How to Enhance the Quality of Task-based Meetings in China from a Communication Perspective

Abstract: This paper utilizes some essential small group communication theories including systems theory, structuration theory, symbolic convergence theory, social exchange theory, and functional theory to examine and analyze how to enhance the quality of task-based meetings in both physical and virtual settings of China. It identifies the problems existing in Chinese meetings and gives some operational guidelines that would help avoid such problems in the future. It also provides useful insights into how to lead or take part in structured meetings based on Chinese unique cultural dimensions.
Keywords: Meeting, culture, structure, agenda, facilitator, videoconferencing

I. INTRODUCTION

Meetings play a weighty role in the realm of group communication, especially in the problem-solving and decision-making processes. In the business and government communities of China, the collaborative efforts of work teams have led to a dramatic increase in the number of meetings. However, a considerable part of meeting planners and participants’ understanding of how to run a meeting smoothly, efficiently and fairly is limited. Some meetings are really chaotic, leading to that meeting participants are dissatisfied with the meetings and thus fail to gain any benefit from them. As a result, meetings become the most universal–and universally despised–part of business life in China.
This paper utilizes some essential small group communication theories to examine and analyze how to enhance the quality of task-based meetings in both physical and virtual settings of China. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In section II, we briefly identify the problems existing in Chinese meetings. In section III, we present a set of Chinese cultural characteristics that are deemed to have great influence on meeting effectiveness. In section IV, we present some strategies that can drive meeting effectiveness in China based on some essential small group communication theories, including systems theory, structuration theory, symbolic convergence theory, social exchange theory, and functional theory. Finally, in section V we give concluding remarks.

II. PROBLEMS EXISTING IN CHINESE MEETINGS

The most frequently mentioned problems existing in Chinese meetings are:
1. Meetings are poor or inadequate prepared. People have no clear goals or agendas in their minds before the meetings.
2. Meetings lack structures or orderly procedures. People wander off the topic frequently. Meetings are always missing important information or postponing critical decisions because participants spend more time digressing than discussing.
3. Not all participants get involved in the discussion. One or two individuals dominate the conversation, while others remain relative silent.
4. People reach consensus or conform to the majority opinion primarily in order to avoid conflict. Social psychologist Irving Janis calls this phenomenon groupthink (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 14).
5. Meetings are too long.
6. People don’t convert decisions into actions. Nothing happens once the meeting ends.
Bad meetings do more than ruin an otherwise pleasant day. Bad meetings hinder, rather than facilitate, business. Bad meetings make bad companies and bad governments. Bad meetings are a source of negative messages about our organization and ourselves. Furthermore, bad meetings lead to even more meetings, and over time the costs become awe-inspiring.

III. CHINESE CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

“Meetings are one of the most complex forms of human interaction that we engage in” (Hogan, 1993). Culture adds another dimension. It is helpful at this stage to present a set of Chinese cultural characteristics that are deemed to have great influence on meeting effectiveness as follows:
1. Collectivism: In Chinese culture, collective well-being takes precedence over individual achievement. People revere harmony and the ability to assimilate differences to build consensus.
2. High-context: People place more emphasis on nonverbal communication. Nonverbal cues, such as the communicator’s mood, gesture, tone of voice, and facial expression, are especially significant in decoding messages.
3. Self-effacement: In China, when people attend meetings, they pay more attention to listening instead of speaking. If no one is asking, then they would rather keep silent. But if required, they can certainly express their wishes or concerns.
4. Polychronic: People give less attention to deadlines and schedules and tend to approach time with a less-structured perspective.
5. People give particular consideration to status differences. They revere seniors and authority.
6. The ancient Chinese tradition of ‘giving face’ and ‘saving face’ is still embedded in Chinese culture.
Culture has an important impact on group communication and dynamics. Therefore, adjusting meeting techniques based on Chinese cultural expectations is critical to meeting success in China.

IV. STRATEGIES FOR ENHANCING MEETING EFFECTIVENESS IN CHINA

Considering the problems and Chinese cultural characteristics described above, we should ask ourselves a series of questions: How to avoid the same problems in the future? How to improve the quality of meetings based on Chinese unique cultural dimensions? In this section, we first give a brief literature review on some essential small group communication theories. Based on these theories, we present several strategies that can enhance the quality of task-based meetings in both physical and virtual settings of China.
A. Literature review
System theory claims that the small group is an open system of interdependent elements, employing input variables and process variables to yield output (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 51).
Structuration theory provides a general framework that explains how people structure their groups by making active use of rules and resources. System and rules are two important concepts in structuration theory. System is composed of many interdependent elements. Rules are explicit or implied prescriptions that affect how people behave in a group (system) (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 49).
Symbolic convergence theory indicates that a group develops a unique identity and feeling of cohesiveness through sharing fantasies or stories that are often chained together and have a common theme (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 51).
Social exchange theory predicts that groups remain attractive to their group members so long as the rewards of group membership exceed the costs (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 51).
Functional theory explains how communication functions to accomplish tasks, overcome obstacles, and review procedures to maximize group effectiveness (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 52).
Functional approach to the study of leadership examines leadership as a set of behaviors that may be enacted by any group member to maximize group effectiveness (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 314).
B. Strategies for driving face-to-face meeting effectiveness
All effective meetings need structure. In China, the most frequently mentioned complain about meetings is lacking structures. According to structuration theory, meeting leaders and participates should identify appropriate rules and resources to give the meeting structure, which in turn enhances the quality of the meeting. Wilkinson defines a facilitated session as a highly structured meeting in which the facilitator guides participants through a series of predefined steps to arrive at a result that is created, understood, and accepted by all participants (reviewed by Domenick, 2005). So Chinese meeting leaders and participates must gain a better understanding of how to be a smart facilitator to run a structured meeting.
In line with the functional approach to the study of leadership, Bostrom, Anson, and Clawson (1993) stated that facilitative behaviors might be exhibited by several individuals in meeting groups: external facilitators, group leaders, or other group members. Facilitators adopt different styles, play different roles, and perform a variety of functions in the group interactions. These styles, roles, and functions have been shown to affect group processes and meeting outcomes (Keller, 1992). Miranda and Bostrom (1999) identified three major facilitator roles: content facilitation (supporting task content), process facilitation (supporting group process), and training. In the task-based meeting, the process and content facilitation roles are dominant. These three roles encompass Clawson, Bostrom, and Anson’s (1993) sixteen facilitator dimensions. Table 1 highlights the facilitator roles, sources of facilitation, timing, and impacts (Miranda & Bostrom, 1999).



