with a big smile. In a very simple way, this highlights the challenges you face when groups are composed of members from very diverse
cultures. fizkes/Shutterstock
Mixed messages also show the impact of nonverbal cues. A mixed message occurs when there is positive verbal
and negative nonverbal communication, or vice versa. A group member may verbally endorse the group’s decision
but nonverbally exhibit disagreement, even contempt. It is easier to hide our real feelings verbally than it is
nonverbally. Attempting to wipe an opinion off your face is challenging.
I have thus far discussed what communication is not and, conversely, what communication is. To summarize by way
of definition, communication is a transactional process of sharing meaning with others. The intricacies of sharing
meaning with others in group situations will become more apparent when I discuss what constitutes competent
communication, the next topic for consideration.

Communication Competence
Defining communication does not tell you how to communicate competently. To accomplish this goal, let’s begin
with a definition. Communication competence is engaging in communication behavior with others that is both
effective and appropriate in a given context (Spitzberg, 2015). This definition requires brief elaboration.
FOCUS QUESTIONS 1.2
Effectiveness: Achieving Goals
Communication competence is partially predicated on results. Consequently, effectiveness is defined as how well
we have progressed toward the achievement of goals. Someone who knows the changes in communication behavior
that need to be made, and who wants to make these changes but never does, can hardly be deemed a competent
communicator.
A Matter of Degree: From Deficiency to Proficiency
Communication effectiveness is a relative concept—a matter of degree. We speak of communicators along a
continuum, from highly proficient in achieving goals to woefully deficient, with designations in between such as
ordinary and average. All of us have our communication strengths and weaknesses in certain situations and
circumstances. Some individuals are at ease in social situations such as parties or gatherings of strangers, but they
would rather be dipped in molasses and strapped to an anthill than confront conflict in their own group. We can be
highly proficient in one circumstance but minimally skillful or depressingly ineffective in another situation.
Therefore, the label “competent communicator” is a judgment of an individual’s degree of proficiency in
achieving goals in a specific context, not an inherent characteristic of any individual.
We (Not Me) Oriented: Primacy of Groups
A We-orientation means that your primary attention is on the group (we), not the individual (me).
Zander (1982) long ago claimed, “A body of people is not a group if the members are primarily interested in
individual accomplishment” (p. 2). This, however, doesn’t mean that group interests should always supersede
individual interests. Nevertheless, trying to achieve your individual goals at the expense of the group’s goals usually
produces unsatisfactory outcomes for both you and the group (Platow et al., 2015). Research by the Gallup
organization found that 60% of government workers are miserable because of “horrible bosses” who exhibit less
interest in the welfare of employees than in nailing a good tee time on the golf links (Bradberry, 2020).
There are potential dividends when group members assume a We-orientation. Teams win championships, businesses
innovate, and students earn better grades. A We-orientation requires concern for others, not merely concern for self.

