The confusion was even worse because in an instant message environment we usually try to condense our
entire thought process into a few short words (Ivancevich & Duening, p. xx). We lost the depth of thought
we could have had if we’d been able to pursue our ideas one at a time. This got frustrating. It also
affected the quality of our solution.
A related problem resulting from our choice of chat room as a venue was the lack of nonverbal
communication, which created some tension. When we are chatting online there is no paralanguage.
Paralanguage is the study of all cues, which include sound or silence, other than the content of words
themselves (text, p. xx). Without paralanguage it is very difficult to communicate tone, inflection, and
attitude in a message. For example, during one of our meetings I kept bringing up a topic that I thought
was being overlooked. I didn’t think this oversight was intentional; rather, I assumed it just happened
because when several questions are posed at once, sometimes one is missed or overlooked. However, two
of the members interpreted my repetitive questions as being rude or dominating. I’m quite sure that if they
could have heard my tone of voice we would not have had this problem! Chat rooms are definitely not
very suitable for substantive interaction (COMM 101 Web page).
Recommendations
I have learned a lot from this project about the strengths and limits of virtual communication. If I could do
this project over again, I would use a variety of modes of communication, not just chat rooms.
Virtual communication does have some advantages in group decision making. For example, due to our
busy schedules and distant locations, our group members couldn’t have completed our task without
technology. I have also learned that people who are timid are more willing to participate in virtual groups
than in face-to-face groups, because they are less self-conscious (Ivancevich & Duening, p. xx). This
might have been one reason why our group members participated so evenly.
The chat rooms worked fine for simple items, such as choosing a problem, brainstorming, and assigning
tasks. Asynchronous (i.e., not every member is online at the same time) virtual meetings would have been
better for steps that required more thought, such as reporting research results. We would have had more
time to think about these ideas. However, asynchronous discussion areas aren’t a fruitful forum for debate
or negotiation, which require the immediate give-and-take of an interaction process. For this type of
interaction, we should have used telephone conference calls. Conference calls also would have given us at
least some ability to notice one another’s paralanguage.
In future projects like this I will try to choose a group that has the ability to get together in person for at
least a few of the meetings. If that’s not possible, then I will assign different technologies, depending on
the nature of the task.
Conclusion
Our group came up with an effective solution to the food bank problem. We showed high commitment
and creativity. We needed to improve our use of technology and nonverbal communication. This
experience has illustrated for me the need and importance of matching the technology to the task. It has
also shown me the value of nonverbal communication. I will apply these lessons in future group
assignments.
References
Adler, R., & Elmhorst, J. (2013). Communicating at work (11th ed). NewYork: McGraw Hill.
Chase, R. & Jones, S. (Eds.). (2006). Elements of Effective Communication. Boston: Pearson.
COMM 101 Web pages. Accessed October. 20, 2012.
Ivancevich, J., & Duening, T. (2006). Management: Skills, application, practice, and development.
Folsom, CA: Atomic Dog Publishing.