Schuman S. - The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation (2005)(en)

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROUP COMMUNICATION

The following conceptualization provides a comprehensive scheme for understanding group decision-making communication. The schema provides a basis for examining the task and relational attributes of a process design that can aid in identifying the task and relational communication needs for group decision-making procedures.

Group decision making, among other types of social gatherings, operates at four nested levels that can help in selecting and monitoring process design procedures: the event, activity, episode, and act (see Exhibit 9.1). The event level is the social gathering for the purpose of communicating to make decisions: the meeting. Activities are phases or steps designed to organize the task and support constructive member relationships. The episode level involves the specific types of activity message behaviors (for example, idea generating and solution evaluation) to fulfill selected decision-making activities in a manner that promotes participation and productive relational outcomes. The act level involves the specific message behaviors that enact the task messages in a relationally supportive and confirming manner.

Exhibit 9.1

Procedural Communication Levels of Analysis

Event – Decision-Making Meeting

Activity – Decision-Making Steps

Episode – Types of Activity Messages

Act – Specific Message Behaviors

Event Level of Group Communication

The first level of analysis for selecting a process design or procedures to maximize effective group decision making requires assessing the task demands and the relational circumstances of the group. The facilitator needs to know the purpose and goals of the meeting, number of participants, decision background, information needs, and task complexity. From a relational perspective, the facilitator needs to know the group’s history, participation norms, communication climate (defensiveness, cohesiveness, morale, or commitment, for example), and intergroup or organizational issues such as social conformity pressures, competition, power relations, or cultural diversity. This front-end analysis will help a facilitator discern the group’s task and relational needs to aid in selecting a procedural intervention appropriate for the meeting and group culture (Chilberg and Riley, 1995).

Activity Level of Group Communication

The event-level analysis establishes the nature and requirements of facilitation to achieve the goal of decision making and the relational status of the group and its members. It provides a basis from which the facilitator can identify or create the types of activities to optimize effective task and relational results. From the task perspective, activities establish a sequence of focused communication to accomplish decision-making tasks: goal setting, decision and problem analyzing, idea generating, idea evaluating, and choice making. The procedures for each activity can incorporate relation-building practices that promote involvement, equal participation, consensus, and creativity, all of which can contribute to task effectiveness while enhancing individual and group satisfaction.

Episode Level of Group Communication

Each activity may involve one or more communication episodes to operationalize the activity. The episode level involves the specific types of message behaviors that are required to enact a specific activity or fulfill a technique used for decision making. That is, episode communication involves task messages that either give or seek instruction, ideas, information, judgments, or choices. For example, a solution assessment activity may have two episodes, identifying the merits of a choice followed by an episode to identify and ideas to improve a choice. The relationship aspect of episode communication can support broad participation and coordinate interaction in ways that lead to creative ideas, high levels of participation, and group

satisfaction. For instance, a more coordinated and noninteractive approach to generating and sharing ideas used in the nominal group technique can enhance the diversity and creativity of ideas while promoting involvement and the equalization of participation. In contrast, episodes characterized by open or free discussion have been found to undermine participation, task performance, decision quality, and member satisfaction (see Fox, 1987; Sunwolf and Seibold, 1999).

Act Level of Procedural Communication

It is at the act level that the facilitator completes a communication analysis of a process design. Specific message behaviors are required to enact the task and relational dimensions of an episode. The typical task message behaviors associated with episodes are to describe, explain and elaborate, evaluate (pros and cons), and support (reasons and evidence). Message behaviors to enact constructive relational outcomes are typified by supportive and confirming message behaviors (Gibb, 1961; Sieberg, 1976). For instance, having members participate in an evaluation episode using proactive descriptive language to phrase negative judgments (that is, what they would like to see or wish for) may improve the initial idea and minimize defensive reactions. Such approaches to evaluation can also enhance the solution advocates’ feeling of inclusion and contribution while supporting group morale and satisfaction.