As shown in Table 1, the facilitation activities are carried out before, during, and after a meeting to help the group achieve its own outcomes. So the first step to run a structured meeting is prior preparation and planning. A smart facilitator should at least do three things before the meeting:
1. Identify the clear goal(s) of the meeting. “One cardinal rule of meeting is this: Meeting only when there is a specific purpose and when it is advantageous or desirable to disscuss issues, solves problems, or making decisions as a group” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 339).
2. Draft a structured meeting agenda. Meeting agenda is “a list of key issues, ideas, and information that will be presented in the order in which they will be discussed” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 339). Agenda is worthy of serious consideration because lack of agenda can serve as a major barrier to give the meeting structure and achieve the goal(s) of the meeting. The agenda should include which items you would cover and the order in which you would cover them, how long each segment will take, who will lead which parts of the discussion, what the expected outcomes are, and what actions are to be taken after the meeting.
3. Circulate the agenda several days before the meeting, letting participants modify it and give the issue that will be discussed some prior thoughts and considerations. Making agenda visible to the group in advance makes the system more open.
The facilitator’s next task is to make the meeting more effective by balancing two things: structure and interaction. During the meeting, the facilitator’s roles and responsibilities are:
1. Summarize roles and responsibilities at the beginning of the meeting, ensuring that everyone understood the interrelated roles and responsibilities. According to system theory, all parts of the group (system) are dynamic and interdependent (Boechler, 2005). Thus, we must realize and make clear that an effective meeting is a joint responsibility of everyone in the group. Usually, other than facilitator, there are two main roles in a face-to-face meeting: participants and scribe. The roles of the participants are to listen actively and contribute high-quality ideas. Their comments, questions, criticisms, insights should heighten rather than diminish the quality of the meeting. The scribe’s role is to minute proceedings of the meeting.
2. Help the group focus on the goal and stick to the agenda. One of the most effective tools for keeping the group on track is summarizing. By understanding when a group needs a summary—and then provide it—the facilitator can help move the meeting toward its goal (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 316). Furthermore, it is the starting point for all advice on productive meetings: stick to the agenda. Of course, even the best-crafted agenda cannot guard against digressions, distractions, and the other foibles of human interaction. Symbolic convergence theory indicates that fantasy chain reaction occurs when group energy increases and there is a common emotional response to the imagery used. Fantasies increase cohesiveness within the group and enable a group to discuss difficult matters indirectly (Boechler, 2005). Thus, the smart facilitator should keep the meeting focused without stifling meeting climate.
3. Be a timekeeper to remind participants on agreed schedules. This is important because Chinese people sometime are not sensitive to schedules and punctuality.
4. Suggest processes to enhance participation. As discussed earlier, one of the problems existing in Chinese meetings is that not all participants give input. According to system theory, groups cannot yield output without input. So another key task of the facilitator is to orchestrate meaningful interaction during the meeting to make sure all participants have opportunities to give input. The facilitator can use the important leadership function, gatekeeping, to encourage quieter individuals to participate and limit the contributions of oververbalizers. “It ensure more input along the task dimension and higher member satisfaction along the process dimension” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 318). In addition, Miranda and Bostrom (1993-94) proposed that active and equal participation by group members in the group task can prevent the occurrence of groupthink.
5. Use structured methods to achieve more effective results. Based on structuration theory, the facilitator can use some rules, techniques, and technologies to structure the meeting interaction. For example, if the meeting goal is to generate new ideas, the facilitator can consider using the nominal-group technique to enhance creativity. It is “a problem solving brainstorming method in which members work individually on ideas, rank suggested solutions, and then report findings for group discussion” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 360). This method is very suitable in China because Chinese culture encourages self-effacement, whose impact is that most of people are not used to speak up in front of others. Nominal-group technique uses silent brainstorming which overcomes the problem by encouraging even apprehensive group members to participate by first writing their ideas.
6. Develop an action chart at the end of the meeting, list the tasks that need to be done and identify who will do what by a specific date.
Actions are more important than words. So after the meeting, the facilitator should continue checking the actions of group members to make sure everyone get the work done before the deadline.
In addition, research suggests that parliamentary procedure can be an effective method of adding structure and rules to coordinate quality discussion in a large group (of twenty or more people) (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 345). “Parliamentary procedure is all of the laws and rules of an organization that govern its transaction of business” (Slaughter, 1999). It is designed to preserve order, expedite business and protect rights (Cozart, 1998). We do not need to adhere strictly to parliamentary rules in every aspect; however, we should follow some basic rules, including (Webster, 2001):
1. Every meeting must have a written agenda.
2. Adhere to the agenda, taking items out of sequence only when necessary.
3. Must have a quorum present (typically more than one half of the board members).
4. Formal board action must be pursuant to a motion.
5. Permit everyone who wishes to speak about a matter to do so.
6. Members may speak only when recognized by the chair.
7. The chair should remain impartial, at least in terms of process, and vote only if it would affect the outcome (e.g., break a tie) or if there is a secret ballot.
8. The board must always maintain decorum.
9. Always keep written minutes.
Parliamentary procedure is important because it promotes fairness and openness, which contributes to a positive atmosphere in which we can make important decisions. It also helps us end the meetings on time.
C. Strategies for driving virtual meeting effectiveness in China
The past decade has ushered in an era in which the availability and power of communication technologies has made virtual teams not only possible but sometimes preferred (Graham, 2003). Therefore, it is necessary for Chinese people to utilize technology and technological skills to interact with people in new ways for the benefit of their meetings. In the remained part, we will turn our attention to virtual meetings suited to China.
There are a variety of types of virtual meetings, including: a) Teleconferencing, which refers to multiple phone hook-ups; b) Videoconferencing, where there is a two-way audio and two-way video link up. It is an alternative means of communication within which voice, video, text or graphic data are exchanged electronically to participants at geographically dispersed locations (Campbell, 1997); c) Computer-mediated meeting.
As mentioned above, China ranked very high on the high-context cultural index. Therefore, videoconferencing systems that support non-verbal cues would be suitable in China. In addition, the costs and rewards identified by social exchange theory can be related to virtual meetings clearly. For example, one reward of videoconferencing is that videoconferencing systems use video images as well as sound to duplicate as closely as possible the experience of face-to-face meetings without imposing the burden of travel. Moreover, the major findings from research on videoconferencing usage indicate: a) Meetings are shorter, as people tend to concentrate specifically on the task at hand; b) Meetings are more task-oriented; c) Meetings are better structured; d) Meetings are more orderly, even though less hierarchically organized and less status oriented; e) There is generally more equality of participation; f) More opinion exchange occurs and persuasion is more successful (Campbell, 1997). There is no doubt that some costs have to be taken into account: a) additional efforts required to install the new equipment, b) different norms of behaviors need to be developed, and c) particular skills are required. In short, videoconferencing is different and must be approached in different ways as follows:
1. It is helpful to assign the role of facilitator in each site and an overall chairperson who announces protocol at the beginning.
2. Other than facilitator, participants, and scribe, a skilled camera operator is needed.
3. Starting the meeting with a simple agenda item allows people to warm to the technology.
4. The speaker should state the name and location before making his/her point.
5. The pace of speech and the movement of the body need to be slowed down to enhance the quality of the sound and picture. It may also be necessary to request individuals to speak up if they appear to be mumbling.
6. Research suggests that when interacting through mediated communication, followers are less satisfied with their leaders than when interacting face-to face. This implies that leaders may need to spend extra effort on increasing follower satisfaction when not interacting face-to-face (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003).
Other than these particular skills, the concepts about effective ordinary meetings located above will still apply in the new setting.
Besides the videoconferencing, some kinds of computer-mediated meeting technologies can be effectively applied in China too, such as e-mail, MSN Instant Messenger, and group decision support system (GDSS, which is any “computer-based information system used to support intellectual collaborative work” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 52)).
One obvious cost of computer-mediated meeting is the need to have access to a computer network and appropriate software. But the connection through cyberspace can add structure to the meetings and make the system more open, thus enhance the quality of the meeting. For example, by using computers, we can generate ideas anonymously and separate the process of generating ideas from evaluating ideas. As what we have mentioned, ‘giving face’ and ‘saving face’ is very important in Chinese culture, and people care much about status differences. By generating ideas anonymously, all participants are treated equally. When they evaluate ideas, they do not need to think about status differences. Furthermore, in cyberspace, the possibilities for visual, verbal or aural communication can create new avenues for fantasy themes and group identity (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 52).
To sum up, virtual meetings can be more productive than traditional meetings if proper techniques are used. It is my belief that videoconferencing and other kinds of virtual meetings will enable meetings across China to grow in new and exciting ways.