Consequently, communication competence in groups necessitates behavior that is both effective and appropriate.
Appropriateness: Following the Rules
The appropriateness of a person’s communication is determined by examining the context. Every
communication transaction has a context, or an environment in which meaning emerges. Context consists of who
(sender) communicates what (message) to whom (receiver), why (purpose) the communicator does it, and where
(setting), when (time), and how (way) it is done. Every communication context has rules that create
expectations regarding appropriate behavior. A rule is a prescription that indicates what you should or
shouldn’t do in specific contexts. (Shimanoff, 2009). Thus, appropriateness means complying with contextual
rules and their accompanying expectations.
Rule Violations: Consequential Effects
Groups expect rules to be followed, but when rules are violated the consequences can be significant. Consider some
examples. A study of student-to-teacher email and text messaging showed that students often send overly casual
messages to teachers. Messages such as “R U Able to Meat Me” incline an instructor “to like the student less, view
them as less credible, have a lesser opinion of the message quality, and make them less willing to comply with
students’ simple email requests” (Stephens et al., 2009, p. 318). Text abbreviations (“R U” instead of “are you”) are
particularly disliked by teachers, and misspellings and apparent lack of proofreading (“meat” instead of “meet”)
clearly diminish the sender’s credibility. Standard implicit rules for teacher–student communication dictate that
students communicate thoughtfully and respectfully with teachers. If your study group or project team needs to
email or text message your instructor, show care and respect by avoiding overly casual, inappropriate messaging.
This study also underlines the importance of proofreading all emails and text messages before sending
them, especially to all members of teams in work and professional settings. It isn’t that misspelled
messages cannot be deciphered. For example, read this edited version found on the Internet:
Aoccdrnig to stdees at an Amrcan uinervtisy, ltteer oredr in a wrod is uniprmeotnt. Olny the frist and lsat lttr msut be in the crrocet
pclae. The rset of the wrod can be a cmolpete mses. Tihs is bcuseae we raed words as a wolhe, not by idndvidaul ltters.
Were you able to decipher the message without much difficulty despite the disastrous spelling? Have you ever
received an email or text message that resembled this jumbled mess? Imagine the impression you leave if you send
such an error-filled message to your boss, instructor, or team leader.
Beware the risks of autocorrect! It is notorious for changes to text messages that make you seem moronic or weird if
you do not catch the ludicrous “corrections.” True story: A friend of mine texted a colleague at work about a delicious
“nut taco” recipe. Autocorrect had changed it to “butt taco”—not so delicious.
Finally, a survey of more than 2,600 hiring and human resource managers conducted by Harris Interactive for
Career Builder, a web-based employment organization, listed answering a cellphone or text message during the
interview, appearing arrogant or entitled, dressing inappropriately, and failing to make eye contact as the most
common mistakes made by job applicants (Grasz, 2017). An interviewing panel expects appropriate behavior from
applicants. Interrupting an interview to answer a cellphone or to send a text message communicates less interest in
the job and more interest in immediate communication with others. Dressing too casually for a formal interview
sends the message, “I don’t take this interview seriously.” Displays of arrogance and entitlement can instantly kill an
interview.

Then there are the “most unusual” things job interviewees have done according to hiring employers and managers:
candidate asked for a cocktail; candidate broke out in song during the interview; candidate came to the interview
wearing slippers; and candidate asked to taste the interviewer’s coffee (Hayes, 2018). Know the rules and meet
expectations accordingly to be effective and appropriate.
Rule Changes: Context Specific
The appropriateness of your communication cannot be determined by merely examining a message
that is isolated from the rich complexity of context—an environment in which meaning emerges, consisting of
who communicates to whom, why the communicator does it, and where, when, and how it is done. For instance, you
may self-disclose intimate information to members of some groups but not others. If you attend a therapy group on
marriage, self-disclosing will be expected and encouraged because it is compatible with the group’s purpose. If,
however, you are talking in a meeting of the Student Senate or the Dormitory Advisory Committee, intimate self-
disclosure will likely make members squirm in their chairs and wish for an earthquake as a distraction. The purpose
of these groups is not therapeutic, so the rules that dictate appropriate communication in these contexts are different
from rules found at meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or Marriage Encounter.
Some rules may need to be modified. No rule is sacrosanct. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic, rules regarding social contact had
to be changed. Such rule changes were not always greeted with alacrity. Halfpoint/Shutterstock

Achieving Communication Competence
Defining communication competence identifies what it is, but not how to achieve it. There are five general ways,
each explored throughout this text in much greater detail, to improve your effectiveness and
appropriateness in groups: You can acquire knowledge, hone communication skills, improve your sensitivity,
redouble your commitment, and apply ethical standards to your communication choices (see Figure 1.1).
F I G UR E 1.1 Communication Competence Model
Knowledge: Learning the Rules
Knowledge in any communication situation is critical. We cannot determine what is appropriate and
effective without knowing the rules operating in a given situation, and rules can change. When first
hired, for example, there is a period of adjustment where you learn to navigate in your new job based on the rules
that become apparent. What authority do you have to influence decision making in your project group? How should
you address your team leader—formally or casually? What information technologies are you permitted to access at
work to advance your team proposal?

