Practices of managing teams and groups contribute to managing communications in the

post-bureaucratic era
"Post-bureaucracy does not mean the end of domination (Herrschaft 2006) but it does mean that
organizations and their management are caught in intrinsically ambiguous democratic
mechanisms". The ambiguities lie in notion that through the shifting paradigms of the postbureaucratic era this had led to a diversified change on both the practices of managing teams and
groups and managing communications.The establishment of teams and groups have been put in
practice since the earliest of times, however the focus is centralized on how over the course of
time these practices of managing the individuals in the teams and groups have changed, in
particular through the forms of communications, including freedom of speech within the
workplace and rhetoric language amongst employers and employees. In order to delve into the
aspects of changing practices in teams and groups and how this has in turn directly affected the
management of communication.
Whilst there is minor distinctions between the terms "team" and "group", both terms centralize
on the notion of two or more people working together , sharing and bearing responsibility to
arrive at a common ground ; that is achieving the goal. The post-bureaucratic era has given rise
to technological innovations as well as re-shaping and re-defining individuals and how they
functions in teams and groups. With the rise in technology this has led to a radical change in
managing communications amongst these teams and groups as individuals are able to utilise
technology for "expressive" purposes. This in turn creates a dynamic change in the "landscape of
free expression in and around the workforce" (Balkin 2004) through factors such as online
communication. However it is evident that whilst technology has opened the door for free
expression, it is still very limited amongst individuals in teams and groups in the workforce. This
notion is reiterated Bruce Barry when he gives examples of individuals being fired from
workplace for conducting actions that involve "expressive behavior and verbal of symbolic
action". Workplace freedom of expression is defined as "freedom to speak out or at or about the
workplace free from the threat of discharge" (Estlund 2000). Whilst in post-bureaucratic era
there has been a push for expression of speech in response to seek relief against serious issues
such as race, sex and religion inequality around the workforce, instead I find it quite interesting
that individuals within these teams and groups are forced to subdue their personal expression of
speech in the fear of loosing their jobs for voicing their beliefs. By stripping away the individuals
ability to be diverse through forms of expressive speech managers are basically hindering the
individuals individuality to express their skills work to the best of their ability (Graham sewell
2001) as their most powerful instrument; their voice is confiscated.
Group dynamics have been a catalyst for the changing practices of managing teams and groups
with managers coming to the realization of how underlying attitudes, perceptions and behavior of
groups determine the success of the organization (Knowles & Knowles 1972). Individuals are
now able to view their "contributions to the group as enduring over time" (Katz & Kahn
1978:374), it is important that the individuals feel a sense of belonging to their environment and

to their team and group. Similarly this concept is explored in the bona fide group perspective
which focuses on how the internal communications that individuals partake in ultimately affects
the external environments in which a team or group facilities. It is vital that managers realize the
importance of managing the environment in teams and groups, a toxic environment can lead to
disintegration between members of the team where relationships amongst individuals can
become deterred.It has been shown that teams with a greater awareness to the external
environment had higher performance ratings over time (Ancona 1990). Communication between
employer and employees has been vital in ensuring competence within the organisation. The post
bureaucratic era has given rise to a different approach of rhetoric persuasion. Rhetorical
processes directly link to "how we communicate with others and how human beings think". This
is further reiterated by McCloskey who states "figures of speech are not mere frills, they think
for us", I interpreted this linking this back to individuals in teams and groups as the manner in
which individuals coerced in persuasive language was not only utilised to persuade their peers,
but also themselves. Similarly this is reflected in the concept of rhetoric fencing whereby
individuals argue against each other as well as "debating with themselves" (Watson 1995).
Reworking of Rhetoric schemes is evident in the contrastingly approaches from ancient scholars
such as Aristotle and Cicero, who focused on persuasive forms of arguments. The postbureaucratic era has led to a diversified approach to rhetoric language, this is highlighted in the
"ZTC management" an organisation which advocated "cultural change" embracing principles
and practices involving participative and teamwork based approach to decision making and
problem solving through communication. In his analysis of communication between an employer
and employee conversing , Watson suggested "possible interpretations as a means towards
highlighting a social process aspect of mundane organisation conversations. The cultural change
is evident as the two men delve into linguistic language as evident through "just a quickie", this
colloquial language is understand and shared within this organisation as they share a culture.
Instead of adopting old practices from ancient scholars focusing on persuasive language, instead
the employer in this scenario takes a "laid back" approach, allowing for the "interplay between
communicative and cognitive processes. By allowing his employee to both speak and think, he
utilises the communicative rhetoric device allowing the employee to reach his own decision. As
(Mangham 1995) states "organisations are created, sustained and changed through talk", here it is
evident how vital it is to deploy language in a context where individuals in teams and groups feel
as if they have reached a decision without feeling like it was forced upon them by the employer.
The changes in managing teams and group practices have ensures that issues such as "task
conflicts can trigger negative attributions among individuals motives and abilities" (Smith,D.M
& Edmondson, A.C 2006), this in turn can turn individuals against each other and hinder the
team from working at optimum efficiency. Contrastingly as argued by Bales there is occasionally
a need for dramatizing communications in groups, not for the purpose of personally attacking
individuals but instead to create social reality. Whilst negativity towards individuals should not
be condoned, negativity in the form of constructive criticism ensures that the team are able to
acknowledge their weaknesses and move forward together as a team.(Bales 1970). This concept

