Verbal Interaction Sequences and Group Mood

Abstract

Employing the framework of emotional contagion, this study investigated the link between group interaction sequences (specifically complaining and interestin-change messages) and group mood. Fifty-two work group discussions from two German industrial enterprises were coded with the act4teams category system (e.g., Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld). Lag sequential analysis revealed complaining as well as interest-in-change cycles in the discussion flow. A two-dimension (arousal and pleasure) rating instrument was developed to assess group mood. Results showed that complaining cycles were linked to a passive group mood, and interest-in-change cycles were correlated with an active group mood. Neither complaining nor interest-in-change cycles were correlated with the pleasure dimension. We discuss theoretical,

Dynamics of Resistance to Change: A Sequential Analysis of Change Agents in Action

“…This results in non-random behavioural patterns during interaction processes (Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995;Kiesler, 1996). Relatedly, research in the area of team interaction has shown that team members mututally trigger or shape each others' behaviours over time, in terms of sequential cycles or patterns of interaction (Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009;Lehmann-Willenbrock et al, 2013;Lehmann-Willenbrock et al, 2011;Stachowski et al, 2009). Although behavioural interaction processes and mutual influences in change agent-recipient interactions are largely unexplored to date, these previous findings suggest that change agents and recipients can trigger each other's behaviour over the course of their conversation, which can either encourage or discourage change.…”

“…Following this notion, we took an interaction analytical approach and applied sequential analysis to shed light on emergent behavioural linkages in agent -recipient interactions. Previous research has successfully applied sequential analysis for exploring micro-level interaction processes in work groups (Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009;Lehmann-Willenbrock et al, 2011). We applied this methodology for pinpointing emergent behavioural dynamics between change agents and recipients.…”

“…In this study, an interaction analytical approach allows us to investigate behavioural interdependencies between change agents and recipients. Interpersonal theory (Kelley et al, 2003;Kiesler, 1996) as well as previous group interaction research (Lehmann-Willenbrock, Meyers, Kauffeld, Neininger, & Henschel, 2011) suggests that change agents' and recipients' behaviours expressed within their conversation flow will dynamically affect one another. Specifically, we explore how specific verbal behaviours by change agents can trigger resistance to change -in terms of sustain talk -in change recipients.…”

Emergent Team Roles in Organizational Meetings: Identifying Communication Patterns via Cluster Analysis

“…In addition, it would be interesting to investigate whether the interactive climate in the team engenders production of certain team roles. Previous research shows that interactive circles emerge in work teams (Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009;Lehmann-Willenbrock et al, 2011). A complaint is typically followed by a supportive statement and then by another complaint.…”

“…A unit was defined as a communicative act that in its context can be understood by another member as equivalent to a single simple sentence (Bales, 1950). Each unit was coded with one of the 44 observation categories of the act4teams coding scheme for meetings (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012;Lehmann-Willenbrock, Meyers, Kauffeld, Neininger, & Henschel, 2011). As depicted in Table 2, this coding scheme identifies four types of team meeting communication: problem-focused, procedural, socioemotional, and action-oriented meeting behaviors.…”