Using the Four Levels

The analysis of group process needs using the four levels of procedural communication offers a comprehensive way to identify, plan, and implement facilitative interventions. The event and activity levels provide a macro analysis that then set up the microlevel analysis necessary for the episode and act levels. These levels can then be reviewed for their task and relational fit with the event and the individual and interpersonal needs of the group (see Exhibit 9.2). The identification of activities, episodes, and acts can (1) provide the facilitator with a way to critically develop, plan, and implement processes, keeping in mind both the task and relational aspects of group decision making; (2) aid in instructing and guiding group members in expected message behaviors for activity episodes; (3) provide the facilitator with a way to monitor members’ acts for compliance with an episode activity; and (4) help the facilitator detect task or relational problems while facilitating a group.

Exhibit 9.2

Procedural Levels of Group Decision-Making Communication

PROCEDURAL COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS OF PROCESS DESIGNS: THREE EXAMPLES

The most common problems associated with decision-making meetings are directly related to communication practices that limit or obstruct member participation and minimize or neglect the treatment of matters that enhance the quality of decisions. The use of open or free discussion approaches to group decision-making poses a recognized problem to promoting member participation (see Fox, 1987; Sunwolf and Seibold, 1999) and critical treatment of decision-making communication (see Hirokawa and Salazar, 1999). The process designs selected for this analysis were developed to minimize these problems by providing procedures that support participation and focus communication on the requirements of critical, effective decision making. They do so by establishing meeting procedures, norms, and rules to establish and guide who can say what, and when, during decisionmaking communication. (See Chilberg, 1989, on the degree to which process designs vary in terms of controlling meeting communication behaviors.) The procedures and rules are typically organized in steps or sequences of activities that involve one or more episodes that establish opportunities for communication acts appropriate to the task and development of productive member relationships.

Using three distinctly different process designs developed for decision-making meetings—interaction method, the nominal group technique, and synectics—the following analysis will identify the task and relational dimensions of each of the four levels of procedural communication.

Interaction Method for Conducting Meetings

The interaction method developed by Michael Doyle and David Straus (1976) was designed to promote effective group meetings by designing several rules for preventing communication-based problems and four meeting roles to enact the process design. The method was developed to arrest problems commonly observed across a variety of groups and meetings: the wandering discussion, inappropriate discussion procedures, obstructions to participation and consensus, and ineffective information management. Although Doyle and Straus’s work covered numerous issues relevant to effective meeting facilitation, these problems were central to the process design.

Process Design Overview The interaction method process designates four roles to prevent the typical meeting problems; the facilitator, the recorder, member,

and member/manager. The facilitator’s job entails having members identify and maintain a discussion focus that includes a desired outcome. In addition, the facilitator makes sure all members have an opportunity to participate in discussion and weigh in on all decisions concerned with selecting the focus, focus procedures, and substantive decisions. Consensus decision making is recommended for all decisions unless the group decides otherwise (for example, to use majority voting), and a “no-attack rule” is enforced to promote participation and prevent “flight-or- fight” meeting behaviors. The designated recorder manages meeting information by providing a group memory that visually displays before the group the meeting foci, information, and outcomes. This practice supports maintaining foci and procedures, provides access to meeting information and a meeting record for future reference, and allows meeting participants and the facilitator to concentrate on the business of the meeting.

The members and manager/member are responsible for following the process rules and together have control of meeting content. They are also responsible for seeing that the facilitator and recorder perform their duties and maintain their roles as neutral third parties unless members agree to permit them to offer content or procedural suggestions. The manager/member may establish meeting goals and provide substantive guidelines or constraints for decision making. Otherwise, the manager/member is treated as any other participant and held to the same process rules.

Procedural Communication Analysis At the event level, the process design is meant to address the most common problems of meetings: member involvement and participation. Meetings are notorious for uneven participation (see Fox, 1987; Sunwolf and Seibold, 1999) and ineffective and inefficient practices that have a negative impact on meeting communication and undermine decision quality and member satisfactions. Jensen and Chilberg (1991) derived four rules to operationalize the procedural guidelines of the interaction method; the focus rule, tool rule, consensus rule, and the no-attack rule.