V. CONCLUSION

Meetings are like any other part of business life: you get better only if you commit to it and aim high. The theories, strategies and technologies we have examined and analyzed above provide an initial view of how to enhance the quality of task-based meetings in both physical and virtual settings of China. We can turn long and disorganized meetings into short and structured ones by identifing clear goals, drafting and circulating structured agendas before the meeting, balancing the structure and interaction during the meeting, and converting decisions into actions after the meeting.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2005). Communicating in small groups: principles and practices. New York: Longman.
Boechler, P. (2005). EXT 503 class lecture. University of Alberta. May 2-20, 2005.
Bostrom, R. P., Anson, R., & Clawson, V. K. (1993). Group facilitation and group support systems. In Jessup, L. & Valacich, J. (eds.), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan, pp. 146-168.
Campbell, J. (1997). The impact of videoconferenced meetings on the pattern and structure of organisational communication. Singapore Management Review, 19, 77-95.
Clawson, V. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Anson, R. (1993). The role of the facilitator in computer-supported meetings. Small Group Research, 24, 547-565.
Cozart, W. E. (1998). Robert’s rules at work. Association Management, 50, 80-81.
Domenick, K. (2005). Focus on Facilitation, T + D. Alexandria, 59, 68-69.
Graham, C. R. (2003). A model of norm development for computer mediated teamwork. Small Group Research, 34, 322-352
Hogan, C. (1993). How to get more out of videoconference meetings: A socio-technical approach: Experience at Curtin University of Technology. Training & Management Development Methods, 7, 5.01-5.16
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678-715.
Keller, R.T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501.
Miranda, S. M., & Bostrom, R. P. (1993-94). The impact of group support systems on group conflict and conflict management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 63-95.
Miranda, S. M., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Meeting facilitation: Process versus content interventions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 89-114.
Slaughter, J. (1999). Matching parliamentary procedure to needs. Association Management, 51, 112-113.
Webster, H. K. (2001). Parliamentary procedure in perspective. Association Management, 53, 124-125.

The Role of Media in a Time of National Crisis

Abstract: In a time of national crisis, such as 911 or SARS, what role can and should media play? This paper provides an initial view of how this question can be answered. It draws primarily on two different but somewhat overlapping theories: the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory, and particularly focuses on the similarities and differences between what the two theories would help us discover the question. Associating with these two theories, we discuss and analyze three roles that media can and should play when a national crisis strikes: watchdog, expert and director.

Keywords: Media, crisis, dependency theory, agenda-setting.

