Angelique Santamaria Class Presentation Blogs #1

 Looking back at the chapters and presentations we covered in class, it is clear to me how much human communication depends on the context we are in. Whether we are trying to navigate a completely different culture or just trying to get a group project done with our classmates without losing our minds, communication isn't just about the words we say. It’s about understanding the hidden rules of the room. Reflecting on these chapters really made me look at my own communication habits and how I function in a team.

When my group got together to review Intercultural Communication, it really hit home for me how much our background dictates what we consider "normal." To me, culture is basically an unwritten rulebook we carry around that tells us what is right, wrong, fair, or unfair. One thing that really stood out to me during our preparation was the difference between ideal values and real values. It made me realize that we all like to say we value certain things, like total equality, fitness, or perfect honesty, but our real values—the ones that actually dictate how we act when nobody is looking—can be totally different. When we talk about intercultural communication, I used to think it just meant traveling to a different country and dealing with culture shock. But as we broke down the presentation, I realized it happens right here in our own neighborhoods. We live in a society with a dominant culture, which represents the norms held by the majority or most empowered group, but we all belong to various co-cultures based on our generation, ethnicity, religion, or even our hobbies. I notice myself code-switching all the time, changing the way I talk, my slang, and my body language when I'm hanging out with my friends versus when I'm pitching a presentation to a professor or talking to my boss. It’s like being a cultural chameleon just to fit in, which shows how fluid our cultural identity really is.

Looking at how different cultures operate opened my eyes to why some of my group projects in the past felt so chaotic. It isn't always that people are being difficult; sometimes we just have completely different cultural dimensions. For instance, I definitely lean toward wanting individual credit for my work and personal independence, which is typical of an individualistic mindset, but I see the value in collectivist minds who care more about group harmony and the shared goals of the whole team. I also personally prefer low-context, direct communication where people just tell me exactly what they want, but I have to remind myself that some people come from high-context backgrounds where they rely heavily on nonverbal cues, social status, and reading between the lines. Time orientation, or chronemics, is another area where I notice major differences. I am fiercely monochronic, meaning I view time as a scarce resource where schedules are law and being late is disrespectful. Seeing that polychronic cultures view time as fluid and prioritize relationships over strict clocks helped me become a little more patient with people who don't live by their planners. I also notice that some people have high uncertainty avoidance and need rigid rules and step-by-step instructions to feel comfortable, whereas I am okay with a little unpredictability and low uncertainty avoidance, which helps me adapt when a project changes at the last minute. Furthermore, in low power-distance environments like our classroom, I feel comfortable questioning authority and treating everyone as equals, but I respect that others come from high power-distance backgrounds where respecting a strict hierarchy and centralized authority is deeply ingrained. When it comes to masculine versus feminine orientations, I think a healthy balance is best; masculine orientations emphasize competition and material success, but we desperately need feminine orientations that prioritize relationships, cooperation, and empathy to keep a group from tearing itself apart. Finally, while I often look for immediate results in a short-term orientation, this class taught me the value of a long-term orientation, which focuses on persistence, thrift, and looking at the big picture for future rewards.

If I am being totally honest, it is easy to fall into the trap of ethnocentrism, which is subconsciously believing that the way my culture does things is the only correct way and everyone else is just doing it wrong. Our group presentation highlighted that stereotyping, assuming everyone in a group acts the same, and having incompatible communication codes or norms are major barriers to success. Moving forward, I want to practice more intercultural empathy by actively stepping out of my own shoes to imaginatively place myself in someone else’s cultural world to understand where they are coming from.

Moving from culture into group dynamics felt like a natural transition because every small group develops its own mini-culture. We have all been in groups that felt like a cohesive dream, and others that felt like an absolute nightmare. To me, a true group isn't just a random bunch of people thrown together; it requires a sense of mutual belonging and a shared purpose. I learned that groups take many shapes, from our families, which can have protective communication patterns where authority figures make all the rules or consensual patterns where issues are openly discussed, to social, support, service, and interest groups. Because so much of our world is digital now, I’ve had to do a lot of work in virtual groups. I’ve learned the hard way that asynchronous communication, like text threads or email chains where there is a time delay, requires a lot of strict netiquette because it is incredibly easy to misinterpret someone's tone when you can't see their face or hear their voice in real-time.

