# Managing Groups and Teams/Communication

## Introduction

Communication is something we humans do extraordinarily well. Some
cynics say that the primary purpose of language is to allow us to tell
lies! Hopefully, this is a misconception - for good communication
requires that the \'mental model\' being transmitted by the originator
and the experience of the person interpreting the received information
be sufficiently similar. For example, a brain surgeon explaining a
procedure to a patient would use more simple, precise, unequivocal
\'mental models\' than if she was presenting a paper to a seminar of
specialist colleagues who each enjoyed comprehensive and independent
checking, cross-checking capabilities. It is important, when
communicating, to apply an adequately \'balanced\' checking
\'protocol.\' Failure to do so is at our peril!

## Miscommunication

On January 3 2006 at approximately 11:50 pm, major news networks
reported that 12 of 13 miners trapped in the Sago Mine were alive.
Families of the victims celebrated for three hours before mine company
officials informed them that the report was wrong and 12 of the 13
miners were dead. The families would later report that a mine foreman,
who had overheard the rescue team, had contacted the families with some
initial but unverified information and the media picked the story up
from the families. Reporters then \'verified\' that information with
other families and other news sources without realizing those
\'cross-check\' sources originated from the very same, single unverified
source. They failed to \'dig down to the roots\' of their story and
relied instead on visible superficiality.

Beyond compounding the mental anguish of the families, many professional
news media outlets appeared unprofessional and the mine company
experienced a far worse public relations problem than if they had
communicated clearly and quickly using more formal protocols.
Unfortunately formal protocols involve verification, and this slower
process can seem rather like censorship or deliberate information
management to news gatherers. While most business communication issues
don't result in such dramatic public displays, \'quick and dirty\'
communications often prevent teams from functioning properly and cost
companies uncountable billions of dollars. But so too does the
over-cautious, \'need to know\' secrecy beloved of military style
organizations, who thereby miss many opportunities. The trick is to
strike a balance, and that balance will change, depending on the
sensitivity, importance and urgency of the message.

Unbalanced messages are likely to cause "communication breakdown" which
can engender conflict. Over cautious protocol can prevent important
information from reaching decision makers accurately and in time, while
listening to messages with no verification protocol - rumors - can
easily reduce the morale of team members. By understanding the causes of
communication breakdown and effective techniques for group
communication, team members can create a more productive working
environment for themselves, and increase their effectiveness when
dealing with outsiders such as customers or the wider public (or vice
versa - as occurred at the Sago Mine \'information leak\'). Effective
communication techniques maximize team productivity and creativity while
minimizing the chance of miscommunication. Just to make things even more
complicated, deliberately \'unbalancing\' messages to provoke
miscommunication can be quite creative! Unbalanced - unverified messages
are the essence of formal \'brain-storming\' events, and also occurs
routinely in gentle banter and ironic satire among colleagues. However,
it can not be over-emphasized that these \'wrong protocol\' techniques
should only be used exceptionally as they require very careful
management in a business environment!

## Communication Breakdown

Communication breakdown can be the source or the result of conflict, but
it is also important to recognize that a lack of conflict can also be a
sign of communication breakdown. Inadequate training, apathy,
misunderstandings, channel noise, differing backgrounds, or lack of
respect can all be causes of communication breakdown. The results of
communication issues include withholding information, loss of trust,
reduced cooperation, reduced productivity, reduced creativity, reduced
risk taking, personal attacks, sabotage, complaints, clique formation
and team breakup or individual resignation. The North American Blackout
of 2003 is an interesting example. One power plant failed to accurately
communicate the status of their section of the power grid, causing more
than one hundred power plants to go off line, forty million people to
lose power, and an estimated six billion dollars in losses to
businesses.It is caused by problems which occur daily which allows
people to stop their communication.