I. INTRODUCTION

Media play a weighty role in our society. Media can serve a number of functions such as reporting news, providing entertainment, and monitoring government activities. In a time of national crisis, such as 911 or SARS, what role can and should media play? This article utilizes two mass communication theories that belong to different traditions to discover this question: a) the dependency theory, which is firmly planted in the sociopsychological tradition, and b) the agenda-setting theory, which shows a strong affinity with the sociocultural tradition. We particularly focus on the similarities and differences between what the two theories can help us discover the question. Our study should be viewed as an early step in raising questions and suggesting interpretations about media’s role in a time of national crisis.

II. PRELIMINARIES

Dependency theory, originally proposed by Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1976), predicts that people depend on media information to meet certain needs and to achieve certain goals. But we do not depend on all media equally. There are two factors that determine how dependent we will become on media: a) We will become more dependent on media that meet a number of our needs than on media that satisfy just a few; b) When social changes and conflicts are high, established institutions, beliefs, and practices are changed, our reliance on the media for information will increase. At other more stable times, our dependence on media may go way down (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287).

Agenda-setting theory is the idea that “the media, interacting with elite opinion, determine what people think about” (Adria, 2005). It demonstrates the two-step flow of the diffusion of information: a) from the media to elite opinion-makers, and b) from opinion-makers to the broader public. Agenda-setting is one branch of understanding the interrelationships among media, public opinion, and public policy (Kellow & Steeves, 1998). It includes three dynamic concepts: media, policy-makers, and public (Adria, 2005).

Although early studies have shown that the media tell us what to think about, later agenda-setting studies, reviewed by McCombs and Shaw (1993), demonstrate that the media may also tell us how to think about particular issues and, consequently, what to think. Effects of the agenda-setting theory can be divided into two levels: a) the micro-agenda-setting level (the object level), at which the content of the media determines the relative importance of specific issues, and b) the macro-agenda-setting level (the attribute level), at which the media may distort an entire cultural worldview by fitting it into the media’s agenda (Kellow & Steeves, 1998).

III. ROLES OF MEDIA IN A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS

Many studies, including studies in the dependency and agenda-setting traditions, have documented and examined that actual effects of the media may be greater during times of political, economic, or environmental crisis. The dependency theory indicates that in a time of instability people may be more reliant on media for information and guidance (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287). Consistent with the dependency theory, the study of the agenda-setting theory also suggests that “media will most often have a powerful effect on the public agenda when the audience has a high need for guidance” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p280). During a period of instability, the media’s agenda-setting function in conjunction with public’s increased dependence on media highlights the role of media. What the two theories share is a concern for audience interaction with media.

These two theories also take different approaches to look at the role of media in a time of crisis: The dependency theory focuses on the individual and psychological process involved in media effects and uses, and clearly establishes that there is an important relationship between actual events and the people’s dependency on media; While the agenda-setting theory captures large social and cultural forces of media, and “empirically demonstrates links between media exposure, audience motivation to seek orientation, and audience perception of public issues” (Baran & Davis, 2000, p315).

In the following part, we will discuss and analyze some roles of media in a time of national crisis based on the two different but somewhat overlapping theories described above.

1. Watchdog—Surveilling the environment by collecting and distributing information quickly and accurately
According to the dependency theory, in an emergency, our reliance on media becomes even more pronounced. Especially, we become incredibly dependent on news programming (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287). Individuals rely on media each day for the news, and they have a right to expect media to be there at any time with the latest warnings and information if an emergency is imminent. So, when trouble comes, staying on the air (or quickly getting back on the air) and showing what has happened and what is happening as soon as possible is one of the most important tasks media have. In line with research on the agenda-setting theory, media can but does not always have a powerful effect on the public agenda. Media will most often be powerful when media credibility is high, conflicting evidence is low, individuals share media values, and the audience has a high need for guidance (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p280). Therefore, media should respond crises not only quickly but also accurately. This is particularly important because millions of viewers will be dependent on media for a lifeline and inaccurate and misleading statements on the air can be life threatening in a crisis. When a crisis strikes, spokesmen of public agencies should be accessible and provide a regular flow of accurate information to dispel rumor and false reports. The use of “on-the-spot reporting” and “the interviewing of experts” will enhance the credibility of the messages and thus inspire confidence in the validity of the media.

Though numerous examples might be given to illustrate the importance of the media’s watchdog role in a time of crisis, we think of no better illustration of the view than the following example: When SARS began to prevail in China, uncertainty was high, official information was scant, and rumors were rampant. We turned to media as a means of making sense of “What is going on? Is my world safe?” We wanted these questions to be answered quickly and with enough details and evidence to satisfy an attention span that was being interrupted by the anxiety. However, Chinese media had not move this health crisis onto public agenda and policy at that time. They got the ill of aphasia when we eagerly wanted to hear from them. Even then, some media and officials offered the public misinformation and sometime conflicting claims. As a result, fear was pervasive. We became more and more anxious, depressed, and demoralized, and avoided many innocent activities, like travel and shopping. Fortunately, Chinese government and media duly adjusted their strategies. The epidemic reports became a recurring agenda item as well as a routinely covered story. We were able to get enough reliable information about SARS from media. Consequently, public’s fear and anxious were controlled at certain level. In retrospect, if Chinese government officials and media struggled to find the correct answers and coherent facts for the public at the beginning of this epidemic crisis, we might feel less fearful and less anxious. So providing information quickly and accurately is the most important task of the media when a crisis strikes.

In addition, Chaffee and Frank (1996) stated that mass media play a key role in informing the citizenry about local issues. The dependency theory also points out that our dependence on information from a medium increases when it supplies information that is more central to us (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p. 287). Therefore, when a crisis strikes, media can and should find ways to make what happens in the world relevant to a more parochial audience. “Keeping the news relevant and putting the world into local context” is the watchwords for media.

2. Expert—Interpreting and analyzing particular events deeply and completely
From different aspects, both the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory indicate that in addition to playing the watchdog role, media also can and should serve another important role: explaining and analyzing complex and frightening events deeply and completely to give the public answers and guidelines they want and need.