For a group to be healthy, the magic ingredient is interdependence, meaning that if one person slacks off, the whole ship sinks. We have to set clear ground rules and hold each other to a high standard of accountability. When a team actually hits its stride and builds genuine cohesiveness—often through shared struggles or team-building activities—you get synergy. That is that awesome, rare feeling where the final project turns out way better than anything any of us could have written working completely alone. I also completely relate to the classic stages of group development. First comes forming, where we are all awkwardly polite, cautious, and testing the waters. Then comes storming, where personalities inevitably clash, power struggles emerge, and people fight over ideas. I've realized that during this storming stage, you have to watch out for groupthink, which happens when people get so scared of conflict that they prematurely suppress their dissenting opinions just to maintain surface harmony, leading to terrible decisions. If you survive that, you reach norming, where conflicts are finally resolved, norms are solidified, and our collaborative structure is locked in. This leads directly to performing, which is the peak operational stage where energy is focused entirely on task execution and generating quality deliverables, before finally reaching adjourning or transforming, where the group either dismantles or transitions to a brand new goal.

I used to think all conflict was bad, but our class discussions changed my mind. Issue-related conflict is actually healthy because it means we are actively debating ideas, facts, and strategies to find the best option. The real killer is personality-related conflict, where group members become defensive because they feel personally attacked. In the future, if my group gets into a fight, I’m going to try to actively steer the conversation away from personal digs and reframe it into an issue-related problem we can solve objectively.

The final puzzle piece to all of this is leadership. I used to think a leader was just the person with the official title, known as the formal leader. But I’ve realized that some of the best leadership comes from informal emergent leaders, the people who naturally step up to fulfill critical tasks when things go off the rails. I really appreciate the concept of shared leadership, which suggests a healthy group doesn't rely on one single boss. Instead, different people fulfill different roles based on their unique strengths. For example, task leadership roles help the group acquire, process, and evaluate information to directly complete the project, which is an area I see myself doing well in. I also like logistics, so I can see myself handling procedural leadership roles like setting an agenda, keeping track of the time, and acting as an expediter to keep us moving forward. However, I know I need to work more on maintenance leadership roles, like being the harmonizer or encourager, to make sure everyone feels supported, manage interpersonal friction, and keep team morale high.

When it comes to making group decisions, using a structured system is the only way to avoid wasting hours talking in circles. The six-step systematic problem-solving process makes total sense to me. First, you have to identify and define the problem clearly, framing the issue as a question of fact, a question of value, or a question of policy. Next, you analyze the problem by looking at its history, causes, and effects. Third, you must determine criteria for evaluating solutions, agreeing upon strict constraints like budgets and timelines before picking a solution. Fourth comes generating alternative solutions through unrestricted brainstorming, a fast-paced technique where we throw out creative ideas without any immediate criticism allowed. Fifth, you evaluate those options against your original criteria and select the best solution via consensus or voting, and finally, you implement and evaluate the plan to track its real-world effectiveness.

Looking at all the different types of deliverables we can produce—from short oral briefs and written briefs to massive comprehensive reports, panel discussions, or symposiums—I understand why presentation skills matter so much. You can have the smartest solution in the world, but if you can't package it into a clean executive summary or present it professionally via a remote access report or streaming video, your ideas won't matter. Ultimately, groups only improve over time through regular practice and honest evaluation. Whether we use peer and self-assessments to grade our individual tasks or write a reflective thinking process paper to look back at our growth, self-reflection is key. These chapters taught me that communication is an active skill, not a passive one. Whether I am interacting with someone from a completely different walk of life, trying to prevent groupthink during a project, or helping guide a team through systematic problem solving, I have to be intentional. I need to listen better, understand my own cultural biases, embrace healthy conflict, and share leadership responsibilities. This course material isn't just stuff to memorize for a test—it is a literal blueprint for how I want to operate in my future career and my everyday life.