Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches:Leadership and Authority, Group Interventions

<< Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches:Group Process

Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches:Third-Party Interventions >>

Organization Development MGMT 628

Lesson 29

Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches

Functional Roles of Group Members:

The process consultant must be keenly aware of the different roles individual members take on in a group.

Both upon entering and while remaining in a group, the individual must determine a self-identity influence,

and power that will satisfy personal needs while working to accomplish group goals. Preoccupation with

individual needs or power struggles can reduce the effectiveness of a group severely, and unless the

individual can expose and share those personal needs to some degree, the group is unlikely to be

productive. Therefore, the process consultant must help the group confront and work through these needs.

Emotions are facts, but frequently they are regarded as side issues to be avoided. Whenever an individual,

usually the leader, says to the group, "Let's stick with the facts," it can be a sign that the emotional needs of

group members are not being satisfied and, indeed, are being disregarded as irrelevant.

Two other functions need to be performed if a group is to be effective: (1) task-related activities, such as

giving and seeking information and elaborating, coordinating, and evaluating activities; and (2) group-

maintenance actions, directed toward holding the group together as a cohesive team, including encouraging,

harmonizing, compromising, setting standards, and observing. Most ineffective groups perform little group

maintenance, and this is a primary reason for bringing in a process consultant.

The process consultant can help by suggesting that some part of each meeting be reserved for examining

these functions and periodically assessing the feelings of the group's members. As Schein points out,

however, the basic purpose of the process consultant is not to take on the role of expert but to help the

group share in its own diagnosis and do a better job in learning to diagnose its own processes: "It is

important that the process consultant encourage the group not only to allocate time for diagnosis but to

take the lead itself in trying to articulate and understand its own processes." Otherwise, the group may

default and become dependent on the supposed expert. In short, the consultant's role is to make comments

and to assist with diagnosis, but the emphasis should be on facilitating the group's understanding and

articulation of its own processes.

Group Problem Solving and Decision Making:

To be effective, a group must be able to identity problems, examine alternatives, and make decisions. The

first part of this process is the most important. Groups often fail to distinguish between problems (either

task-related or interpersonal) and symptoms. Once the group identifies the problem, a process consultant

can help the group analyze its approach, restrain the group from reacting too quickly and making a

premature diagnosis, or suggest additional options.

For example, a consultant was asked to process a group's actions during a three-hour meeting that had

been taped. The tapes revealed that premature rejection of a suggestion had severely retarded the group's

process. After one member's suggestion at the beginning of the meeting was quickly rejected by the

manager, he repeated his suggestion several times in the next hour. Each time his suggestion was rejected

quickly. During the second hour, this member became quite negative, opposing most of the other ideas

offered. Finally, toward the end of the second hour, he brought up his proposal again. At that time, it was

thoroughly discussed and then rejected for reasons that the member accepted.

During the third hour, this person was one of the most productive members of the group, offering

constructive and worth while ideas, suggestions, and recommendations. In addition, he was able to

integrate the comments of others, to modify them, and to come up with useful, integrated new suggestions.

However, it was not until his first suggestion had been thoroughly discussed (even though it was finally

rejected) that he was able to become a truly constructive member of the group.

Once the problem has been identified, a decision must be made. One way of making decisions is to ignore

a suggestion. For example, when one person makes a suggestion, someone else offers another before the

first has been discussed. A second method is to give decision-making power to the person in authority.

Some- times decisions are made by minority rule, the leader arriving at a decision and turning for agreement

to several people who will comply. Frequently, silence is regarded as consent. Decisions also can be made

by majority rule, consensus, or unanimous consent.

The process consultant can help the group understand how it makes its decisions and the consequences of

each decision process, as well as help diagnose which type of decision process may be the most effective in

a given situation. Decision by unanimous consent or consensus, for example, may be ideal in some

circumstances but too time-consuming or costly in other situations.

Group Norms and Growth:

Especially if a group of people works together over a period of time, it develops group norms or standards

of behavior about what is good or bad, allowed or forbidden, right or wrong. There may be an explicit

norm that group members are free to express their ideas and feelings, whereas the implicit norm is that one

Organization Development MGMT 628

does not contradict the ideas or suggestions of certain group members (usually the more powerful ones).

The process consultant can be very helpful in assisting the group to understand and articulate its own

norms and to determine whether those norms are helpful or dysfunctional. By understanding its norms and

recognizing which ones are helpful, the group can grow and deal realistically with its environment, make

optimum use of its own resources, and learn from its own experiences.

Leadership and Authority:

A process consultant needs to understand processes of leadership and how different leadership styles can

help or hinder a group's functioning. In addition, the consultant can help the leader adjust her or his style

to fit the situation. An important step in that process is for the leader to gain a better understanding of his

or her own behavior and the group's reaction to that behavior. It also is important that the leader become

aware of alternative behaviors. For example, after gaining a better understanding of his or her assumptions

about human behavior, the leader may do a better job of testing and perhaps changing those assumptions.

Basic Process Interventions:

For each of the five interpersonal and group processes described above, a variety of interventions may be

used. In broad terms, these are aimed at making individuals and groups more elective.