According to agenda-setting theory, media not only tell us “what to think about” but also “how to think about” some objects. Furthermore, an increasing body of research has been devoted to the cognitive effects of media: framing, which has been considered as an extension of the agenda-setting theory. In addition to making issues more salient, media also seek to reduce the complexity of issues for their audience by presenting news in easy-to-understand interpretive frames. Besides reducing complexity, these frames also serve as interpretive shortcuts for audience members, leading them to make attributions of responsibility or other judgments based on different interpretations offered by the media for the same factual content (Entman, 1993; Scheufele 1999). Therefore, when a disaster strikes, media can and should not only tell people what has happened and what is happening, but also how and why this happened, how and why the terrorism or disaster directly affects their lives, and what might happen in the future.

As located earlier, findings on the dependency theory suggest that people will become more dependent on media that meet a number of their needs than on media that satisfy just a few (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287). Moreover, it proclaims that in general, the more readily available, the greater the perceived instrumentality, and the more probable media use will be regarded as the most appropriate functional alternative (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p288). It reminds us that crisis times give media an opportunity to better serve their viewers who eagerly depend on media to answer their questions and meet their needs. Hence, media’s coverage must go beyond the news items and include recommendations for actions that citizens can take. When individuals believe that they can take action that might influence the danger, even slightly, fear is much reduced. Truisms such as “be vigilant” are unhelpful unless they specify how, where, and why. For example, NBC News broadcasted a series of national reports called 12 Ways to Make America Safer, dealing with topics as general as how to make a family disaster plan and how to provide better security for railroad traffic. This sort of national coverage directly expands the public’s knowledge of what to watch for and what to do in cases involving potential emergencies.

3. Director—Influencing opinion
From a sociacultural perspective, the agenda-setting theory clearly claims that “the media exert influence on what is significant in the public domain (Kellow & Steeves, 1998)”. Just as Iyengar and Kinder (1987) stated: “our view of our society and nation are powerfully shaped by the stories that appear on the evening news. Our subjects regarded the target problem as more important for the country, cared more about it, believed that government should do more about it, report stronger feeling about it, and were much more likely to identify it as one of the country’s most important problems” (p. 112). From a sociopsychological perspective, the dependency theory shows that individuals who grow dependent on a particular segment of the media will be affected cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally by that segment (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p288). Therefore, the third important role media can and should play is influencing opinion. This duty becomes more urgent when a crisis strikes the country. If the media convince audiences that: the problem is important, they are vulnerable to it, the solution will eliminate the problem, and they are able to carry out the solution, it can be a powerful means of changing attitudes and reducing fear. In case of emergency, media’s responsibility of influencing opinion is a delicate balancing act: raising the level of concern for the crisis on the one hand, while reducing the level of panic on the other hand.

On the one hand, media should and can remind not only the public but also policy-makers that the “war” they are fighting is a very important one, ensuring that they are aware of the broader security issues that face the country. Colby and Cook (1991) argued that “the media help to determine which private matters, such as disease, become define as public events, such as epidemics. The media’s definition then influences the public’s construction of problems”. They also stated that the media’s identification and definition of public problems work not only on mass audiences but also on policymakers, who are more likely to respond to highly salient issues and do so largely in the context of the frame that the media have provided. The media’s construction of disaster thus has influenced not only merely how we as individual will react but also how we as a society and as polity will respond. By their ability to transform occurrences into news, the media exert power. Therefore, through setting object and attribute agenda for public and government, the media may have played and should continue to play a critical role in the construction of the epidemic, the war, the terrorist attack and the range of possible social and political response.

On the other hand, the media should immediately, and throughout the crises, take the responsibility and power to undercut people’s fear. Fear is an important and sensible human response to events such as 911 and SARS. In this kind of national crisis, fighting against the fear seems as important as fighting the terrorism or disease itself. The media should become a calming voice in a nervous country to reduce people’s fear. At the same time, the government should use the media as agenda-setting tools to instill courage and calm. News, of course should be reported, however, by repeatedly showing the hijacked planes hitting the towers, news magnified our fear that we could be trapped in a tall building as it collapsed. By repeatedly airing the dramatic, vivid pictures about SARS, news made us overestimate the likelihood that we would be killed by the disaster. Seeking to raise public awareness without creating public panic is not easy, however, media must avoid being inflammatory when taking their perceived role of informing and alerting the public. The stories media tell matter. If media focus too much attention on stories of the country’s lack of preparedness to cope with the crisis and too little on the capacity of the country to respond to challenges, they would lead to a more horrible fear. Through choosing stories of survival and triumph, displaying historical events that would arouse emotion, they can let audiences to ignore the oppositional information and thus reduce their anxiety and fear. Additionally, the frequent use of powerful cultural and religious symbols, realistic and historical contextual details and biblical references can strengthen the power of the media in influencing opinion. Just as fear is contagious so too is courage. Media that model courage and heroism inspire them in others. By using the strategy of agenda-setting, the media can work to instill a pronounced patriotism. For instance, in the weeks following the Sep. 11, 2001, the United States was swept by a wave of patriotism not seen since the Second World War. Through using several techniques related the agenda-setting theory to encourage public and incite patriotism, media played a role in fostering this transformation of public opinion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Associating with the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory and particularly focusing on the similarities and differences between what the two theories would help us discover the question that what role media can and should play when a national crisis strikes, we have discussed and analyzed three roles of media in a time of national crisis: watchdog, expert and director. Our study suggests consistency between media’s roles in a crisis, the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory. We hope that when something really important is on the line, when lives are at stake, the media will be able to join together for the common good of all.

V. REFERENCES

Adria, M. (2005). EXT 502 class lecture. University of Alberta. May 17, 2005.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communication Research, 3, 3-21.
Baran, S. J. & Davis, D. K., (2000). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future (3th edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Chaffee, S., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48-58.
Colby, D. C., & Cook, T. E. (1991). Epidemics and agendas: The politics of nightly news coverage of AIDS. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 16, 215-249.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kellow, C. L., & Steeves, H. L. (1998). The role of radio in the Rwandan genocide. Journal of Communication, 48, 107-128.
Kim, S. H., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting theory of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 7-25.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of Human Communication (8th edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58-67.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 101-120.

