INFORMATION FLOW BETWEEN ORGANIZATION LEVELS IN TEAMWORK DISCUSSION

Vichita Vathanophas cmvichita@mahidol.ac.th and Onanong Pilun-owad

g5049612@student.mahidol.ac.th

College of Management, Mahidol University 69 Vipawadee Rangsit Rd. Din Daeng, Bangkok 10400 THAILAND ABSTRACT All the complexities of team dynamics come to the fore at the teamwork discussion. The meeting or team discussion is one of the most critical aspects of the team process with strategies and innovative solutions to problems emerging during this time (Otter & Emmitt, 2007; Lievens & Moenaert, 2001). Teamwork discussion refers to internal meetings of the organizations, which consists of people from various levels in the organization in the discussion. This study shows how the information flows in the team discussion or team meeting when there are members or representatives from various organization levels participate in the discussion. A focus group method was adopted as an exploratory means to gain insights and perspective of the flow of information in the team discussion. The study identifies a number of challenges that are found in the team discussion when there are representatives from various organization levels. Corporate culture, management attitude and personality, different goals and objectives, language barriers are samples of challenges that are identified in such team discussion. Moreover, the study finds that people in the organizations tend to utilize other means of communication more than face-to-face meeting. Some key critical success factors in having productive information flow between organization levels in team discussion are identified as part of this study. Keyword: Teamwork Communication discussion, Information flow, Organization levels

INTRODUCTION Research with business professionals reveals that effective communication ranks high among the skills necessary to succeed in business. Businesses must have effective internal and external communication in order to succeed. Effective communication enables the effective flow of information and this involves both the sender and the receiver to take their own responsibilities in creating satisfied communication climate that allows information flow across all organization levels (Tukiainen, 2001; Krizan, et al., 2005). The communication process in organizations is a complicated one; complicated by the fact that we as individuals have our idiosyncrasies, biases, and abilities, and complicated by organizational characteristics such as hierarchy or specialization

(Smeltzer, 1996; Hunt, et al., 2000). Most material dealing with effective organizational communication assumes that one individual is the sole receiver of that communication. In actual practice, much organizational communication involves communication aimed at groups. This communication often takes place in meetings. Therefore, organization communication directed towards groups and transmitted within meetings needs study and attention. Groups or teams are made up of individuals; thus much of what applies to communicating with individuals would apply also to communicating with groups. Groups also have characteristics; depend on the composites of the group (Spinks & Wells, 1995). Groups or teams in organizations can be classified many ways; one way in which group may be classified is formal and informal. Formal groups are groups designated by the organization, such as sales department, accounting staffs, managers, executives. These groups usually do not form by themselves, but their members are appointed by the organization. Formal groups are usually designated in given places in the organization chart. These groups must function properly and in harmony with other formal groups for organization to succeed in its goals and objectives (Spinks & Wells, 1995). So, it is important to study how information flows within these formal group meetings especially the members are appointed by the organization, not the informal groups, which are formed by them. The study examines various factors that impact the flow of information in team discussion, for example, the communication system, communication climate, communication culture (Tukiainen, 2001), etc. Informal groups are groups which form by themselves; their member joins the group voluntarily and at the pleasure of other group members (Spinks & Wells, 1995). Moreover, the development and use of information communication technologies (ICTs) has been seen as one way of improving of the performance of the team (Love et al., 2001) as well as other communication means to compensate the missing links between lower levels of organizations and the upper level organizations during the team discussion. RESARCH METHODOLOGY The Focus Group (FG) has been reborn in the area of social sciences and promises to become an integral part of the data-collection technology among qualitative researchers (Blackburn & Stokes, 2000; Knodel, 1993). Although FG may be useful at virtually any point in a research program, it is particularly useful for exploratory research where rather little is known about the phenomenon of interest (Berg, 2001; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). In this study, the FG methodology is used to obtain insights on how the information flows between organization levels in team discussion context. Defined as a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers, FG is used to discuss and comment from personal experience on the topic that is the subject of the research (Powell & Single, 1996). This study was conducted with postgraduate students from College of Management, Mahidol University (CMMU) who took the Knowledge Management in Organizations module. A total of 28 participants were randomly selected and expected to attend the FG workshop on information flow between organization levels in team discussion. The participants are combinations of people who are working in local Thai firms, multinational organizations, family businesses or work for themselves at the time they participated this FG. People who joined this FG workshop have working experiences and experiences in joining team discussions