A survey of 560 MBA students with work experience from across the USA
helps to illustrate some of the problems that communication breakdown
can cause. The table labeled \"Hard Costs\" shows the number of
respondents that can recollect certain hard costs that were incurred due
to communication breakdown. The table labeled \"Soft Costs\" shows the
soft costs incurred (Gilsdorf 191-192). The soft costs may result in
losses as high as or higher than hard costs, but they are difficult to
quantify. As you can see, the effects of communication breakdown are far
from trivial. The Society for Advancement of Consulting (SAC) has
recently released an article stating that poor communication is more of
a threat to the failure of a business than competition or the economy
(\"Communication Errors Undermining Business.\").

  \# of respondents   Hard cost
  ------------------- ----------------------------
  11                  \< \$100
  34                  \$100 - \$499
  24                  \$500 - \$999
  82                  \$1,000 - \$9,999
  25                  \$10,000 - \$19,999
  35                  \$20,000 - \$49,999
  11                  \$50,000 - \$99,999
  21                  \$100,000 - \$499,999
  3                   \$500,000 - \$999,99
  11                  \$1,000,000 - \$10,000,000

  : **Hard costs**

  \# of respondents   Soft cost
  ------------------- ----------------------------------------------
  124                 Lost time
  111                 Lost employee(s)
  101                 Lowered productivity, efficiency, or quality
  82                  Bad image, word of mouth, publicity
  80                  Ill will
  79                  Grave erosion of individuals\' effectiveness
  72                  Damaged working environment of relationship
  57                  Lowered morale
  56                  Stupid risk or liability
  51                  Lowered team spirit
  46                  Lowered trust
  46                  Lost revenue
  34                  Waste of money
  25                  Lost customer(s)
  18                  Lost opportunity

  : **Soft costs**

There are many books written with psychological and linguistic
perspectives on communication breakdown. "That's Not What I Meant!" by
Deborah Tannen explains how ambiguities in our speech can cause people
to misinterpret what we intend to say. She also talks about how the
majority of what we say isn't in the actual words, but in the way they
are said. This involves pacing, volume, expression of emotion (pitch,
tone). There is a higher incidence of misinterpretation when
communicating between cultures, due to differences in the norms of "meta
messages" between cultures. Communication breakdown can also be
manifested as politeness taken too far. Tannen talks about the
"Two-edged Sword of Politeness" where, in the interest of maintaining
relations with others, important things are not said. The motive here is
to get along, but people often end up getting along worse when this is
done. When communicating, we don't always say what we mean due to what
we think others might think of us. This is known as indirectness and is
a type of self-defense mechanism. Communicating with others is far more
complicated than simply turning an idea into words, saying it, and
having it turned back into the same idea. All these complications are
places where communication breakdown can occur, frustrating those
involved.

Richard J. Mayer has a slightly different perspective on breakdown. He
came up with the hypothesis that "Virtually all communication problems
and conflicts between people, no matter how serious they appear, are due
to an accumulation of un-confronted and unresolved minor issues, each of
little or no apparent importance." (Mayer 3). He studied hundreds of
instances where communication breakdown had occurred to come up with
this idea. Many of these minor issues are caused by the communication
concepts mentioned earlier by Tannen. The new part of this perspective
is that major problems are caused by an accumulation of minor issues. He
suggests confronting these little issues every time they are
encountered. He also proposes the idea that we are more skilled at being
competitive than we are at being collaborative, which makes it difficult
to work in effective teams.

A certain amount of communication conflict within a team is good. Both
too little, as well as too much conflict is a type of communication
breakdown. Too little communication conflict most likely means either
that nobody cares very much or they are all brainwashed to think alike
(\'group-think\'). Both of these factors mean the team is not being
effective (Lemmex 2004). In an article about communication breakdown,
Larry Lauer says that communication breakdown is inevitable due to the
complex nature of human experience and thus interpretation, so the
communications need to be reiterated back and forth until both the
transmitter and all those receiving messages have a common and
verifiable understanding. He suggests some ways to spot communication
breakdown, and suggests we should look for \'activity plateaus\' after a
goal is met.