Then there are rules, often misunderstood or volatile, regarding how to relate to LGBTQ group members. Canela
Lopez and Marquerite Ward (2020) identify thirteen things to avoid saying to LGBTQ coworkers. Among these are:
(1) Never offer a “compliment” by saying “You don’t strike me as gay”; (2) do not keep mentioning your one gay
family member; and (3) avoid saying, “I would never have guessed you were transgender.” Rules are changing as
gender fluidity has become a more transparent issue, so remaining current in your knowledge is important if you
hope to avoid appearing insensitive and offensive.
Skills: Showing, Not Just Knowing
Communication competence encompasses the ability to apply your knowledge in actual situations. To be effective,
you must combine knowledge with skill. Despite the increasing popularity of teams in organizations,
researchers have discovered that such groups are often unsuccessful because members lack teamwork knowledge
and skill (Hollenbeck et al., 2004). They may know what to do but not how to do it skillfully.
A communication skill is the ability to perform a communication behavior effectively and repeatedly. Clearly,
fluently, concisely, eloquently, and confidently communicating a message is an example. Practice, of course, is
essential to the mastery of any communication skill. Group members who are trained and practice together acquire
skills and improve group performance (Ellis et al., 2005). Business consultant Greg Satell (2015) claims that
“communication is today’s most important skill.” A LinkedIn study found that communication and teamwork were
ranked #1 and #3 as the most “essential business skills for success in the workplace” (Beqiri, 2017; see also Bean-
Mellinger, 2019).
Sensitivity: Receptive Accuracy
Having the knowledge to determine what constitutes appropriate communication in a specific context and having the
skills to be effective are great, but what if you aren’t attentive to signals from group members that indicate hostility,
tension, anger, irritation, disgust, or uneasiness? Sensitivity is also important. Sensitivity is receptive accuracy
whereby you can detect, decode, and comprehend signals and emotional cues sent within groups (Bernieri, 2001).
Failure to attend to and comprehend signals can severely affect group performance (Hall & Bernieri,
2001). Sensitivity is even more important than the general intelligence of group members. Google conducted a huge
study called Project Aristotle and found that members of effective teams had high scores on sensitivity; members of
ineffective teams had low scores (Duhigg, 2016). Women exhibit a greater facility for sensitivity, so including women
in task-oriented groups is highly advisable (Woolley et al., 2010).
Fortunately, sensitivity can be learned, especially if we give social media a rest. A major aspect of sensitivity is being
mindful, not mindless, about your communication with others. We exhibit mindfulness when “we think about our
communication and continually work at changing what we do in order to become more effective” (Griffin, 2006). Put
down the electronic gadgets, view your surroundings, engage others face to face in your classes or workplaces, and be
mindful. We exhibit mindlessness when we pay little attention to our communication with others and put little or
no effort into improving it. One of the functions of this text is to assist you in developing greater sensitivity by
identifying patterns of communication that pose problems in group transactions and by providing solutions.

Commitment: A Passion for Excellence
Effectiveness requires commitment. Commitment is persistent effort to achieve goals and produce excellence.
Little that is worthwhile comes without commitment. The predominant motivation of the competent
communicator is the desire to avoid previous mistakes and to find better ways of communicating with
group members. Someone who makes the same mistakes repeatedly and shows little interest in altering his or her
behavior is a nuisance or, worse, a deadweight who can sink a group.
Commitment to improving your communication effectiveness requires self-monitoring. When you interact in groups,
be a participant-observer. Assume a detached view of yourself. Analyze your communication behavior; look for
areas to improve while noting successes. Ultimately, the competent communicator considers it a personal
responsibility to make the necessary effort to interact with group members as effectively and productively as
possible.
Dr. Louisa Parks of the Brain Health Center at California Pacific Medical Center notes that people are spending so much time on social
networking devices instead of face-to-face interactions that “the ability to recognize things like sarcasm, humor, or even the emotions on
a human face” are on the wane (quoted in Brown, 2013, p. A16). This poses problems for exhibiting sensitivity—that ability to accurately
decode subtle emotional cues. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
Ethics: The Right and Wrong of Communication
Competent communicators concern themselves with more than what works for them personally. Lying, cheating, and
abusing others to gain group leadership, for example, is self-oriented and reprehensible. This violates standards of
ethics related directly to appropriateness.