Group Process Journal Analysis and Summary

I. INTRODUCTION

This article is going to summarize and analyze my group process journal, the record of observations and experiences from my viewpoint of our project group for the course of Group Transactions. Summary and Analysis of the journal provide me with opportunities to examine, both theoretically and experientially, the development of our project group as it formed, confronted and attempted to resolve conflicts, evolved from shared leadership among group members to dependence on the group leader, and worked productively over the entire three weeks of the group’s life. By looking back over a series of interpersonal and group dynamics, the process of our group becomes clear, and my understanding of theories and concepts of small group communication is enhanced.

II. GROUP PROCESS OVERVIEW

According theories of group development that considers how groups as a whole change across their full life span, groups as a whole change systematically over time (Arrow, Poole, Henry, Wheelan, & Moreland, 2004). Tuckman maintained that group development follows four fairly predictable stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 74). Though I think our group did not follow this pattern exactly, I can detect that our group passed through several important stages as follows over its three-week lifetime:
First, our group began with an orientation stage. In this initial stage, since group members had not met each other long enough for norms to develop, we just attempted to identify behaviors acceptable to others. In our first group meeting that could be characterized by anxiety and uncertainty, we discussed a very important issue: What topic should we choose for our presentation? I actively proposed three themes: culture, creativity, and meeting. We decided to concentrate on the culture because our group was obviously an intercultural one and we could share many aspects of intercultural experiences. But culture is a general topic, how could we narrow it down and build relations between culture and small group? We had not discussed this question deeply before the first meeting was over because most members spoke softly and tentatively and hesitated to speak about what we should achieve and how.
Second, during the following few days, our group passed through the conflict stage in which group members dealt with issues of power, roles, and cultural conflicts. In this stage, we narrowed down our topic as the Intercultural communication in small groups. We also discussed which theories and what kinds of media we should use. In this process, certain group members began to show more power than others.
Third, after the short conflict stage, our group moved to a stage devoted to the development of trust and characterized by more mature and open negotiations regarding group structure, goals, and the division of labor. At the beginning of this stage, we made an initial schedule and decided to meet more time after class. Furthermore, we made out an outline to visualize what the complete project would look like. We also began to assess group members’ knowledge and identified who was most interested in each specific aspect of the topic. Then we distributed concrete tasks to every member.
Fourth, as group and member identity solidified, the group moved into a stage in which task orientation was high and ideas and feedback were exchanged openly. This stage was marked by energetic collective work focused on reaching group goals. We first worked on our own tasks individually at the weekend. Then we put them together and finished the whole PowerPoint presentation and dispatched the slides to everyone. We rehearsed the whole process of our presentation until the day before the date we gave the presentation. Finally, we delivered a good presentation.
Fifth, the group experienced a termination stage, which evoked the expression of positive feelings. After the presentation, we said “thank you” to each other and expressed such kind of meaning through e-mail to all: “I really enjoyed working together with you.”
Furthermore, the oldest and simplest cycle model proposes that groups swing between focusing primarily on the task to focusing on socioemotional matters that preserve group solidarity (Bales, 1950). This rhythm continued for the life of our group.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS

1. How were our group formed?
Before the group formation, I ever thought we would form groups by ourselves. However, under the instructor’s direction, four groups were formed by lot. Our group comprised three multigenerational Canadians (Theresa, Gaetano and Christine), a new immigrant (Tina) and an international student (Jane). Now I think the instructor’s way to compose groups is right. “Research on classroom groups found that by a nearly two-to-one margin, students reported that their worst experiences occurred in groups they had formed themselves” because “our tendency to be attracted to people like ourselves may result in a group that is too homogenous to approach a complex task effectively” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 69).
2. How did we manage group relationships?
It is generally the case that establishing good interpersonal relationships in working groups is the first step to group success. Our experience also demonstrated that good working relationships help a group be more productive in the long run. During the three weeks, we took lots of time to establish trusting relationship and to improve group cohesiveness. Finally, we developed mutual respect and became a cohesive group. From a relational point of view, we succeeded.
In reflecting of the communications in our group, I realize that self-disclosure is really a useful way to improve relationships in groups. Before focusing on the task, we introduced ourselves briefly and reviewed information such as name, hometown, and occupation. This kind of self-disclosure is vital to minimize the primary tensions (anxiety and tension that occur when a group first meets and members feel awkward and uncertain how to behave in the group (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 360)). Running through the spring term, everyone in our group provided a large amount of self-disclosure about our biographical information, unique experiences, families, personal attitudes and ideas, and private feelings and concerns. The more we shared, the more we became comfortable with one another, the more we trusted each other, and the more the group became cohesive and productive.
Another important way to establish and maintain trusting relationships in our group was creating symbolic convergence. According to the symbolic convergence theory, a group develops a unique identity and feeling of cohesiveness through the sharing of fantasies or stories that are often chained together and have a common theme (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 126). The following example may help illustrate this point. In the second stage, when we tried to narrow down the topic, group members held different opinions. I observed secondary tensions (conflict among group members, over group norms, roles, and differences of opinion (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 361)) emerged in our group. At this time, sharing stories played an important role in managing the secondary tensions. Through sharing stories about our personal intercultural experience, we not only reached consensus on the issue but also experienced relational satisfaction.
3. How did we handle the cultural diversity?
As mentioned above, a host of multinational cultures were represented in our group. Culturally diverse groups often have difficulty establishing satisfactory norms because of differences in cultural expectations. Such groups require extra effort in group building and maintenance (Nagar, 2005). In our group, we adopted the norms framed by the dominant Canadian culture in which we operated and what we have learned in former similar groups. In a newly forming intercultural group, “there are a number of shared cultural assumptions about group life that ease the process of formation, and enable the group to work ”(Smith & Berg, 1997). In addition, according to the structuration theory, groups create a number of their own constrains and capacities, at times quite inadvertently. It suggests that people develop norms in new groups to structure their behavior based on those of previous similar groups they participated (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 49).
Homogeneous groups (members who hold similar or comparable views, ideas, values, and orientations) may have an easier time in the forming stage and the storming stage, but a more difficult time in the norming stage and the performing stage where diversity of opinion is an asset. Conversely, heterogeneous groups (members who hold diversified or disparate views, ideas, values, and orientations) may have a more difficult time and may get stuck in the forming and storming stages, but a less difficult time in the norming and performing stages (Kass, 1996, pp. 69-70). In retrospect, I feel that as a heterogeneous group, we had more trouble at the outset because the cultural diversity presented real challenges to our group development. Apart from an obvious difference such as language, the different cultures of the individuals significantly impacted the act of communication both in terms of its transmission and its reception. We used a cooperative approach to manage our cultural conflict: learning how to study together and discovering member's unique cultural contributions. The solutions of the case study we talked about in our presentation, such as being flexible, avoiding stereotyping and making negative judgments, and reducing uncertainty by asking questions, could be observed in our group dynamics. Through these efforts, we did manage this kind of polarity well over time. We all gradually developed an awareness of cultural differences and handled them properly. Our group became more and more productive and everyone in our group provided a real strength.
4. How did we deal with status, power and roles?
Status differences in our group were not clear across the group’s full life span. In the first stage, roles were ambiguously defined and group members were not familiar with their roles. Since the second stage, group members started to explore a variety of possible roles. For example, Theresa performed roles of opinion seeker/giver, coordinator, encourager and harmonizer; Gaetano played information giver and elaborator roles; Tina acted as information seeker/giver and encourager; Christine acted as procedural technician and self-confessor; my role in the group focused on initiator-contributor and evaluator-critic. I detected that some showed task leadership behaviors, such as initiating and coordinating; some showed process leadership behaviors, such as mediating and encouraging. It reveals the functional leadership perspective that leadership is a set of behaviors that may be enacted by any group member (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 325). At the same time, I noticed that certain group members began to show more power than others. Especially, the senior in our group, Theresa, began to show the referent power (the power of interpersonal attraction) and the expert power (the influence someone has over others because of greater knowledge and information) (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 361). She was well liked in the group and could provide helpful information and expertise to others, which made her possess the ability to get other members conform to her opinions. She offered praise, encouragement and understanding to us and mediated disagreements among group members. Even though everyone exerted influence more or less in our group during the whole process, I think that our group evolved from shared leadership among all group members to dependence on one group leader after the second stage. As a participating leader (a leader who is driven primarily by concern for relationships and a need for all group members to share in decision making (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 324)), Theresa played an active role in supporting group communication, collaboration and coordination.
5. How did we manage group tasks?
1) Sharing information by using cyberspace. Groups that have less information are less likely to arrive at a better solution or outcome. “Structuration theory provides a general framework that explains how people structure their groups by making active use of resources” (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 49). It reminds that we can use available resources more effectively to achieve goals. In addition, functional theories explain how communication functions to help group accomplish tasks and review procedures to maximize group effectiveness. Group can use computer and Internet to enhance their interaction by expending opportunities for communication beyond the walls of the meeting room (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 52). In order to pool our information and ideas as early as possible in the process, we not only encouraged every member to present information and ideas in the face-to-face meetings but also used electronic resources such as e-mail and WebCT to share all kinds of information related to the group project. In the three weeks, we posted 11 messages on WebCT, and I received 13 e-mails from other group members altogether. I found that it was very useful to first share our initial research findings and ideas via Internet, which allowed plenty of time for group members to review others’ suggestions and contributions before group discussions instead of just compiling the facts and data before we make final recommendations, thus developed high-quality decisions and solutions.
2) Making decisions and solving problems. According to Hirokawa’s functional theory on group decision-making, there are four steps for effective decision-making: a) Groups first begin by identifying and assessing a problem; b) Groups then gather and evaluate information about the problem; c) Next, groups generate alternative proposals and discuss objectives to be accomplished; d) Finally, objectives and alternatives are evaluated in order to reach consensus (Hirokawa, Gouran, Julian, & Leatham, 1993). In most of our decision-making processes, we followed this pattern. For instance, when making the decision about the case study, we first discussed whether a case study was necessary to our presentation and what kind of case study we should use; then, we began to search and collect related information of the issue at hand; third, we considered alternative proposals for the case study; finally, we moved to a discussion of the alternatives based on our situation, assessed the positive and negative implications of each alternative, and then converged on one option.
As for the decision-making method, our group usually made decisions by consensus. But I do not think we always reached true consensus. “A group may suffer from groupthink if its members consider themselves highly cohesive and take pride in getting along so well with one another and providing support and encouragement for members’ ideas (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 186).” Sometime this was the case in our group. After the conflict stage, we became a group of pacifists, who enjoyed the harmony prevailing at our meetings. We sometimes just appeared to reach consensus and did not pay much attention to the phenomenon of groupthink. For example, after negotiated with every group members, we decided to meet at 8:30 o’clock on one holiday’s morning. However, when I chatted with one of group members, we complained: “Why they were so excited about meeting so early?” and “I want to have a good rest on holiday.” I also think this phenomenon confirm the concept of the spiral of silence, which suggests that individuals remain quiet when they do not think their opinion is popular (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p. 290). Though this theory is mainly focus on the effects of mass media on public opinion, I think the spiral of silence also occurs in small groups. When we attempted to avoid isolation, we did not respond hypersensitively to such kind of trivialities.
In addition, we adopted a functional problem-solving approach, which assumes that to achieve a group goal, group members must perform certain activities or communication functions (Beebe & Masterson, 2005, p. 358). For example, during the whole group process, our group tried to overcome all kinds of barriers to satisfy task requirements and maximize group effectiveness. We conducted research and gathered information about our topic, made thoughtful comments relevant to the topic under discussion, and listened to and evaluated the opinions of every group member. All of these functions were essential to accomplish the task.
6. How can we improve our performance?
1) We should develop clear ground rules. As talked above, though we adopted the norms based on shared cultural assumptions and what we learned in other groups, we did not have enough discussions about the rules for our group. So these norm expectations only provided skeletal guidance for our behaviors. We did not know “how long should our meetings last?” and “who is going to organize the agenda for our meetings?” We should establish explicit ground rules to help us stay organized and get our work done.
2) We need spend more time on planning before leaping into action. In line with research results, groups that do plan ahead tend to perform better (Harper & Askling, 1980; Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996). Though we set an initial agenda after the conflict stage, we did not follow it strictly. We did not develop a structured plan or action chart to accomplish the task. We should give ourselves interim deadlines when each step should be finished and who will do what by a specific date.

