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

449

Innovative methods for improving resource reallocations by combining the methods of group facilitation and decision science (see, for example, the use of decision conferencing, Milter and Rohrbaugh, 1985; Rohrbaugh, 1992, 2000) have been projected to produce returns on investment of over 1,000 percent (Meyer and Boone, 1987).

GROUP PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Contemporary standards for performance measurement at both the organizational and group levels were well anticipated by the theory-building work of the sociologist Talcott Parsons (1959; Hare, 1976). Parsons proposed that there are four key functions of any collectivity (or system of action): pattern maintenance, integration, adaptation, and goal attainment. The essential nature of these four functions—and their appropriate balance—has been the emphasis of the competing values approach to organizational analysis (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983; Rohrbaugh, 1983). At the group level, in particular, the competing values approach has been used to identify four domains of collective performance that parallel Parsons’s functions: consensual, empirical, political, and rational (Rohrbaugh, 1987, 1989). An illustration of this framework is shown in Exhibit 25.1.

The measurement of group performance from a consensual perspective (that is, emphasis on achieving the pattern maintenance function) focuses on full participation in meetings, with open expression of individual feelings and sentiments. Extended discussion and debate about conflicting concerns should lead to collective agreement on a mutually satisfactory solution. As a result, the likelihood of support for the decision during implementation would be increased through such team building. This very interpersonally oriented perspective is dominant in the field of organization development.

Evaluators of collective decision processes who take an empirical perspective (that is, emphasis on achieving the integration function) stress the importance of documentation. Particular attention is directed in this performance measurement approach to the ways in which groups secure and share relevant information and develop comprehensive, reliable databases to provide appropriate forms of decision support. Proponents of this perspective, typically trained in the physical and social sciences (especially management information systems) believe that, to be effective, a group decision process should allow thorough use of evidence and full accountability.

The political perspective (that is, emphasis on achieving the adaptation function) suggests an approach to performance measurement where group flexibility

Exhibit 25.1

Competing Values Approach for Group

Decision Process Effectiveness

and creativity are the paramount process attributes. Idea generation through brainstorming would be assessed on how attuned participants are to shifts in the problem environment and on how well the standing of the group is maintained or enhanced. The search for legitimacy of the decision—its acceptability to outside stakeholders who are not immediate participants but whose interests potentially are affected by the group’s deliberations—would be notable through a fully responsive, dynamic process.

The priority of clear thinking as the primary ingredient for effective decision making is the hallmark of the rational perspective (that is, emphasis on achieving the goal attainment function). From this very task-oriented approach (particularly common in management science and operations research), any decision process

should be directed by explicit recognition of organizational goals and objectives. Methods that efficiently assist decision makers as planners by improving the consistency and coherency of their logic and reasoning would yield positive group performance measurements.

A brief diagnostic instrument has been developed and tested rather thoroughly over the past decade that incorporates all four perspectives for group assessment (consensual, empirical, political, and rational) and enables performance measurement at the group level consistent with the four domains of the competing values framework (Reagan and Rohrbaugh, 1990; McCartt and Rohrbaugh, 1995; Wright and Rohrbaugh, 1999). This questionnaire uses thirty-two items to measure such aspects as level of participation, supportability, accountability, adaptability, legitimacy, and efficiency. Thus, the effectiveness of group processes is measured simultaneously against several key—and sometimes competing—performance standards. For example, is the process fully participatory yet efficient? Do participants feel that they can work on a problem flexibly yet maintain full accountability? Effective groups transcend the seemingly competing nature of these performance standards by using facilitation methods that do not require tradeoffs but instead accomplish multiple process objectives simultaneously.

The spirit of continuous improvement demands that the measurement of group process effectiveness becomes an ongoing and explicit evaluation by a variety of participants, not just one person, over a variety of decisions, not just one problem (Wright and Rohrbaugh, 1999). Without performance measurement at the group level, organizations will not learn how to reallocate resources better. The avoidance of directly monitoring group process effectiveness by taking a wait-and-see approach that relies solely on subsequent decision outcomes is risky on at least three counts.

