Name: Mariane Mel Fariñas Instructor: Sir Genesis Damaso

Year & Section: AB English 3 Subject: CMC

TASK 4: Challenges of Group Communication in CMC
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has revolutionized the way groups interact,
making it possible to collaborate across geographical boundaries and time zones.
Platforms such as email, instant messaging, video conferencing, and collaborative
documents have become central to teamwork in both professional and academic
contexts. However, despite its many advantages, CMC introduces new challenges, with
miscommunication being one of the most significant. This paper explores the causes
and consequences of miscommunication in CMC, examines its impact on group work,
and proposes strategies to overcome this challenge, drawing on academic research and
real-world examples.
Causes of Miscommunication in CMC
Miscommunication in CMC often arises from the absence of non-verbal cues, ambiguity
in written language, and the asynchronous nature of many digital platforms. Unlike face-
to-face communication, where tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures help
clarify meaning, CMC relies heavily on text, which can easily be misinterpreted (Walther,
1996). For example, a brief message intended to be efficient may come across as curt
or unfriendly, leading to misunderstandings among group members.
Ambiguity is further compounded by the lack of immediate feedback. In face-to-face
conversations, participants can quickly ask for clarification or adjust their message
based on the listener’s reaction. In CMC, especially in asynchronous formats like email
or discussion boards, delays in response can cause confusion or result in parallel
conversations that drift off-topic (Kock, 2005). Moreover, cultural differences and varying
levels of digital literacy can increase the risk of miscommunication, as group members
may interpret messages differently or use unfamiliar jargon (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005).
Impact on Group Communication and Collaboration
The consequences of miscommunication in CMC can be significant. Misunderstandings
may lead to duplicated efforts, missed deadlines, or even conflict within the group.
When team members are unsure about their roles or the status of a project, productivity
suffers and frustration increases. Research shows that the lack of non-verbal cues in
CMC can make it harder to build trust and rapport, which are essential for effective
teamwork (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).
Miscommunication can also hinder decision-making. For example, if group members
interpret instructions differently, the team may struggle to reach consensus or produce
coherent outcomes. In some cases, unresolved misunderstandings can escalate into
interpersonal conflict, further disrupting group dynamics (Walther, 2011). In educational
settings, students working on group assignments via CMC platforms often report
confusion about expectations and uneven participation, both of which stem from unclear
communication (Lowry et al., 2006).
Strategies to Overcome Miscommunication
Despite these challenges, there are effective strategies that groups can use to minimize
miscommunication in CMC. One key approach is to establish clear communication
norms at the outset of a project. This includes agreeing on preferred platforms,
response times, and guidelines for message clarity. For instance, teams can use bullet
points, headings, and summaries to make written communication more structured and
easier to understand (Kock, 2005).
Regular check-ins and synchronous meetings, such as video calls, can help clarify
ambiguous points and provide opportunities for immediate feedback. Video
conferencing partially restores non-verbal cues, making it easier to detect confusion or
disagreement (Walther, 2011). When possible, teams should use video or voice calls for
complex or sensitive discussions, reserving text-based communication for
straightforward updates and documentation.
Another effective strategy is to encourage active listening and confirmation. Group
members can paraphrase instructions or decisions to ensure mutual understanding. For
example, after a meeting, one member can summarize action items and circulate them
to the group for confirmation. This practice, known as “closed-loop communication,”
helps catch misunderstandings before they affect the project (Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999).
Finally, fostering a culture of openness and psychological safety is crucial. Team
members should feel comfortable asking for clarification or expressing uncertainty
without fear of judgment. Leaders can model this behavior by admitting when they are
unsure and inviting questions from the group (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005).
Real-World Example
A recent group project in an online university course illustrates these challenges and
solutions. The team, spread across three time zones, initially relied on email and a
shared Google Doc for communication. Misunderstandings about deadlines and task
assignments led to duplicated work and frustration. After recognizing the problem, the
group began holding weekly video meetings to clarify expectations and used a shared
task list to track progress. As a result, communication improved, and the team
completed the project successfully.
Miscommunication is a common and challenging aspect of group work in computer-
mediated environments. It stems from the absence of non-verbal cues, ambiguity in
written language, and delays in feedback. However, by establishing clear
communication norms, using synchronous tools for complex discussions, confirming
understanding, and fostering an open team culture, groups can overcome these
obstacles. As CMC continues to shape the future of teamwork, developing strong digital
communication skills will be essential for success.
References
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically
distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and
spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290-
307. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual
teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological
communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication
tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 117-
130. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2005.849650
Lowry, P. B., Romano, N. C., Jenkins, J. L., & Guthrie, R. W. (2006). The CMC
interactivity model: How interactivity enhances communication quality and process
satisfaction in lean-media groups. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(4),
153-176. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222220407
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-
43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001