IV. MY PERSONAL LEARNING PROCESS

My personal learning objective that I would like to concentrate on with the project group is to apply group theories and concepts from the course into group interactions, to gain a practical understanding of them, and to improve my communication skills and performance in multinational/multicultural groups. My experience and acquirements have been partially reflected in Section II and Section
III. In the following part I would like to present some supplements of my acquirements.
1. I acquired some new communication skills
Speaking: Chinese culture encourages self-effacement, whose impact is that most of Chinese are not used to speak up in front of others. If no one is asking, then we’d rather keep silent. But in the new cultural setting of our group, it would be unfair to others when they contribute to the group while I keep silent almost all the time. Also, I understood that increasing my level of activity in the group could increase my power and influence. Thus, I tried to express my opinions, wishes and concerns actively during group meetings. For example, when I was aware that our group was suffering from groupthink, I tried to play the role of devil’s advocate by voicing objections and potential problems after considering the negative aspects of a suggestion. I also found that withholding ideas and suggestions might lead to groupthink. So I tried my best to express my thoughts and feelings honestly. I feel that I made many efforts to save the group from groupthink and helped us reach genuine consensus. In this process, I learned many skills about how to make a meaningful, informed contribution to a group and how to provide frequent and thorough feedback on the contributions of other group members.
Actively listening: Though Chinese culture encourages people to listening instead of speaking, we usually think of a speaker actively conveying a message and a listener passively receiving it. In this learning process, I realized that listening is an active process and active listening skills are important for me in a multicultural group setting, even when I believe I have heard and understood the received information. So, I made great efforts to cultivate the skill of interpreting the message according to the sender’s code system rather than my own and tried to make sense of both the speaker's words and feelings by considering his or her nonverbal cues (gestures, tone of voice, and facial expressions, and the circumstances), asking appropriate questions, and paraphrasing his or her content and feelings. Now, as an active listener, I also can help create meaning during the communication process.
2. This experience enhanced my understanding of cultural differences
In distilling the whole process, I found a basic principle very useful to help me work effectively in a culturally diverse setting: Take cultural differences into account and check assumptions when interacting with people from other cultures. People from different cultures carry out transactions differently. Adler described three cross-cultural communications barriers: a) cross-cultural misperception—learned, selective, culturally determined perceptual patterns; b) cross-cultural misinterpretations—categorizing situations from your own country's perspective and applying it to others; and (c) cross-cultural misevaluation—using your own culture as a standard of measure or selfreference criteria to judge another (as cited by Appelbaum, Shapiro, & Elbaz, 1998). At the beginning, I was really inhibited by cross-cultural communications barriers located above. I assumed my way of organizing work is the 'normal' and best one and bothered to understand of the cultural attitudes and behavior of others. For example, when we discussed the outline, I was dealing with an emotional obstacle in accepting the inclination of the three Canadian group members to approach problems in a linear fashion. Because of my Chinese cultural conditioning towards monochronic time use and expectations, I thought it would be more comfortable and efficient to work on multiple tasks simultaneously. I started to think how to work with people who did things in such a strange way. After talking with Tina and other group members about my feeling, I did get a much better understanding of this problem. I realized that Canada ranked very high on the monochronic index. So applying this to our group, they had a strong tendency to work on a single task at a time. After that, I became sensitive to the culture of others and sought to understand others before forcing my ideas and opinions on them.
As for the next steps in my learning process, I am going to continue practicing the four steps to handle cross-cultural differences addressed by Pooley as follows: First, identify and be aware of what constitutes 'normal' behavior for me; Second, understand the factors that have determined what my counterparts in different countries regard as the norm. Third, know how people from other cultures perceive my own culture. Fourth, learn to adapt, while remaining true to my own values (Pooley, 2005). I would, and frequently should, make a conscious effort, in a non-patronising fashion, to alter my communication styles when working in a culturally diverse setting.

V. CONCLUSION

Take a stroll back I feel that free and open communication was the foundation of building our group as a highly cohesive and productive one. In our group, communication distributed equally among group members. We always used supportive rather than defensive communication style and conforming rather than disconforming responses. We exchanged message openly and thoughtfully in both physical and virtual environments. Through communication, we expressed affection, revealed similarities and differences, negotiated group roles, and resolved conflicts. Through communication, group members performed key functions that enhanced group problem-solving and decision-making. In short, through communication, individual needs were met and tasks were accomplished.

VI. REFERENCE

Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2004). The temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research, 35, 73-105.
Appelbaum, S., Shapiro, B. & Elbaz, D. (1998). The management of multicultural group conflict. Team Performance Management, 4, 211-234.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-495.
Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2005). Communicating in small groups: principles and practices. New York: Longman.
Harper, N. L., & Askling, L. R. (1980). Group communication and quality of task solution in a media production organization. Communication Monographs, 47, 77-100.
Hirokawa, R. Y., Gouran, D. S., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1993). The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: A critical analysis. Communication Yearbook, 16, 589-612.
Kass, R. (1996). Theories of small group development. Montreal: Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, Concordia University.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication (8th edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Nagar, B. (2005). Reflecting on cultural considerations for team development in major urban settings. Organization Development Journal, 23, 17-25.
Pooley, R. (2005). When cultures collide. Management Services, 49, 28-31
Smith, K. & Berg D. (1997). Cross-cultural groups at work. European Management Journal, 15(1), 8-15.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Social cognition research in small groups (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.