These plateaus often cause members to be more focused on their personal
matters, and communication begins to slow down. Another sign is
productivity falling off. A plateau might be due simply to members of a
group who feel that their input isn't much valued, and start to withdraw
from the group activity. Executive isolation is another sign of
communication breakdown. This is the process of a manager suffering from
\'head in the office syndrome\'. Effective communication is difficult.
During times of stress, it is tempting to avoid conflict by spending
less and less time with others, and not engaging in verifiable
communication with them about the critical issues. Finally, either too
few or too many comments, queries or complaints is likely be a sign of
communication breakdown (Lauer 1994). It is all a matter of balance
between \'foot in mouth\' and \'paralysis by analysis\'!

Communication breakdown is all around us, and is responsible for more
problems than anyone takes the time to realize. Through the use of
examples, survey results, and various perspectives on the inner workings
and diagnosis of communication breakdown, we try to develop a better
idea as to why we should want to avoid communication breakdown. The
following sections will help you communicate effectively with others so
that, together, you can plan and implement effective communication
techniques and checking protocols within your group or team.

Effective communication within a team doesn't happen by accident;
instead, it requires planning and organization, and an effective team
leader or facilitator. Planning for good communication in a meeting
setting takes even more preparation. This section will discuss how
leaders and facilitators can plan ahead for good communication.

## Planning for Communication

In modern organizations, teams may be entirely virtual and never
interact in person. This presents a unique set of communication
challenges which are outside the scope of this paper, although certain
techniques presented will work well for virtual teams.

Larson and LaFasto (1989, 55-57) consider an effective communication
system to be one of the four necessary features of team structure. The
communication system must focus on accessible information, utilize
information from credible sources, provide opportunities for informal
communication and have a way to document decisions in planning for
communication. Leaders must take care to structure the team and
interactions in such a way that these four elements are a part of the
system. For existing teams, the team will probably already have
procedures in place, whether or not conscious effort went into
developing them. As groups work together, certain norms of behavior
develop. Team leaders should be aware of this process and work to
develop an effective set of norms from the beginning. Opportunity for
informal communication needs to be deliberately coordinated, not left to
chance. To enhance the likelihood of informal communication, a team
leader will want to allow time at the beginning of the process for group
members to get to know one another and interact informally. An offsite
retreat or team activity will build personal relationships among members
and facilitate communication down the road. The facilitator should
continue to build in regular opportunities for informal discussion in
ways that work with the team culture.

Another important technique in preparing for communication is to train
group members in advance on communication techniques. A leader should
train team members about group techniques for meeting facilitation and
conflict resolution as well as individual skills such as listening,
communicating criticism and mediation. This process facilitation can
have positive effects on team accomplishment. (Wheelan 2005) Finally,
good communication requires feedback among group members. The
facilitator must build in ways for team members to provide one another
evaluative information about their behavior. (Wheelan 2005)

Once general systems are in place for good communication, the team
leader can focus on specific situations such as a team meeting. For
teams working face to face, meetings are one of the most common ways
groups communicate, so planning for effective communication at meetings
is critical. Part of planning a meeting means having the logistics in
place for success. The timing and location must be right and the
technologies must be in place for effective communication. Logistics
such as the time of day members are likely to be available to meet and
at their best, a location that will minimize interruptions and
technologies such as PowerPoint that provide visual aids are all
important foundations for a successful meeting. (Whetton and Cameron,
1995) Even more importantly, the leader must be clear on the purpose of
the meeting and make sure the right participants are involved. Then, he
or she must plan the structure. (Whetton and Cameron, 1995)