which have members from various organization levels. The FG workshops were conducted in 3 sessions, each session last for 1 hour and a half and had an average of 9 participants for each session. One session was held per day and all sessions were both audio-taped and video-taped. In each FG, there is 1 moderator and 1 recorder, which resulted in only 7 people who participated in the discussion. The same set of FG questions was used from group to group. To facilitate the FG sessions, pre-group briefings with the moderators were held so that research objectives were understood and clearly defined. The FG discussions began with brief introduction of each participant on their positions, working experiences. Then moderators requested for participants to start sharing their experiences that they have in team discussions when there are representatives from various organization levels joining the meeting or discussion. People were then asked to share on what they thought or found as challenges, potential issues, and advantages and disadvantages that impact or contribute to flow of information in such team discussions. Once, people identified and shared their own experiences, then they were asked to share about the ideal communication climate and system that they would like to participate and believe the information can flow well. Then they were asked on how people or they handle the situations that they cannot share information directly in the team discussion which have people from various organization levels. After the FG workshop, they were asked to submit a group report of the discussion that they had in the workshop and their views on the FG questions. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Challenges in Team Discussions The most common example of communication involving groups in an organization context is team meetings. Whether a meeting is a one-to-one conversation with the manager, and co-worker or whether it is a gathering of five, nine or 15 people in a conference room, team meetings are facts of business life. The concept of teams is becoming a major force in business management today (Spinks & Wells, 1995). Challenges in having effective or productive flow of information in the team discussion or team meetings are identified as follows: Leaders or management attitude and personality can create major impacts in the flow of information within the team discussion. Close-minded leaders or management who only believe in downward communication (top-down) and are not open for upward communication or lateral communication always block the flow of information within the meeting. People in lower levels avoid sharing their information. From my previous work, I was a middle manager. My CEO personality is just saying No to subordinate. Its all about his opinion, so what you say doesnt matter. When I sit there in the meeting, I just let him go whatever (Participant Group 03, No.10). it depends on the characteristic of manager. Whether the manager is kind or not (Participant Group 02, No,04). Different objectives and goals of the discussion people in a particular discussion or meeting come in with different objectives and goals. They tend to hold back their information because of being afraid of being blame. Such team discussions or meetings become ineffective and non-productive because people have different

objectives and goals and have no intention to achieve solutions out of those meetings. Information hardly flows because of people are afraid of being blamed. Different departments in one organization may work in isolation because information does not flow sideways, different department in one organization may work in isolation and the benefits of synergy are lost. If you are on the same goal, you can reach them together to gain information. Because most of the time if the meeting likes to blame each other, then they forgot what the thing that they really want. The problem will occur. The bottom line you cant gain information from the meeting. It wastes of the time. You have to go back and do it again to fight back each other. If you start with the same goal, I think it would be easier (Participant Group 03, No.09). Lack of meeting facilitators or leaders sometimes the information cannot flow in the team meetings because there are no proper meeting leaders or facilitators identified and the discussion can go on for many hours without any contents or contributions. I have the issue that we have agenda but not have people who control. They dont have people who lead the meeting, then people try to speak out anything that they would like to thrown into the meeting. They come up with 100 of problems, not 100 of solutions. Nobody try to summarize things, cut people, and get others information, so the information is not flow (Participant Group 03, No.03). Lack of proper agenda, identified purpose of the meeting in many cases the meeting are called without any proper agenda. The purposes of the meeting are not identified. As a result, the participants join the meeting without any preparation and become challenges in having accurate information flows within the meeting. My company just set up in the last year. The first meeting that we have set was no chairman, no agenda, no everything. At that time, we were very confusing. We have no conclusion, we have no solution. Everyone try to throw out and speak only opinion. Next time on a few month after that, we tried to get an agenda, but we think that it still ineffective if one of the meeting say less in the meeting. We cannot conclude in the right way (Participant Group 03, No.08). Corporate culture the corporate culture defines shared values and behavioral expectations. Sometimes referred to as the way we do things around here (Krizan, et al., 2005). So, the corporate culture also defines how people should or should not do in the team meetings that have people from various organization levels. The corporate culture that has high power distance (Hofstede, 1980) and relies heavily on the hierarchical and seniority has a lot of challenges in creating flow of information in such meeting (Larson & Kleiner, 2004). Factor influencing info flow is culture and atmosphere within the organization. The family-like tends to have more people sharing ideas during the discussion. On the contrary, in a government organization, those in lower levels have less chance to air their views, but only listen to their boss (Participant Group02, No06).