First, the time lag required to note any positive or negative consequences of collective action is far too long. Weaknesses in group performance should be remediated quickly, well before long-term results are apparent. Second, it is difficult to establish a causal connection between immediate group decision and subsequent organizational performance. Implementation difficulties that defy anticipation can lead organizations to forgo gains from even the best group decisions, not to mention that external conditions—political and economic—can intervene to worsen outcomes. Conversely, organizational stakeholders can be blissfully unaware of poorly performing executive teams if a temporarily beneficent environment masks

even badly flawed processes. Third, any performance assessment based on consequences alone gives little or no indication of the process factors that need enhancement or change. What went wrong in those meetings? We still would need to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the problem-solving process.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONDITIONS THAT AFFECT

GROUP DECISION PROCESSES

Much attention has been given to identifying organizational conditions that are conducive to—or seriously undermine—group decision process effectiveness (see, for example, Hackman, 1990; Senge, 1990; Bennis and Biderman, 1997). Groups do not perform in a vacuum; interaction processes are greatly influenced by their behavioral settings (McGrath, 1984). It may be instructive to consider such key organizational conditions in the context of the competing values framework.

As shown in Exhibit 25.2, the ability of a group to function in pattern maintenance requires consensual support. Organizational conditions that undermine pattern maintenance are intolerance of alternative perspectives, no belief that the problem is important, conflicts dividing the group into factions, and deceitful and suspicious members. Organizational conditions providing consensual support are genuine openness to others’ viewpoints, highly motivated and conscientious participants, constructive use of conflict, and participants who are sincere and promote interpersonal trust.

To function in a more integrated way, groups require empirical support. Organizational conditions that undermine integration are group members who have not taken the time to think about the problem or lack essential expertise, the absence of critically relevant information, and inaccessible or inappropriate information technologies. Organizational conditions providing empirical support are group members with all necessary expertise and a good understanding of the problem, useful information that is readily available, and easy access to appropriate information technologies.

Political support is essential for groups to function adaptively. Organizational conditions that undermine adaptation are highly homogeneous group composition, participants who have problem-solving responsibility but no authority (that is, they must always receive directions from superiors), absence of delegated or emergent leadership (that is, no one owns the problem), and too short a time

Exhibit 25.2

Conditions in the Behavioral Setting That Support

Group Decision Process Effectiveness

Control

period to ensure success. Organizational conditions providing political support are the presence of a legitimate group leader, participants who represent diverse stakeholders, participants who have the authority to make decisions themselves, and adequate time to complete all group work.

Surprisingly, organizations often do not provide even rational support to groups that would allow them to attain their goals. Organizational conditions that undermine goal attainment are uncomfortable meeting rooms with many distractions, poorly defined problems, lack of training about useful problem-solving techniques, and the absence of skillful group facilitation. Organizational conditions providing

rational support are a meeting room environment that fosters productivity, a clear definition of the problem, capacity to use appropriate problem-solving methods, and access to group facilitation expertise (Rangarajan and Rohrbaugh, 2003).

CONCLUSION

Performance measurement should be guided by sound theory such as Parsons’s articulation of four organizational functions (1959): pattern maintenance, integration, adaptation, and goal attainment. Relatively thorough methods of performance measurement have been developed, tested, and applied to group decision processes over the past twenty years. Continuous improvement in organizational decision making—and, in fact, in the capacity of organizations to reallocate resources optimally—depends on the routine use of these process assessments at the group level.

The difficulties that must be confronted in improving group decision processes often stem from organizational conditions that more broadly undermine group effectiveness. Changing these conditions so that group decision processes are better supported is essential. This chapter has indicated key links between such organizational conditions and the limited or enhanced capacity of groups to perform more effectively, whether one’s evaluative perspective is primarily consensual, empirical, political, or rational.

3.Maintain professional standing.

•Engages in ongoing study and learning related to our field

•Continuously gains awareness of new information in our profession

•Practices reflection and learning

•Builds personal industry knowledge and networks

•Maintains certification

458