is reflected in the notion of "Parrhesia" which "demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of
some danger", this advocates embracing the function of criticism, which can involve criticism of
individuals within teams and groups as well as employers in the organisation .Contrastingly
Gavin Jack (2004) who state that some individuals in teams and groups feel restricted as they
cannot communicate truths as they fear this will upset people. This hinders freedom of speech
which in turn does not allow individuals to uncover and act upon societies injustices which may
occur in their organisation. However with this being said It is important to understand that
freedom of expression is only made possible by restriction; "without restriction and without an
inbuilt sense of what it would be meaningless to say or wrong to say, there could be no assertion
and no reason for asserting it" (Stanley Fisher). Here it is evident that communication amongst
individuals in teams and groups should have perimeters, to ensure that voicing of expression
only enhances and moves the organisation forward.This is why there is now a focus on building
resilience within teams, this is achieved through individuals becoming aware of the importance
of emotional intelligence and learning how to effectively overcome and withstand conflict within
the team in order to "gain a deeper understanding of business issues and each other".(Smith,D.M
& Edmondson, A.C 2006) What this does is creates an identity within the organisation for the
individuals in the teams and groups. The post-bureaucratic era has given way to "fragmented"
identity within the organisation, that is ; "notion of singular organisational identity", this is
further reiterated through the orthodox perspective which reinforces "assertion of specific
stakeholders of singular organisational identity" focusing on the notion of shared representation.
Whilst this uniform concept of organisational identity ensures reduction of conflict it calls to
question the deviation of commitment within individuals of teams and groups.
Management of communication within the context of teams and groups in the post-bureaucratic
era has led to progressive notions of free speech as a basis for critique. "Critique and social
change might be better served by actions of fearless speech" (Jack 2004). Here Jack highlights
how fearless speech ; "courage to speak to power in face of personal danger and out of strong
sense of moral duty" can insure that individuals within teams and groups feel as if they can stand
up for what they believe in. Communication within the workforce is vital for optimal efficiency
for the organisation, however it is evident that at time individuals do not feel safe to voice their
opinion for the fear of retribution of speaking the truth.Whilst the post-bureaucratic era has led to
encouragement of freedom of speech , as speech was seen as a key instrument for power and
persuasion amongst peers, it is vital that freedom of speech is not abused instead it should accede
in times of conflict and contestation.
In conclusion it is evident that the management of communication within teams and groups has
radically changed in the post-bureaucratic era. With high demand for expression of speech ,
comes the communicative consequences of advocating ones thoughts and the implications this
may cause to the organisation. Although there has been a push for freedom of speech within
recent decades, there is still a limit on how individuals within these workplace can communicate
their personal beliefs. Managing communication becomes successful when both employers and

employees grasp the understanding that communication in form of speech, rhetoric language and
dialogue becomes necessary for a cohesive organisation which is built upon various expressions
of beliefs.
References
Balkin, J. M. 2004. Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression
for the information society. New York University Law Review, 79: 1-58.
Estlund, C. L. 2000. Working together: The workplace, civil society, and the law. Georgetown
Law Journal, 89: 1-95.
Watson T.J 1994b "Managing crafting and researching words, skills and imagination in shaping
management research. British journal of mamangement 5:77-87
Ancona, D (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. The
Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334-365
Bales,R.F & Cohen,S.P (1979). SYMLOG : A system for the multilevel observation of groups.
New York: Free Press
Smith, D.M & Edmondson, A.C 2006, "Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship conflict",
California Management Review, Vol.49, no. 1 pp 6-31
Falcone, P. 1999. A legal dichotomy? HR Magazine, 44(5): 110-120

Part 2 : reflective response

The feedback that I received from my tutor indicated to me that whilst I was on the right track,
there was still a need for plenty of improvement. My tutor commented on how whilst I had
interesting discussion around teams and groups, what I failed to do was back up the information
and apply critical analysis to my essay. Instead of analyzing the text and readings I was more so
just describing them and loosely linking it back to the question. Obviously this feedback was
very useful for me in going forward and writing my second essay, after re-reading my first essay
I could see where my tutor was coming from, there were areas where I needed to support what I
was saying whilst also at the same time implementing my own thoughts into my argument. For
this second essay I feel like I have tried more to input my opinion into certain issues, attempting
to critically anaylse how management of communications in teams and groups has changed in
the post-bureaucratic era. Whilst sourcing many references, I also wanted to make sure that I
explain myself a bit better, instead of just chucking in slabs of quotes, I made sure they were
relevant to my argument and supported my thesis.