To be most effective, a facilitator must explicitly determine the most
appropriate meeting structure and procedures. Some of the basic
procedural options include: "1) an agenda-guided discussion, 2) a
problem- or item-list procedure, and 3) simplified parliamentary
procedure." (Stech/Ratliffe, 243) Extensive detail on each of these
options can be found in the book, "Effective Group Communication"
referenced at the end of the paper. For most meetings, a detailed
agenda, distributed in advance, is an effective way to help participants
prepare for the meeting. The agenda gives group members time to consider
issues to be discussed so the group does not, "waste time discussing
ill-conceived suggestions." (Whetton and Cameron, 460) The group also
needs to have a clear decision making format in place. Communication
structure options include: ordinary group discussion (the most common
default), brainstorming and nominal group technique. The appropriate
choice depends on the group task. (Whetton and Cameron, 1995) Effective
implementation of these various communication strategies will be
discussed in the next section. Beyond determining the structural format,
a leader also needs to prepare by making sure the participants fully
understand the purpose of the meeting and their role in the process. In
many cases, particularly when there is a controversial item on the
agenda, pre-meetings with specific participants are important. "...it is
advisable to discuss the matter before the meeting with key opinion
leaders. This polling of sentiment is useful for gauging how much time
should be set aside for discussing an issue and how it should be
presented to the group. In addition, if the chairperson can obtain the
support of key group members before the meeting, it is less likely that
a controversial issue will dominate the group discussion..." (Whetton
and Cameron, 461)

Facilitators and leaders must plan for good communication. In general,
investment in structure (including informal communication) and member
training can set the stage to allow team members to communicate well.
For a team meeting, more planning should be done including deciding on
the meeting purpose, participants, structure, logistics and decision
making process. Agendas and pre-meetings with individuals can help
members prepare and ensure the group meeting moves smoothly.

## Communication Tools

While planning for effective communication is key in order to achieve
specific objectives, it is equally important to utilize tried and tested
\'tools\' that can facilitate \'live\' real time communication between a
transmitter and an audience.

First, some communication is what Eric Birne called \'parent to child\'-
the issuing of clear and unequivocal orders to make sure that tasks are
completed quickly in what the authority figure thinks is the best way
possible. Other times, we act more like adults, and hold discussions
that require awareness, active listening, using names and making "I"
statements. Appropriate body language, mirroring and eye contact can all
help individuals to understand each other better. The first step in
facilitating clear team communication is to be aware of who is in the
group. Bringing the group together in a social setting allows team
members to learn each other's personalities, work situation, and
personal background. This understanding prevents issues and differences
from arising that could inhibit communication between team members. The
next technique that can improve communication is the use of active
listening skills. Active listening occurs when people really hear what
the other person is saying and both paraphrase what was said and
identify any nonverbal cues that a person may also be trying to express
through body language.

Sometimes this means more than just identifying the concrete comments or
suggestions that a person is making, but also addressing any underlying
emotional issues that are also affecting what a person is trying to say
(Thompson and Gooler, 1996). A simple way to help a person understand
that you are actively listening is to use their name a few times during
the course of a conversation. This helps a person to realize that you
are focusing your attention on what they are saying, and really hearing
their full meaning (Connolly and Syer, 1996). When you are the person
who feels misunderstood or not heard, make sure to express your feelings
through the use of "I" statements. Using "I" statements allows people to
express themselves without putting others on the defensive. For example,
instead of saying, "You are completely ignoring me," phrasing that
feeling as "I feel like I am not being heard by the group" allows others
to realize how you are feeling without starting a conflict (Connolly and
Syer, 1996). If a group is having trouble creating and communicating
divergent ideas, one way to facilitate this process is through the
Nominal Group Technique. This technique preempts conflict by allowing
individuals to generate ideas individually and have everyone share their
thoughts with the group. "The advantage of the nominal group technique
is that it maximizes information gain, ensures a democratic
representation of all members' ideas...and avoids production blocking"
(Thompson, 162). Ultimately, some conflict will arise. But through the
use of the nominal group technique and the use of "I" statements,
conflict may be productive in the generation of new ideas and not lead
to permanent rifts between team members.