The focus rule requires that members establish and state a focus for discussion that establishes the topic, purpose, and desired result or outcome. Topical agenda items tend to include numerous issues that are hidden or not recognized, thus leading to discussion that wanders (Doyle and Straus, 1976). For example, “discussion of fundraising” is too general and open-ended, whereas a procedural agenda item such as “generate a list of fundraising ideas” is more definitive and directive. The

former could allow all sorts of messages on fundraising, whereas the latter would limit discussion to ideas for fundraising and require making a list in some manner. The focus rule can help a group recognize that a decision goal may involve numerous foci. For example, a discussion on fundraising ideas can be separated into generating ideas, selecting a few promising ideas, judging the pros and cons of each selected idea, and deciding on the most promising idea, among others. The focus rule can aid groups in effective, critical decision making by decomposing complex agenda items that have numerous distinct but related procedural tasks and establishing the desired result for each. Task process effectiveness may also contribute to group satisfaction by reducing the frustration created from cross-task communication where no task gets critical or thorough treatment.

Meeting events that involve complex tasks and open discussions that become unproductive and dissatisfying are candidates for the focus rule. The first activity is to establish the first focus. This activity requires the facilitator to guide two episodes: soliciting ideas on foci and choosing a focus. The soliciting episode would require acts that produce ideas comprising a clear topic, purpose, and desired outcome. The choosing episode would require acts of narrowing choices, explanation, evaluating, and supporting (for example, reasoning, pros and cons, and evidence).

Although the interaction method provides a clear and useful guideline to support effective decision making, it leaves some implementation details up to the facilitator. A facilitator’s effectiveness could be enhanced by recognizing what episodes and acts are involved in conducting the focus activity. A facilitator of a group that is contentious, diverse, faced with complex tasks, and accustomed to unbridled discussion could establish more elaborate rules. For example, when soliciting ideas for a focus, the facilitator could require a brief rationale for the focus or list all foci followed by seeking members’ needs for elaboration, followed by pros and cons for first choice preferences.

The focus rule sets up the second rule and activity of the process design, the tool rule. This rule asks group members to consider the best way to handle a focus and implicitly questions the tendency and efficacy of open discussion for all and any foci. It is a procedural rule that poses some requirements on the communication practices appropriate for conducting the focus. For example, if the focus establishes that an outcome will be a list of ideas, the selected procedure must attend to it in some manner. The interaction method leaves this decision to the group and offers the facilitator an opportunity to make a recommendation. This poses an opportunity to address the participatory and relational circumstances of the group

by advocating procedures that incorporate activities to increase participation, reduce domination, or ease tension. The tool rule activity is similar to the focus rule activity in that it requires idea seeking and giving and idea selection episodes. The acts needed for both of these episodes would be similar to those identified for the focus rule, with one exception: tools could require an instructional episode involving explanatory acts to instruct members on the required activities, episodes, and acts to use the tool. For instance, the facilitator could suggest a comprehensive approach to a decision-making task, such as nominal group technique, which has its own set of activities, episodes, and acts, or recommend a timed round robin to attain a quick sense of members’ opinions on decision options. In concert with the focus rule, the tool rule can enhance task effectiveness by resulting in the selection of practices that promote more critical and thorough decision-making activities. It offers relational payoffs by avoiding the participatory liabilities of an inappropriate use of open discussion while choosing practices that can support diverse and equitable participation.

The last two rules of the interaction method, the consensus and no-attack rules, further member participation by promoting involvement, commitment, and sense of collective action. The consensus rule is implemented when there is a choicemaking situation (including the focus and tool selection choices). It is intended to keep the group together and prevent domineering members from hijacking the meeting. Where decision options are already established from previous episodes, the consensus rule enacts a judgment and choosing episode. The facilitator engages the group in consensus decision making by having members engage in evaluative and supporting acts of communication over preferred options. Members are asked to agree to a choice only if they can genuinely accept or live with it. In addition, the no-attack rule asks members to avoid personal criticism and permits the facilitator to remind members when they do. This reinforces the importance of a positive, confirming relational communication, and reinforces a constructive and productive communication climate.