Ethics is a system for judging the moral correctness of human behavior by weighing that behavior against an
agreed-upon set of standards of what constitutes right and wrong. Five essential values, based on the Credo for
Ethical Communication adopted by the National Communication Association ( www.natcom.org), constitute the
set of standards for judging the moral correctness of our communication behavior. They are as follows:
1. Honesty. “There is no more fundamental ethical value than honesty” (Josephson, 2002). Unfortunately, the
demand for honesty often exceeds the supply. “Indeed, lying is so commonplace in corporations that it often
passes without comment” (Jenkins & Delbridge, 2016).
2. Respect. Relationships in groups fall apart, and groups can’t function effectively when members show disrespect
for each other. One survey by the Josephson Institute of Ethics reported that 99% of respondents rated receiving
respect as “very important” or “essential” to them, and treating others with respect received a similar rating (Jarc,
2012).
3. Fairness. Students recognize immediately how unfair it would be if an instructor gave a better grade to some
project groups in class and penalized others based on their sex, ethnicity, age, or lifestyle. Everyone should play by
the same rules. One study of community college students reported that fairness was perceived to be “very
important” or “extremely important” by most respondents (Kidder et al., 2002). Millennials (born between 1982
and 1997) consider fairness in the workplace as more important than even recognition or opportunity (Knights,
2017). Research of Generation Z members (born between 1997 and 2013) reveals that perceived fairness is
significant and affects their performance, satisfaction, commitment, trust, and self-esteem (Schroth, 2019).
4. Choice. Freedom to choose for oneself without threat of force or intimidation is a basic ethical value (Jaksa &
Pritchard, 1994). Coercion—forced choice—prevents free choice. There is no real option presented. Choice goes
hand in hand with honesty. If you fear reprisals for telling the truth, then your freedom to choose truthfulness
instead of deceit is compromised.
5. Responsibility. Every group member has a responsibility, a duty, to be concerned about more than merely what
works to achieve personal or even group goals. How goals are achieved is also a vital consideration. The study of
community college students previously cited reported the highest score among a list of choices was for the
importance of responsibility as a “moral value.”

Ethics is a critical element of communication competence. As humans, we care about right and wrong behavior (appropriateness). It is
one of the characteristics that separates humans from the beasts-as-feasts daily killing field that occurs on the African Serengeti. The We-
orientation of communication effectiveness and rules of appropriateness make ethics a significant element of the competence model.
EtiAmmos/Shutterstock
These general ethical values serve as guidelines for appropriate communication behavior. Group communication
is so complex, however, that any list of standards used to judge members’ communication ethics,
applied absolutely, would immediately create problems. Ethical communication is a matter of context. A lie
that accuses a member of your study group of cheating on a test is different from a lie that covers up an embarrassing
event that is private and none of the group’s business. Exceptions also will inevitably surface. Students don’t have
complete freedom of choice. Few would freely take a public speaking course even to improve important group
presentations unless mandated by general education requirements because most people fear giving speeches.
Honesty, respect, fairness, choice, and responsibility, however, are strong values in most cultures, and they should
act as basic standards for evaluating our communication.