Though these tools for facilitating verbal communication are essential,
the importance of understanding nonverbal cues cannot be underestimated.
"The use of space, eye contact, body orientation, head movements and
other behaviors are often used to transmit messages without the use of
words" (Thompson and Gooler, 407). Regardless of what team members
actually say, it is important to be aware of the nonverbal messages
communicated through body language. Though a person may verbally agree,
it may be clear that they are uncomfortable or dissatisfied with an idea
or solution, and that needs to be addressed for good communication to be
permanently achieved. In addition to being cognizant of others'
nonverbal cues, it is also important for team members to be aware of how
their own nonverbal behavior is perceived. Team members should be very
aware of eye contact. Maintaining eye contact with individuals who are
communicating their ideas indicates interest (Connolly and Syer, 1996).
Staring out the window or around the room is often perceived as boredom
or disrespect. Another simple nonverbal technique to facilitate good
communication is the act of mirroring. Mirroring involves mimicking
others gestures and ideas. This is especially helpful for making
outsiders feel comfortable sharing ideas. While mirroring may seem over
the top, in fact, it "is a highly effective way of stating the obvious
and raising awareness to allow change." (Connolly and Syer, 210). While
these tools can help to address the nonverbal aspects of communication,
in the end team members must be aware of how they are expressing
themselves both through what they say and what they don't say.

While these general techniques are effective for most teams, individual
team differences often arise with special needs. Though there are too
many to enumerate in this paper, we would like to address two of the
most common and difficult groupings that people encounter -- diverse
groups and groups with personality clashes. "There is a delicate balance
in teams between appreciating individual differences and requiring
unity" (Larson and LaFasto, 79). Finding the balance between creating
cohesiveness and respecting differences is difficult, but can ultimately
strengthen teams if it is leveraged properly through good communication.
In today's diverse, international work environment, people of differing
work and cultural backgrounds are often working together on teams.
Finding a way to communicate despite differences is not only necessary,
but also needed in order to find the best solutions. "The belief is that
diverse teams have a broader range of knowledge, skills, abilities, and
experiences that can enhance the group's ability to critically analyze
problems and generate more creative solutions and ideas" (Thompson and
Gooler, 397).

Common problems that occur in diverse groups include stereotyping,
language barriers, and misunderstandings. For example, in the United
States a thumbs up means okay, in Japan the same gesture means money,
and in Iran it is an obscene gesture. (Henderson, 1994). Also, people
from different cultures do not have the same shared history and stories
that they can relate to when explaining issues. "When group members do
not share common social signals, the development of group cohesiveness
may be hindered and the team may have greater difficulty establishing a
positive social climate" (Thompson and Gooler, 409). For this reason, it
is particularly important that diverse teams have shared social team
activities outside of the workplace so that they can not only get to
know each other, but also have these shared stories to refer to when
trying to communicate particular points. During team meetings, team
members must take the time to pause and make sure that everyone is
grasping the issues and solutions being discussed (Henderson, 1994). If
the team rushes ahead without everyone on board, conflict will probably
ensue at a later time. A degree of formality is also helpful in diverse
team meetings. Using proper titles (and always pronouncing names
correctly, of course) and avoiding slang may help people understand each
other and not be inadvertently offended. In diverse teams, keeping an
open mind and really hearing what other team members are trying to say
must be made a priority in every meeting (Henderson, 1994). In general,
in diverse groups it is better to use the Nominal Group Technique than
devil's advocate, which can cause the group to turn on one member, or
simply create unproductive conflict that does not lead to the best
solution. However, despite the extra effort that must be put into
communication in diverse groups, the benefits often make the work worth
it when highly effective, innovative solutions to problems are
generated.

Another factor that plays a role in team communication is the differing
personalities between team members. In fact, Weblin goes so far as to
say that "personality may be described as the sum pattern of a person's
way of communicating -- the total impression he makes on others" (quoted
in Huseman, 1977: p. 417). Because of their varying personalities,
members of teams receive, process, and act on information and situations
differently. Differences can be helpful by bringing fresh perspectives
and skill sets to the team, but can also create conflict if
communication styles differ or are misunderstood. If team members
understand their own personality tendencies as well as those of their
teammates, the communication between members and therefore effectiveness
of the team will improve drastically. It will also allow the team to
emphasize and appreciate each member's strengths. As Ruderman
hypothesizes, "the level of team personality diversity will be
positively and significantly related to team productivity, especially on
problem solving teams" (1996, p. 79).

