This study investigates how individuals perceive the message strategies of other team members and then explores how these perceptions are influenced by message function. Using a mixed-methods data collection, team interaction was coded using Bales's Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). Following the meetings, retrospective interviews were conducted to capture perceptions of team member contributions to weekly team meetings. To assess perceptual similarities and differences, team member perceptions were then compared to the IPA codes of meeting interactions. Findings advance knowledge of communication in team meetings, specifically, how and why team members interpret the same interaction in different ways. Study results have implications for improving member communication in task-focused team meetings.
Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Bales, R.F. (1999). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction .
3.
Blosser, B.J., & Roberts, D.F. (1985). Age differences in children's perceptions of message intent: Responses to TV news, commercials, educational spots, and public service announcements. Communication Research, 12, 455-484.
4.
Bonito, J.A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412-438.
5.
De Cremer, D., & Bakker, M. (2003). Accountability and cooperation in social dilemmas: The influence of other's reputational concerns. Current Psychology , 22, 155-163.
6.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Carnevale, P.J. (2003). Information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 235-291.
7.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Koole, S., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed-pie: A motivated information-processing account of integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975-987.
8.
Dennis, M.R., Kunkel, A., & Keyton, J. (2008). Problematic integration theory, appraisal theory, and the Bosom Buddies Breast Cancer Support Group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 415-436.
9.
Fisher, B.A., & Hawes, L.C. (1971). An interact system model: Generating a grounded theory of small groups. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57, 444-453.
10.
Gouran, D.S., & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Gross, M., Guerrero, L., & Alberts, J. (2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication competence in task-oriented dyads. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 249-270.
12.
Hewes, D.E. (1979). The sequential analysis of social interaction . Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 56-73.
13.
Hollingshead, A.B., Jacobsohn, G.C., & Beck, S.J. (2007). Motives and goals in context: A strategic analysis of information-sharing groups. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 257-280). New York: Psychology Press.
14.
Janis, I.L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policy making and crisis management. New York: Free Press.
15.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice . Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
16.
Kellermann, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs, 59, 288-300.
17.
Kellermann, K., Reynolds, R., & Chen, J.B. (1991). Strategies of conversational retreat: When parting is not sweet sorrow. Communication Monographs, 58, 362-383.
18.
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Keyton, J., & Beck, S.J. (in press). The influential role of socioemotional messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice .
20.
Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S.G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees . Group Dynamics, 9, 58-67.
21.
Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., & Hanner, H. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3-36.
22.
Pena, J., & Hancock, J.T. (2006). A analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research , 33, 92-109.
23.
Pomerantz, A., & Mandelbaum, J. (2005). A conversation analytic approach to relationships: Their relevance for interactional conduct. In K. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 149-171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Poole, M.S. (1983). Decision development in small groups, III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341.
25.
Poole, M.S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L.R. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations . In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 92-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Putnam, L.L., & Stohl, C. (1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 629-652). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Rogelberg, S.G., Leach, D.J., Warr, P.B., & Burnfield, J.L. (2006). "Not Another Meeting!" Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 86-96.
28.
Scheerhorn, D., Geist, P., & Teboul, J.B. (1994). Beyond decision making in decision-making groups: Implications for the study of group communication. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (p. 247-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Schwartzman, H.B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities . New York: Plenum Press.
30.
Shankar, A., & Pavitt, C. (2002). Resource and public goods dilemmas: A new issue for communication research. Review of Communication, 2, 251-272.
31.
Tracy, K., & Dimock, A. (2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook (vol. 28, pp. 127-165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Weldon, E., Jehn, K.A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 555-569.
33.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., & Botero, I.C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286-310.