Culture and Communication Competence
Multicultural small groups are becoming the norm, not the exception. Consequently, membership diversity
poses challenges when applying the communication competence model. So, what is culture? Lord Raglan asserted
that “culture is roughly anything we do and the monkeys don’t.” To be more specific and accurate than Raglan,
culture is a learned set of enduring values, beliefs, and practices that are shared by an identifiable, large group of
people with a common history. To explain this definition, a value is the most deeply felt, generally shared view of
what is deemed good, right, or worthwhile thinking or behavior. Values constitute a shared conception, not of what
is, but of what ought to be. A belief is what a person thinks is true or probable. Two individuals may value human
life, for example, but one may believe that capital punishment preserves life by deterring homicides, while the other
may believe the contrary. Finally, a co-culture is any group that is part of a dominant culture yet often has a
common history and shares some differences in values, beliefs, and practices from the dominant culture. African
Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Mexican Americans are some obvious examples of co-cultures
within the United States. The LGBTQ community is also a co-culture, as is the deaf community and a variety of other
groups.
Rules of appropriateness vary widely among cultures and co-cultures, sometimes surprisingly so.
Knowing cultural rules can be critical. Consider, for example, the common practice of tipping after a meal at a
restaurant. In cultures such as China, Japan, South Korean, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, there is no tipping, and
Americans who do are perceived to be disrespectful. Even if you are intending a magnanimous gesture by picking up
the lunch check for your sports team while traveling abroad and you add a healthy tip, you are communicating the
insulting message that the waitperson must be bribed to provide decent service. Tipping in Egypt is permitted but
tricky. Attendants staff most public restrooms, and some dole out toilet paper based on the size of the tip (“Tipping,”
2020). The awkwardness of such events will be left to your imagination.
Individualism–Collectivism Dimension: The Prime Directive
All cultures vary in the degree of emphasis they place on individuals exploring their uniqueness and independence
versus maintaining their conformity and interdependence. This individualism–collectivism dimension is
thought by many scholars to be the most important, deep-seated value that distinguishes one culture from another
(Santos et al., 2017). “It is widely considered as the quintessential marker of a society’s prevalent mentality and
culture” (Beugelsdijk & Wetzel, 2018). The individualism–collectivism dimension is at the center of the
communication competence model’s We-orientation perspective and the importance of rules that
determine appropriate communication in varying cultural contexts.
Individualist cultures have an “I” consciousness. The autonomy of the individual is of paramount importance
in individualist cultures. Words such as independence, self, privacy, and rights imbue cultural conversations.
Competition, but less so cooperation, is encouraged. Decision making is predicated on what benefits the individual,
even if this jeopardizes the group welfare. Individual achievement and initiative are stressed. Self-promotion is
expected, even encouraged (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2010).
In collectivist cultures, by contrast, commitment to the group is paramount. Words such as loyalty,
responsibility (to the group welfare), and community imbue collectivist cultural conversations. Collectivist cultures

have a “We” consciousness. Cooperation within valued groups (family, friends, coworkers, teams) is strongly
emphasized, although transactions with groups perceived as outsiders (foreigners, strangers) can become
competitive (a threat to a valued group) (Yu, 1998). Individuals often downplay personal goals in favor of advancing
the goals of a valued group. Self-promotion is discouraged, and harmony is encouraged (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2010).
All cultures have both individualist and collectivist influences, but one tends to predominate over the
other. A worldwide study of 50 countries and three geographic areas ranks the United States as the number one
individualistic country, followed by other Western countries such as Australia, Great Britain, and Canada (Hofstede
& Hofstede, 2010). Evidence shows that the United States is slowly becoming even more individualistic than when
this global study was first conducted (Twenge et al., 2017). Latin American, Asian, West and East African countries,
such as Guatemala, Ecuador, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Singapore, rank high on collectivism (see Figure 1.2). Most
people live in collectivist cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2010), but one study of 78 countries utilizing 51 years of
data found a 12% increase worldwide in individualism. Despite this increase in most cultures studied, “cultural
differences remain sizable” (Santos et al., 2017) and “relative country rankings tend to be rather stable” (Beugelsdijk
& Wetzel, 2018). Very little has changed in the rankings on the individualism–collectivism dimension since
Hofstede’s original research (Beugelsdijk et al., 2015).
In the United States, self-promotion is encouraged, even expected when interviewing for a job. Such self-enhancement, however, is not
typically viewed as appropriate in the context of many collectivist cultures that prefer self-effacement, which downplays one’s
performance and exhibits modest talk and self-deprecating messages (Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2018). Gutesa/Shutterstock