## Personality Types

One of the most prevalently used personality assessment tools is the
Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This technique can prove to be a
powerful tool in learning about your own personality as well as those of
your teammates. Unfortunately, it is not especially \'scientific\' and
some less secure personalities may place too much faith in their
\'type\' so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assessment
relies on a long and recursive series of questions, none of which have
an \'obviously correct\' answer, but all are rather ambiguous in nature.

This MBTI tool is just one of many which seeks to analyze and measure a
person's predisposed preferences about the world and other people. MBTI
identifies people as points along four axes. These four dimensions thus
produce 16 broad possible personality types and a range of \'shades\'
within each category. The first dimension refers to how a person prefers
to be energized. An extrovert (E) mainly gains energy from interaction
with others while an introvert generally (I) prefers being alone. The
second dimension deals with how a person prefers to take in information
from the external world. A sensing (S) person likes distinct facts and
details while an intuitive (N) person prefers to see the big picture.
The third dimension relates to how people usually make decisions. A
thinking (T) person generally utilizes \'cold\' logical thinking for
their decisions while a feeling (F) person tends to make judgments based
on personal and subjective values. The final dimension deals with an
individual's preference for their relationship with the external world.
A perceptive (P) person with the perceives situations in an emotional,
flexible and spontaneous way. A more judgmental (J) person prefers to
live in planned and organized situations that is susceptible to analysis
and synthesis (Bradley 1997: p. 341; Dent 2004: p. 67)

Understanding differing personality types in general can help the group
communication and functional process. "The ideal team should be highly
diversified in the talents and knowledge each member contributes, while
maintaining open, non-threatening communication" (Bradley 1997: p. 338).
Extroverts tend to open the lines of between group members, while
introverts provide internal reflection of group discussions. Both are
important functions of group communication. The sensing-intuition
dimension can produce the greatest divisions in teams but both are
absolutely necessary" (Lyman 1995: p. 58). Sensing types take in and
bring up pertinent, concrete, and precise facts, and recognize the
practical realities of the situation. On the other hand, intuitive types
take in data as a whole, focusing on associations and relationships and
seeing new possibilities and ideas. Thinking types present a logical
analysis of the decision-making situation and therefore communicate in
this way, while feeling individuals offer insights into how feelings of
other group members might affect the situation.

Feelers may view thinkers as insensitive while thinkers might view
feelers as touchy feely if each does not appreciate the others
perspective. The planned and orderly approach of the judging type will
typically help keep the team on schedule, while perceivers help

## Conclusion

Utilizing a variety of these tools and techniques to facilitate
effective communication is crucial in order to maximize team
effectiveness. When communication structures and protocols ares not in
place, the communication breakdown is more probable than not. Fairly
simple misunderstandings, if not detected, can impair, sometimes even
devastate the productivity of a team. On the other hand, some
misunderstandings can actually lead to creative leaps of the
imagination, especially if the checks and balances we call \'protocol\'
are working properly. Careful planning for meetings with simple tools
like the minutes of previous transactions and and not too flexible
agendas can help in advance. During the encounter, attention to verbal
and non-verbal communication, and understanding different participants'
backgrounds and communication styles can all help teams capture the
productivity improvements associated with effective team operation.
Ultimately, the increased productivity that results from developing a
range of \'communications protocols\' for different situations,
circumstances and audiences is likely to be well worth the effort. The
essence is in finding the right balance between spontaneity and
carefully edited messages likely to be appropriate in each foreseeable
situation.

## References

\"2003 North American Blackout.\" Wikipedia. 25 May 2006. 30 May 2006
\<<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_North_America_blackout>\>.

Bradley, J. and Hebert, F. "The Effect of Personality Type on Team
Performance." Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16 no 5, 1997.

"Communication Errors Undermining Business.\" Society for Advancement of
Consulting (2005). Print Delivery. LexisNexis. UC Davis, Davis. 30 May
2006. Keyword: poor communication errors.

