Defensiveness in communication hinders positive group climate and is an obstacle to group cohesiveness. The previously existing norms within the group were friendly, casual and honest interactions. Decisions were made through open debates in which all members participated by asking and answering questions, and although a consensus was not always achievable, open discussions were welcomed. The group meetings were previously held with an open, flexible, and casual structure that was not strict on punctuality or formalities.
The group norms in the case study were violated when George and Margaret used formal and rigid communication structures within the group. Their punctuality, dress code and tone went against the standard practices of the group. Both George and his wife were known for their tardiness at meetings, and their punctual arrival caused a shift in the group’s dynamics. Moreover, the formal or official mood they set for the meeting by declining wine, dressing officially and preparing a presentation debased group norms.
Consequently, there were increased frustrations among all the team members. The author and his wife weren’t able to connect with George and Margret and therefore could not appreciate or fully understand the product they were pitching. Instead, they felt ambushed by their friends in their home. On the other hand, George and Margaret felt underappreciated given the effort they had put into presenting the presentation.
The Gibb’s defensive communication behavior identifiable in this case study is control. This communication behavior is characteristic in environments where an individual(s) tries to change the attitudes, influence, and actions of a group. In the case study group, scenario control is evident because the speakers (George and Margaret) subconsciously view the listeners as ignorant, uninformed and immature. They, therefore, use resistance and to sideline questions coming from the listeners, consequently increasing suspicions among the listening group.
Group cohesiveness, in this case, is evident by the member’s keenness to attend the meeting and the verbal interactions within the group in the form of questions and comments. However, although the members were glad to see each other and satisfied to be part of the group, there was a sense of conflicting purpose in the group’s ideologies. During the group's interaction, disconfirming responses that were evident in the form of impervious responses when the speakers failed to engage their audience during the presentation. They considered the author’s questions as interruptions and openly disagreed with his evaluation and comments about the presentation.
On the other hand, confirmatory responses were evident by the expression of interest by the group members. The critical assessment of the presentation by the author showed genuine concern and offered constructive support for George and his wife to use in future meetings.
Recommendations to George and Margaret to avoiding such trouble in future
George and his wife Margaret should understand that supportive communication is essential for developing and maintaining a positive group climate. They should employ effective listening not only to foster the team's positive atmosphere but to enable better communication of their ideas and this will improve the group's general cohesiveness. The author should employ more empathetic elements in his communication skills. His criticisms, though well intentioned, were not well received by George and his wife indicating that his mode of communicating was flawed. While open communication fosters positive group climate, the author ought to give feedback in a respectful and empathetical manner.