F I G UR E 1.2 Map of individualist and collectivist cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2010).
Differences on the individualism–collectivism dimension can lead to inappropriate and ineffective
communication. For example, when brainstorming ideas in diverse face-to-face small groups or global virtual
teams, group members from more individualist cultures such as the United States and Australia tend to voice
unfiltered ideas and opinions during brainstorming sessions. Members from more collectivist cultures such as China,
Korea, and Taiwan, however, are far more reluctant to contribute, fearful that they will appear superficial or foolish
and, consequently, lose face (Toegel & Barsoux, 2016). From the perspective of these Asian cultures, this lopsided
difference in brainstorming participation rates can lead to misperceptions that Americans are domineering, rude,
and arrogant bullies instead of eager participants. They violate accepted cultural rules with impunity. Conversely,
Americans can misperceive these Asian participants as docile, timid, and uncreative. They don’t meet American
expectations of appropriate behavior.
Applying the Communication Competence Model: Several Steps
Working in increasingly diverse small groups is a challenge that requires direct application of the communication
competence model. There are several steps that you can take to adapt appropriately and effectively to
the challenge of cultural diversity in groups:
1. Embrace diversity. As Henry David Thoreau once said, “It’s never too late to give up your prejudices.”
Ethnocentrism—exalting one’s own culture while disparaging other cultures (Samovar et al., 2021)—is
prejudice on a culturally grand scale. All cultures are ethnocentric to some degree (Triandis, 2009), but you can

recognize it and vow to rise above it. Diversity is part of the colorful tapestry of humankind. Move beyond
personal preferences. Be open to new experiences and views of others.
2. Reduce uncertainty. Uncertainty reduction theory posits that when strangers first meet (the getting-to-
know-you initial phase of group development), the principal goal is to reduce uncertainty and increase
predictability (Rahmani, 2017). Uncertainty often produces anxiety. This is especially true in highly diverse small
groups, or when you might be the lone member from an individualist culture in an otherwise collectivist-oriented
group. We fear embarrassing ourselves or causing offense if we say or do the wrong thing in unfamiliar
intercultural situations. Uncertainty reduction can improve the effectiveness of your communication in diverse
groups (Neuliep, 2014). Engaging others in conversation is an important way to reduce uncertainty by getting to
know others. Ask questions. Explore group members’ cultural stories. Be accessible. Demonstrate true interest in
another person’s culture.
3. Listen and learn. “Listen” is an anagram for “silent” (same letters, different words). Too often we are more
interested in hearing ourselves talk than in remaining silent, the first step in the listening process. No one ever
insulted individuals from another culture by actively listening to them. Think about that! It’s when we
open our mouths or act in inappropriate ways that trouble can emerge. Encourage contributions from group
members, and resist interrupting them when they do contribute. Doing a quick “whip-around” in which each team
member is given an opportunity to speak in turn before opening a more free-for-all brainstorming session
markedly improves brainstorming participation rates among members of collectivist cultures (Aritz & Walker,
2014).
4. Don’t stereotype. Allow for individual differences. Describing cultures as primarily individualist or collectivist is a
generalization that does not accurately reflect every member of a specific culture. The individualist–collectivist
dimension is a cultural tendency, not an immutable law.
5. Employ the Platinum Rule. The Golden Rule is treat others as you want to be treated. This is a nice sentiment,
and it works well in homogeneous (similar membership) groups and cultures. Not everyone, however, wants to be
treated the same, especially when cultures clash. “That doesn’t bother me; why should it bother you?” and “That
wouldn’t offend me” are comments that reveal the problem with this rule applied interculturally. The Platinum
Rule is more useful in multicultural groups: Treat others as they want to be treated (Alessandra, 2020). In many
collectivist cultures, direct eye contact can be perceived as disrespectful, but in individualist cultures shifting your
gaze is often perceived as disrespectful, a show of disinterest (Crowley, 2016). You can vary your eye contact
depending on the cultural composition of your group and individual interactions.
6. Learn to style shift. There are two main communication styles that differentiate individualist and collectivist
cultures: low-context and high-context communication (Hall & Hall, 1987). Low-context communication is
verbally precise, direct, literal, and explicit. A legal contract is an example of low-context communication. Every
legal detail is clearly specified, often in dozens, even hundreds of pages. High-context communication is
indirect, imprecise, and implicit. For example, an indirect verbal expression, such as “I’ll think about it,” may be a
face-saving means of saying no in Japan, or it may be assumed that no verbal expression is required to state what
should be obvious from the nonverbal context. You are expected to “read between the lines” by recognizing hints
and knowing the cultural context and unspoken rules. If group members are mostly or entirely from individualist
cultures, a low-context communication style is appropriate. If group members are mostly or entirely from
collectivist cultures, a more high-context communication style is appropriate. Don’t insist on everyone else
adapting to your accustomed way of communicating, particularly if you are the lone individualist member in a
collectivist group. Be flexible, as persons from collectivist backgrounds must be to adapt to typical American
groups with individualist cultural values.

