A Desé¢riptive Study of the Face-to-Face Communication Network of Two Small Work Groups Using Two Methods

Abstract

Organizations cannot exist without communication. This is a favorite cliché in organizational communication studies. It has been the subject of a lot of inquiry. However, too few studies have been conducted in the context of the small group. This research, entitled “A Descriptive Study of the Face-to-Face Communication Network of Two Small Work Groups” attempted to investigate the communication pattern of two office-based small groups. This study employed a descriptive framework in investigating the variables of the study. The study primarily focused on the research problem: “How do group members of two small work groups manifest their respective group’s face-to-face communication?” The sub-problems answered in the study are as follows: 1) How do the group members of both groups interpersonally communicate with one another? a) How often do the group members communicate face-to-face with each other? b) To whom within the group in particular do they interpersonally connect with? c) Among the group members, who usually initiate the interactions? d) How much do individuals contribute to the work group’s total interaction? 2) What typical “Communication Network” does the groups’ total face-to-face interaction resemble? 3) Are the groups highly interconnected in communication sense or are they not? 4) Among the production, maintenance, and innovation functions of messages in organization based communication, what message function dominates both groups’ interactions? In describing the group’s interpersonal communication, this research delved on 1) network characteristics---network size, integratedness, and network typology; 2) direction of message flows; 3) initiation of messages; 4) function of messages---production, innovation, and maintenance; and 5) frequency of message transmission between group members. Two different methods were applied in data gathering. The participants from JSI recorded their daily communication through communication diaries or logs, in five pre-determined days. The CSI members, on the other had, were subjected to non-participant observation for three days. The data gathered through the methods were analyzed through frequencies, averages, and percentages. The findings of the study revealed that members of both groups regularly interact in face-to-face situations. However, more interactions were initiated in CSI than in JSI. Members of JSI were found to be highly interconnected, with a group connection index of 1.0. The CSI members on the other hand were found to be less integrated, with a group connection index of 0.60.

The researcher concluded that both members of the groups regularly communicate with one another, in face-to-face Situation. All JSI members are connected with one another, while CSI members are connected only to specific individuals. The individuals centrally located in both groups contributed their respective much to group’s total interactions. Member contribution to the total interactions for JSI ranges from 14% to 30%, while for CSI from 1% to 15%. The communication network of both groups highly resembles the all-channels network. JSI members are highly connected while CSI members are moderately connected. Furthermore, production messages dominate both groups’ interactions followed by maintenance and innovation messages.