I’ve been working hard (or hardly working! LOL ROLF) on what to research for my dissertation, which is part of the reason I have not been posting here. I have been kicking around two ideas, and after talking it over with some smart people I think I’m headed in the right direction. Here’s a one-page synopsis I submitted to my advisor. Tell me if you think it’s interesting.
Summary – In a nutshell: how do teams communicate (or communicate effectively) during simulations and timeouts? Certain teams, like fire crews and military units, treat time differently because there are no “do-overs” if they make a mistake. They have two unique phases in their process: 1) simulation, in which they spend hours trying to mimic the actions and communication of real-life events, and 2) reordination, or “timeouts,” in which they pause high-risk activity to communicate about their progress.
Teams of interest – military, public service (firefighters, search + rescue), crime (S.W.A.T., police), medical (surgical units, EMTs), sports, performance art (orchestras, bands, live action).
Background – Action teams are those that conduct complex activities in time-constrained periods with audiences, adversaries, and/or challenging environments (Sundstrom, 1999). This categorization includes teams with much at stake, including police squads, military units, and surgical units; however, action teams have generally been understudied in communication research (Nielsen, Sundstrom, and Halfhill, 2005).
Focus – Because of their unique relationship to time, action teams have different phase models than others. I have proposed the nested phase framework to better understand the way in which action teams work (Ishak, 2009). This framework has four phases: coordination, simulation (practice), production and reordination (the “timeout”). Two of these phases are of particular interest here. First, let us look at the simulation phase. In addition to conducting complex activitives in time-constrained periods, there is an element of finality—the actions taken during the time-constrained period (the production phase) cannot be taken back or redone. Imagine a military bomb squad in Iraq; if they are unsuccessful, they cannot ask for a redo or bring anyone back to life. Therefore, the simulation phase takes on added importance because teams must perfect their actions before the “real thing”. The second phase which requires additional attention is the reordination phase. The best example of reordination is the “timeout” in during sporting events. When a timeout occurs, teams generally group together and communicate how to 1) recalibrate their efforts onto a previously-discussed trajectory, or 2) readjust their direction onto a different trajectory. Timeouts are crucial to action teams because they must happen on the fly and they must work quickly.
Questions – How do action teams communicate during simulations and “timeouts”? On a wider scale, how do the organizations which house action teams structure communication during simulation and reordination phases? Do action teams simulate reordination phases? Is it possible to truly simulate communication of complex activities that occur during time-constrained periods?
Sources
Ishak, A. W. (2009, November). A nested phase framework for action teams. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Nielsen, T. M., Sundstrom, E. D., & Halfhill, T. R. (2005). Group dynamics and effectiveness: Five years of applied research. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 285-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance (pp. 3-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.