Age diversity individuals age and stages of life affect not only how they perceive the world around them and what they value but also how others perceive them (Krizan, et al., 2005). The diversity in ages on how they perceive things are identified as one of challenges in encouraging people to be more open and be more active listening since age diversity blocks their minds already. Did anyone have experience about not having enough courage to speak during the meeting? Why? -- Age different; less gap between the manager and subordinate (Participant Group No.02, All). Meeting environment and facility the office environment gives additional insight into the culture. A company that encourages constant communication among members of a group will provide an office environment that is open and unencumbered by walls (Larson & Kleiner, 2004). Sometimes surrounding is also important. She has meeting in the informal room (table with sofa and snack) people who attend feel more comfortable to share idea. They also have different in sharing idea, ask people to write down the idea in the post it (Participant Group 01, No3) . Meeting size can become an issue when the size of meeting is too big or number of people is too many, not everyone has a chance to talk. There are only certain people who will always talk while others are ignored. The information cannot flow well in a big meeting group. I think the size of people is crucial for the information flow. If the meeting is too big, the information cannot flow well for the idea much (Participant Group 03, No. 03). Lack of knowledge or skills in the topics discussed some people are shy to talk in the meeting because they do not have sufficient knowledge or skills in the topics discussed. Moreover, education background also becomes problem or concern of people to share their ideas, thoughts. People who have lower educational background and tend to have lesser chance to talk. Education background and knowledge can be a problem during the discussion since lower education and experienced people have less chance to talk during the discussion, and its not gonna be the 2-way communications (Participant Group02, No.04). Individual personality and attitude extrovert tends to speak more in the team meetings comparing to introvert. Therefore, it also becomes one of challenges in encouraging introvert to share their information to the group. Also, the individual attitude is defined as one of challenges when those individual prefers not to help and share information. Personality of each people, like what Im dealing with people right now is that they dont want to help others. They are just happy their work. If there are something comes out to them, they just reject it all the ways (Participant Group 03, No10). Thai culture, people in this culture are afraid of direct talk to their superiors. This also prohibits them from sharing information in the team discussions that have people from various organization levels as well. Because of Thai culture that people afraid to talk directly to their boss. We cant be sure if they confront the situation what the manager will react

whether the manager will turn them down. The manager is very important person who need to encourage discussion or else employees wont talk to them frankly (Participant Group 01, No04). Critical Success Factors in Having Effective Information Flow between Organization Levels in Team Discussions Context Process to facilitate and encourage people to share information and express their knowledge as well as process to create environment of trust which empowers people to talk with less worries in seniority. In my dream, I would say its the combination of process and people. The process has to facilitate people to able to express their knowledge, their information. And process also create environment of trust, create the environment of seniority enough. It is not that Thai seniority that we have to respect, but I think if we can express out of feeling, the ideas with an appropriate manner. Then I would say that in the meeting, both people and process is the key to setup the information flow throughout the organization (Participant Group 03, No03). Setting same goals and objectives when people are on the same goals and objectives, they are willing to share information and try to achieve outcomes from each team meetings or discussions. This will allow better flow of information when people are trying to achieve the same thing. When people have the same goal, they also know that the others are trying to throw out the ideas to reach such goal and then they may listen and be more open-minded. The info flows well when people are willing to listen (Participant Group 02, No04). Plan the meeting agenda The group leader must prepare meeting agenda carefully. The topics to be discussed should be listed in some logical order, in a sequence that servers the purpose of the group. The meeting agenda should be prepared and distributed in advance (Krizan, et al., 2005). I prefer the second one most because he was setup the ground rule for the meeting before the meeting. The agenda was sent out before the meeting at least one day. After the meeting, we have the minute to rap up. For each meeting, we rotate the facilitator. I think it help people to have a chance to speak up. From this meeting, we allow external person or other department to come and join. I would say it effective in my team (Participant Group 03, No.04). The time at which a meeting is held can have an effect on its success. Scheduling a meeting for early morning suggests importance; starting at an office hour time encourages punctuality; selecting an odd starting time captures interest; and scheduling meetings for times just before lunch or at the end of the day encourages timely adjournment (Krizan, et al., 2005). What are factors that encourage people to talk in the discussion? -- Good timing of the meeting. Not too early in the morning, close to lunch time (Participant Group No.01). And I found that if we set the meeting at 11 oclock, the meeting is very effective. People try to say thing very hit to the point because they want to have lunch. My boss try again to set the meeting at 2 oclock, its very effective as well because if it later than 5 oclock, they have to stay over time (Participant Group 03, No.03).