SELF-ASSESSMENT: Be Ye Individualist or Collectivist?

Definition of a Group
Both communication and communication competence have been defined and discussed in detail. In this section, for
clarification, the definition of a group is offered and distinguished from interpersonal communication and public
speaking.
Groups: More than People Standing at a Bus Stop
A group is a human communication system composed of three or more individuals, interacting in a quest to achieve
some common goal(s), who influence and are influenced by each other. The group process can be adversarial or
collaborative, but in either case members interact and influence each other attempting to achieve a
desired goal.
SECOND LOOK
Groups versus Aggregations
Groups Aggregations
Crowd doing “the wave” Crowd in a shopping mall
Cheerleading squad performing Individuals waiting for cheerleading tryouts
Crossing guard leading children Children waiting at stop signal to cross street
Jury deliberating Individuals waiting for jury duty assignment
A group is different from a mere collection of individuals, called an aggregation (Goldhaber, 1990). Twenty-five
people standing in line to buy tickets for a movie are not a group, but simply an aggregation. Because they do not
interact with and influence each other to achieve a common goal (strangers standing in line are not there expressly to
help each other secure tickets), they do not qualify as a group. The same holds for a crowd shopping in a mall or
waiting for a plane departure delayed by fog, or people sitting on benches in a public park. In such cases, the
presence of other people is irrelevant to the achievement of the specific goal (buying clothes, traveling from point A
to point B, or enjoying the outdoors). Crowds, of course, can become groups if they satisfy the definition provided
(e.g., flash mob).
This text will focus on small groups. Trying to draw a clear line between small and large groups, however,
can prove to be difficult. When does the addition of one more member transform a small group into a large one?
When you attend a group meeting and you can’t remember afterward whether some members were even present,
you’ve probably reached large-group status. When groups grow to the point where problems of coordination emerge

and formal rules for discussion and debate (parliamentary procedure) during meetings become necessary, the group
can reasonably be designated as large.
A mere collection of people is not a group. They can be in proximity to each other but unless they are interacting to achieve a common
goal, then they are called an aggregation. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
Interpersonal Communication and Public Speaking: Ungroups
Communication between only two individuals is usually referred to as interpersonal, or dyadic
communication. Distinguishing interpersonal communication and group communication, however, is more than
numerical. There is an important qualitative dimension as well (Moreland, 2010). As most couples
experience, interpersonal communication between spouses is massively changed with the addition of a child. In such
cases, three individuals seem like many more than two. Communication between two individuals is far less complex
than the complicated network of transactions found in groups of three or more. Thus, the unit of analysis is
structurally different when focusing on three or more individuals, not just two (see Chapter 2 for more detailed
discussion). Coalition formation and majority–minority influence occur in groups, not dyads. A group dynamic
seems to begin with no fewer than three individuals. For example, one study showed that two individuals
working together to solve a complex problem performed no better than two individuals working apart. Three
individuals working together, however, proved to be the point at which superior problem-solving begins (Laughlin et
al., 2006). I doubt that you would deem it unusual to refer to a family as a group, but you might think it odd to label
a married or dating couple as a group. We typically say, “They’re such a cute couple” but not “They’re such a cute

group.” The dynamics between two people are qualitatively different from the dynamics experienced among three or
more people.
Group communication is also distinct from public speaking. Public speaking involves a clearly indicated speaker
and an audience, and the speaking situation is far more formal than what is usually found in group discussions.
Verbal feedback is often delayed in public speaking events, but during group discussions verbal feedback often is
almost immediate. Public speakers usually prepare remarks in advance and speak from notes or even a manuscript.
Group members usually don’t make formal preparations to speak during group discussions but may do so when
participating on group panels, symposiums, or public forums (see Appendix A for details).
In summary, human communication is a transactional process of sharing meaning with others. Communication
competence, a recurring theme throughout this book, is communicating effectively and appropriately in a given
context. It is achieved generally through knowledge, skills, sensitivity, commitment, and ethics. Learning to
communicate competently in groups is of vital importance to all of us. With this as a backdrop, let’s explore in the
next chapter how groups function as systems.
KEY TERMS FLASHCARDS
QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKERS

TED TALKS AND YOUTUBE VIDEOS
This ancillary activity, added to each chapter, provides video presentations and segments that both
illustrate key communication concepts and provide opportunities for specific analysis, discussion,
disagreement, and application of text material. These TED Talks and YouTube videos can be accessed
by going to the Oxford Learning Link for In Mixed Company or by typing the title of the video
into a Google search window.
“Communication in the 21st Century: Is It What You Say, Not How You Say It?”
“It’s How You Say It—The Science of Emotions”
“The Power of Nonverbal Communication” | Joe Navarro
“Why Language Is Humanity’s Greatest Invention”

VIDEO CASE STUDIES
This activity presents video case studies from a variety of films for you to analyze. A movie rating (PG-13, R,
etc.) and category (drama, romantic comedy, etc.) are included to help you decide which movies are suitable
for your viewing. You are asked to analyze each video case study, applying key material presented in each
chapter.
American Factory (2019). Documentary; TV-14
A Chinese billionaire opens a factory in an abandoned General Motors plant, employing 2,000 American
workers. Cultural clashes ensue. Examine the clashes from the perspective of individualism and collectivism in
this Oscar-winning documentary.
Brooklyn (2015). Drama/Romance; PG-13
Outstanding tale of an Irish immigrant trying to make her way in 1950s Brooklyn. Identify and analyze the
rules that operate both interpersonally and in groups. What impact do these rules have on communication
behavior? What are the consequences of rules violations?
Crazy Rich Asians (2018). Drama/Romance/Comedy; PG-13
Native New Yorker Rachel Chu follows her boyfriend to Singapore to meet his family. Identify differences in
cultural rules and inappropriate behavior that results.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013). Action-Adventure; PG-13
Katnis (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) become enemies of the Capitol and must participate
in a second Hunger Games event pitting previous winners against each other. Examine the ethics of the
Hunger Games participants, applying the five standards of ethical group communication. Identify instances in
which communication is interpersonal and when it is small group. Are participants ever just an aggregation?
Return to Paradise (1998). Drama; R
Underrated film about a harrowing ethical dilemma involving three friends who vacationed in Malaysia. Yes,
this film is “old,” but the issues that it raises are not. Analyze this film from a communication ethics
perspective. Is Anne Heche’s character justified in lying to the Vince Vaughn character? Does Vince Vaughn’s
character have a choice, or is he being coerced unethically? Does he have a responsibility to return to save his
friend?

QUIZZES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES

LIST OF KEY TERMS
activities groups
aggregation
appropriateness
artistic groups
belief
co-culture
Coercion
Commitment
communication
Communication competence
communication skill
content dimension
context
culture
effectiveness
Ethics
Ethnocentrism
group
grouphate
High-context communication
hindsight bias
individualism–collectivism dimension
interpersonal, or dyadic communication
Language
learning groups
Low-context communication
mindfulness
mindlessness
mixed message
music

myths
neighborhood groups
Nonverbal communication
participant-observer
Platinum Rule
primary groups
project groups
Public speaking
relationship dimension
rule
self-managing work teams
Sensitivity
service groups
social
social media networks
support groups
symbols
transactional
Uncertainty reduction theory
value
virtual groups

eBook (EPUB) In Mixed Company Communicating in Small Groups and Teams 11e Dan Rothwell.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to eBook (EPUB) In Mixed Company Communicating in Small Groups and Teams 11e Dan Rothwell.pdf (20)

More from williamhazel21 (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

eBook (EPUB) In Mixed Company Communicating in Small Groups and Teams 11e Dan Rothwell.pdf