Page 115 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

98 Chapter 4

The formal register version is told in chronological order, from beginning to end,
and demonstrates cause, effect, and conclusion. It follows the typical problem- solving
pattern of sequential logic— first one thing happens, then the next, then the next. The
casual register version is more entertaining and relies on audience participation. The
narrator expects others to jump in and help tell the story. For middle- class readers,
the story will appear disorganized. However, and this is an important point to remem-
ber, the story has its own logic, an emotionally based one, in which the most import-
ant emotional elements are highlighted first.
These differences are interesting, but their point here is to highlight the potential
challenges of diverse groups. Imagine how frustrating it can be if you think it is
important for a speaker to get right to the point, and you encounter someone in your
group with a wandering narrative style. Similarly, can you envision how rude and bor-
ing it must seem to someone with a colorful, spiraling narrative style to be paired with
a sequential, get to- the-point partner? That is why we think it is important for group
members to understand each other’s rules and assumptions.

Deep Diversity and Learning to Work Together
Thus far, we have discussed diversity characteristics that are visible: race, age, sex, and
so forth. However, these surface- level characteristics may not be the ones that cause
group members the most trouble. For example, in our student groups, we have
observed that such things as how people approach the group’s task causes more
problems than the diversity characteristics we just discussed. Larson refers to this as
Deep Diversity deep diversity, which he explains as “differences among members that have at least the
63
Non- visible potential to affect group performance in a fairly direct way.” Deep diversity involves
characteristics such such things as the different types of skills, information, and approaches to problem
as personality, solving that members bring to the table, which have little to do with sex, race, and
attitude, cognitive other demographic characteristics. For example, regardless of whether a chemical
style, differences in engineer is African American or Caucasian, that engineer is trained to think about
information, skills, things and approach problem solving in specific ways. Deep diversity has the poten-
and approaches to tial to improve group problem solving because it increases the problem- solving
problem solving that approaches and capabilities of the entire team.
contribute to group Deep diversity affects a variety of group outcomes. Hentschel and her associates
diversity.
found that obvious diversity factors— age, gender, educational level, nationality, for
example— were not related to members’ identification with the team or to emotional
64
conflict, but deep- level factors such as personality were. In addition, whether mem-
bers perceived diversity as positive or negative also affected members’ team identifica-
tion and relationship conflict. Mello and Delise found that when members had diverse
cognitive styles (ways of gathering and processing information), cohesiveness was
negatively affected, although active conflict management approaches moderated this
65
negative effect. Zhang and Huai, who explored the effects of both informational and
social diversity in Chinese groups, discovered that informational diversity (when
members had diverse task knowledge and skills) forced members to interact, thereby
developing stronger communication ties that improved both task and creative group
performance. 66

gal37018_ch04_075_108.indd 98 3/28/18 12:35 PM