Nominal Group Technique for Idea Generating

Process Design Overview André Delbecq and Andrew Van de Ven (1986) developed this process design to aid groups in idea generation and consensus. It is suited for meeting events where collective involvement is needed to identify problems and solutions among members who vary in personal interests, expertise, culture, and ideology (Ulschak, Nathanson, and Gillan, 1981). Research indicates

that nominal approaches to idea generating outperform interactive approaches in the quantity and quality of ideas. Nominal group technique (NGT) is most helpful in situations where social pressure, evaluation, or social loafing hinders idea generation, creative thinking, task emphasis, and participation (Sunwolf and Seibold, 1999).

Procedural Communication Analysis At the activity level of procedural communication, NGT emphasizes individual work and minimizes interaction through six major steps: silent idea generating, round robin reporting, discussion for clarification, ranking by importance, and repeating the last two steps to finalize a decision choice (Ulschak, Nathanson, and Gillan, 1981). Each step requires instructional episodes followed by the requisite activity episodes. From the communication perspective offered here, NGT has two main activities: idea generating and idea selection. The idea-generating activity has three episodes: silent idea generation, idea giving, and soliciting clarification. The first episode requires members to write short statements on the session focus (for example, identify problems with X or solutions to problem Y). This is followed by an idea-giving episode using a round robin technique where members take turns presenting one idea at a time until all ideas are recorded verbatim by the facilitator. Members are invited to silently hitchhike on others’ ideas and report them at the end of the round robin.

This episode is characterized by descriptive acts. Members are not to explain or evaluate, just report. The discussion and clarification of ideas is held off until the information-seeking episode. From a task perspective, these episodes contribute to maximizing the quantity and diversity of ideas by preventing the loss of ideas due to premature discussion or evaluation. From a relational perspective, these episodes promote personal and collective ownership of the decision-making event and reinforce constructive member relationships through equalizing member participation, emphasizing supportive acts, coordinating interaction, and encouraging members to build on each other’s ideas.

The information-seeking episode for idea clarification is the only time when members interact. The facilitator reviews each idea one at a time and asks participants “to ask one another the meaning of words and phrases. . . . Discussion can and should convey the meaning, logic, and thought behind an idea” (Ulschak, Nathanson, and Gillan, 1981, p. 87). Discussion is to focus on seeking clarification; thus, communication acts are descriptive and explanatory—evaluative acts are not permitted. The clarification episode directs interaction toward descriptive and

explanatory acts, thus minimizing the potential for ideational or interpersonal conflict while emphasizing clarity and understanding.

The next step of NGT is an idea selection activity requiring members to engage in a silent evaluation episode by rank-ordering a specified number of ideas based on importance or preference. The silent ranking is meant to promote independent judgments by reducing social pressures (Ulschak, Nathanson, and Gillan, 1981). Once this step is completed, the ranked ideas are listed on a master chart for review. The remaining steps of NGT can be implemented if the ranking episode reveals inconsistencies, ambiguous consensus, or preferences for a questionable option. A second round of discussion similar to the clarification-seeking episode can be conducted to ensure the initial ranking was not due to misunderstandings or incomplete information. A final round of ranking follows.

The main communication features of NGT are its emphasis on pooling individual ideas, limiting interaction to descriptive and explanatory acts, and sharing personal choices. It has a strong task emphasis and notable emphasis on intragroup relationship management. It is well suited for gathering ideas and preferences regarding contentious decisions; it avoids complications arising from highly interactive meetings where differences of views can undermine both task and relational outcomes.

Synectics for Creative Problem Solving

Process Design Overview The George Prince (1970) version of synectics is a solution-centered process design used to solve difficult problems creatively. It is a completely scripted process involving a client with a problem, participants who serve as the generators of creative perspectives and potential solutions, and the facilitator who orients and guides members through the meeting process. Synectics is an atypical approach to group decision making in that the only person invested in the problem is the client, who is the problem owner and expert who offers problem background and evaluates solutions developed by the participants. Participants have no vested interest in the problem and perform their creative idea-generating role based on the client’s problem background. The facilitator ensures that the client and participants perform the prescribed activities, episodes, and acts of group members to create tenable solutions for the client.

Unlike other process designs where event analysis is multifaceted and fundamental to selecting a process design, the synectics meeting is relatively eventless. It is meant to help a client with a solution-resistant problem. The facilitator and