Select and prepare the meeting facility. Most routine business meetings are held on-site. Off-site meetings encourage efficiency by minimizing interruptions and creates different meeting environment. My company took middle staffs to Pattaya or Hua Hin to meeting. It was very lovely meeting. People smilingly talked to each other. I understand the nurse much better why she behaves like that. I understand each perspective much better (Participant Group 03, No.03). I have little tips about the size of the room. In my company, if the topic is so stress, we will have the meeting in the big meeting room. Everyone will feel free that they have more space. If the topic is like so broad, and everyone will not focus on the topic, we will have the meeting in the small room to let people focus on the topic. Its psychology to create atmosphere (Participant Group 03, No.09). Lead the group discussion. During the meeting, the primary role of the leader is to assist the group in achieving its purpose. A good group leader server as a facilitator someone who motivates participants to work together effectively and who secures group decisions after adequate discussion. For me, it is just simple. If the meeting has the facilitator, the information will flow even someone dont want to speak up, there is the duty for facilitator to pull up information from that person. They need to have a skill to draw out the information from people as well (Participant Group 03, No04). Prepare to participate every member of a team should learn as much as possible about the groups purpose. If an agenda is provided in advance, information can be gathered on each topic to ensure intelligent participation. What are factors that encourage people to talk in the discussion? - Well preparation for the meeting (Participant Group 01). Listen Effectively meetings can challenges listening skills. Members should not have side conversations, gaze into space or exhibit with other behavior that detracts from effective listening. When people have the same goal, they also know that the others are trying to throw out the ideas to reach such goal and then they may listen and be more open-minded. The info flows well when people are willing to listen (Participant Group 02, No04).

Alternative Communication Channels and Meeting Formats Apart from face-to-face meetings, people use other communication channels or meeting formats to share the information within the organizations. Sometimes, these alternatives are used because people are in different locations, ability to document conversations and keep it as evidence, ability to share information anonymously. The following communication channels and meeting formats were identified by these focus groups. Electronic mail (E-mail) becomes one of the most popular channels in communicating within the organizations. E-mail is used when people are afraid of face-to-face meeting or confrontation. Information can flow without any organization level boundaries via e-mail. Moreover, people tend to use e-mail more because it allows them to document all the communications. I used to prefer face to face when I talk to manager or subordinate. Later on

I mostly use e-mail because we can say anything without seeing anybody. I can blame boss in the e-mail by CC. their boss (Participant Group 03). Website which allows employees to share ideas and people can look for information in the website. For my department, we also setup a web site to let everyone share the idea to perform the work. We can find anything, any information that we want (Participant Group 03, No.06). CONCLUSION This study focuses on how information flows when there are members from different organization levels participating in the teamwork discussion or team meeting. The study identifies challenges which obstruct the information flows between organization levels in teamwork discussion. Also, the key factors in achieving effective teamwork discussion that allows good flow of information among the participants from various organization levels are identified from the focus group study as well. Alternative communication system (Tukianinen, 2001) in flowing information within the organization are identified from this study. This study gives more insights for organizations to better understand the challenges in getting information flow and what factors can improve information flow in the teamwork discussion that has members from different organization levels. By understanding these challenges and factors, organizations can improve the teamwork discussions/meetings to be more effective and productive. This study would be crucial and useful for organizations, especially the management levels, in handling the team discussion and be able to obtain right information and encourage team members from lower levels to share and be more open in such meeting. Moreover, the empirical findings of key critical success factors of effective and productive way of such team discussions are identified and these factors can be considered by organizations, management, team members before conducting any team discussions. Other communication tools that people in the organization uses in flowing information are acknowledged as the communication means that reduce communication gaps between different organization levels. REFERENCES Berg, B.L. (2001), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Fourth Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Blackburn, R. & Stokes, D. (2000), Breaking down the Barriers: Using Focus Groups to Research Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, International Small Business Journal, 19, 1, 44-67. Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Workrelated Values. Bevery Hills, CA. Sage Hunt, O., Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. D.W. (2000), The communication experiences of education managers: identifying strengths, weaknesses and critical incidents, The International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 3, 120 129

Knodel, J. (1993), The Design and Analysis of Focus Group Studies: A Practical Approach, in Morgan, D.L. (Ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Sage Publications, California, p. 35-50. Krizan, A.C., Merrier, P., Logan, J., & Williams, K. (2005), Business Communication, 7th Edition. Mason, OH. Thomson Higher Education. Larson, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2004), How to Read Non Verbal Communication in Organisations, Management Research News, 4/5, 27 Lievens, A., & Moenaert, R.K. (2001), Communication flows during financial service innovation, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 19, 2, 68-88 Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z., Li, H., Cheng, E.W.L., Tse, R.Y.C. (2001), An empirical analysis of the barriers to implementing e-commerce in small-medium sized construction contractors in the state of Victoria, Australia, Construction Innovation, 1, 1, 31-41. Otter, A. D., & Emmitt, S. (2007), Exploring effectiveness of team communication: Balancing synchronous and asynchronous communication in design teams, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14, 5, 408-419 Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996), Focus Groups, International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 8, 5, 499-504. Smeltzer, L. (1996), Communication within the managers context, Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 1, 5-26 Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990), Focus Groups Theory and Practice. California: Sage Publications. Spinks, N., & Wells, B. (1995), Communicating with groups: prompt, purposeful, productive team meetings, Executive Development, 8, 5, 13-19 Tukiainen, T. (2001), An agenda model of organizational communication, Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 6, 1, 47-52