Connolly, Christopher, and John Syer. How Teamwork Works. London:
McGraw-Hill Company, 1996.

Dent, F., Curd, J, Carr, M., and Blass, E. "Managing by Dimensions."
EBF. Autumn, 2004.

Eaton, Sabrina, and Tom Diemer. \"FirstEnergy defends its actions in
blackout .\" The Plain Dealer 05 Sept. 2003. 30 May 2006
\<<http://www.cleveland.com/blackout/index.ssf?/blackout/more/1062759325296770.html>\>.

Ernest, Stech, and Sharon A. Ratliffe. Effective Group Communication How
to Get Action by Working in Groups. Lincolnwood: National Textbook
Company, 1985.

Funk, John, and Peter Krouse. \"Transcripts Show Chaos Just Before
Blackout.\" The Plain Dealer 04 Sept. 2003. 30 May 2006
\<<http://www.cleveland.com/blackout/index.ssf?/blackout/more/106268022521680.html>\>.

Gilsdorf, Jeanette W. \"Organizational Rules on Communicating: How
Employees are - and are Not - Learning the Ropes.\" The Journal of
Business Communication os 35 (1998): 173-201. Business Source Premier.
EBSCO. UC Davis, Davis. 22 May 2006.

Henderson, George. Cultural Diversity in the Workplace: Issues and
Strategies. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books, 1994.

Huseman, R., Logue, C. and Freshley, D. 1977. Readings in Interpersonal
and Organizational Communication. Boston, Holbrook Press, Inc.

Lark, J. P., Robert B. Nelson, and Laura Chappelle. \"Report on August
14th Blackout.\" State of Michigan. Nov. 2003. 30 May 2006
\<<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc_blackout_77423_7.pdf>\>.

Larson, Carl E., and Frank M. LaFasto. TeamWork What Must Go Right/What
Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1989.

Lauer, Larry D. \"How to Improve Internal Communication: Guidelines for
the Nonprofit Manager.\" Nonprofit World os 12.3 (1994): 34-38. Business
Source Premier. EBSCO. UC Davis, Davis. 22 May 2006. Keyword:
communication breakdown.

Lemmex, Steve. \"Communication Breakdown and Conflict with Teams.\"
Global Knowledge Network os (2004). Business Source Premier. EBSCO. UC
Davis, Davis. 22 May 2006. Keyword: communication breakdown.

Lyman, D. and Richter, K. "QFD and Personality Type: The Key to Team
Energy and Effectiveness." Industrial Engineering. February, 1995.

Mayer, Richard J. \"Communications and Conflict in Organizations.\"
Human Resource Management (1974). Business Source Premier. EBSCO. UC
Davis, Davis. 22 May 2006. Keyword: communication problems.

Ruderman, M, Hughes-James, M, and Jackson, S. 1996. Selected Research on
Work Team Diversity. American Psychological Association and Center for
Creative Leadership.

\"Sago Mine Disaster.\" Wikipedia. 4 June 2006. 4 June 2006

Shave, David W. Communication Breakdown. St. Louis: Warren H. Green,
Inc., 1975 Quinn, John P. \"How to Avoid Communication Breakdowns.\"
Logistics Management Apr. 2006: 37+. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. UC
Davis, Davis. 22 May 2006. Keyword: Communication Breakdown.

Susan, Wheelan A. \"Facilitating Group Communication.\" The Handbook of
Group Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc, 2005

Tannen, Deborah. That\'s Not What I Meant! New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc., 1986.

Thompson, Donna E., and Laura E. Gooler. \"Capitalizing on the Benefits
of Diversity Through Workteams.\" Managing Diversity. Ed. Ellen E.
Kossek and Sharon A. Lobel. Cambridge: Blackwell Inc., 1996. 392-437.

Thompson, Leigh. Making the Team. Chapter 8: Creativity. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.

Whetton, D., and C Cameron, \"Principles for Managing Meetings.\"
Developing Management Skills. Glenview: Scott, Foresman, 1995. 454-476.

