Sharpening the team mind
Part one:
There are various biases and points of errors that may be evident in team communication, and this includes generational differences. This kind of bias is common where people from different generations and age groups are put to work together. In this case, there will be some form of communication breakdown in the sense that the young may use a language or jargon that the elderly are not familiar with. In the process, this will lead to a breakdown in communication. Apart from that, the other bias or point of error that can emanate from communication among team members is the varying levels of education. It is common to have a team with members who have different educational attainment. In this scenario, there will be a breakdown in communication in the sense that those with advanced levels of education may use terms that those with a basic level of education may not be familiar with, thus leading to communication breakdown (Levi, 2010).
Conversely, there are various ways in which team communication can lead to a disaster. This is common especially when the concept of group thinking is applied. In such a case, the decision arrived at, which has all the ideas and opinions of all the team members put together, may have questionable ethical and moral consequences. For instance, a majority of the members of the team may come up with decisions that are not ethically or morally correct based on the culture of other people. In the process, this may lead to disaster in such kind of communication especially when such is directly channeled towards those people who have a feeling that there is a violation of ethics and morality.
From exhibit 6-1, the possible causes of decision-making failure is the level of speech in group decisions and communication. In this case, it is noted that at least 50% of the group members are the ones who do a lot of talking. However, the problem, in this case, is that such persons may not be knowledgeable of the subject matter at hand. As a result of the lack of required expertise, this may lead to ineffective decisions being arrived at. In this case, the measure that can be taken to prevent such communication and decision-making failures is seeking expert opinion. In such a scenario, the organization may choose to hire an external party who will serve to advise the group members in regard to their thinking and their respective perspectives (Forsyth, 2009).
Part 2:
One of the key symptoms of groupthink is self-censorship. In this case, people may fear giving out their individual opinions over the subject matter with fear that they may be judged. Therefore, to prevent this, groupthink is recommended. However, the problem that can arise as a result of groupthink is that ethical and moral consequences of the decisions may be questionable (Levi, 2010).
On the other hand, when it comes to decision making, I prefer group decisions rather than individual decisions. This is based on the fact that group decisions are subjected to thorough scrutiny as compared to individual decisions which are always biased. Conversely, in situations where there is a need to make urgent and quick decisions, individual decisions would be
. Contrastingly, in situations that warrant making decisions that affect everyone, group decision is pertinent as this will help in minimizing any possible friction that may occur.
References
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics, [ECH master]. Vancouver: B.C. College and
Institute Library Services.
Levi, D. (2010). Group dynamics for teams.