Individual Interventions:

These interventions are designed to help people be more effective or to increase the information they have

about their "blind spot" in the Johari Window. Before process consultants can give individual feedback,

they first must observe relevant events, ask questions to understand the issues fully, and make certain that

the feedback is given to the client in a usable manner. The following are guidelines for effective feedback.

· The giver and receiver must have consensus on the receiver's goals.

· The giver should emphasize description and appreciation.

· The giver should be concrete and specific.

· Both giver and receiver must have constructive motives.

· The giver should not withhold negative feedback if it is relevant.

· The giver should own his or her observations, feelings, and judgments.

· Feedback should be timed to when the giver and receiver are ready.

Group Interventions:

These interventions are aimed at the process, content, or structure of the group.

Process interventions sensitize the group to its own internal processes and generate interest in analyzing

those processes. Interventions include comments, questions, or observations about

· Relationships between and among group members

· Problem solving and decision making

· The identity and purpose of the group.

Content interventions help the group determine what it works on. They include comments, questions, or

observations about

· Group membership

· Agenda setting, review, and testing procedures

· Interpersonal issues

· Conceptual inputs on task-related topics.

Structural interventions help the group examine the stable and recurring methods it uses to accomplish

tasks. They include comments, questions, or observations about the following:

· Methods for dealing with external issues, such as inputs, resources, and customers methods for

determining goals, developing strategies, accomplishing work, assigning responsibility, monitoring

progress, and addressing problems

· Relationships to authority, formal rules, and levels of intimacy.

Application 5 presents an example of process consultation with the top-management team of a

manufacturing firm.

Organization Development MGMT 628

When Is Process Consultation Appropriate?

Process consultation, a general model for helping relationships, has wide applicability in organizations.

Because PC helps people and groups own their problems and diagnose and resolve them, it is most

applicable in the following circumstances:

1. The client has a problem but does not know its source or how to resolve it.

2. The client is unsure of what kind of help or consultation is available.

3. The nature of the problem is such that the client would benefit from involvement in its diagnosis.

4. The client is motivated by goals that the consultant can accept, and the consultant has some

capacity to enter into a helping relationship directed at reaching those goals.

5. The client ultimately knows what interventions are most applicable.

6. The client is capable of learning how to assess and resolve her or his own problem.

Results of Process Consultation:

Although process consultation is an important part of organization development and has been widely

practiced over the past thirty-five years, only a modest amount of research addresses its effect on

improving the ability of groups to accomplish work. The few studies that have been conducted have

produced little hard evidence of effectiveness. Research findings on process consultation are unclear,

especially because the findings relate to task performance.

A number of difficulties arise in trying to measure performance improvements as a result of process

consultation. One problem is that most process consultation is conducted with groups performing mental

tasks (for example, decision making); the outcomes of such tasks are difficult to evaluate. A second

difficulty with measuring PC's effects occurs because in many cases process consultation is combined with

other interventions in an ongoing OD program. Isolating the impact of process consultation from other

interventions is difficult.

Kaplan's review of process consultation studies underscored the problems of measuring performance

effects. It examined published studies in three categories: (1) reports in which process intervention is the

causal variable but performance is measured inadequately or not at all, (2) reports in which performance is

measured but process consultation is not isolated as the independent variable (the case in many instances),

and (3) research in which process consultation is isolated as the causal variable and performance is

adequately measured. The review suggests that process consultation has positive effects on participants,

according to self-reports of greater personal involvement, higher mutual influence, group effectiveness, and

similar variables. However, very little, if any, research clearly demonstrates that objective task effectiveness

was increased.

Application 5: Process Consultation at Action Company

This application, a story often told by Ed Schein and documented in several of his books about process

consultation and culture, involves the senior management team of an organization that he worked with

over several years. It illustrates well several of the principles of process consultation, such as accessing your

ignorance, always trying to be helpful, and understanding that errors are the prime source of learning.

The Action Company was a large and innovative high-technology organization. One salient feature of their

executive committee meetings was long and loud discussions. Members interrupted each other constantly,

often got into shouting matches, drifted off the subject, and moved from one agenda point to another

without any clear sense of what had been decided. Based on his beliefs about the nature of effective groups

and his experiences with group dynamics training, the process consultant made several initial interventions

as an "expert" consultant. For example, whenever he saw an opportunity, he would ask the group to

consider the consequences of interrupting each other repeatedly. This had the effect of communicating his

belief that their process was `bad" and interfered with the group's task and effectiveness. He pointed out

how important ideas were being lost and potentially important ideas were not getting a full discussion. The

group invariably responded with agreement and a resolution to do better, but within ten minutes was back

to the same pattern.

As the process consultant reflected on these early interventions, he noticed that he was imposing on the

group his own beliefs about what an ideal team should look like and how it should behave. This group, on

the other hand, was clearly on a different path. Over time, he discovered that this group had a different set

of shared assumptions that were driving their behaviors. In short, the group was trying to arrive at the

"truth." Their assumption was that truth was revealed in ideas and actions that could withstand argument

and debate. If an idea could survive intense scrutiny, it must be true and was worth pursuing.

Once he understood this basic premise, the process consultant asked himself what he could do that would

be more helpful to the group. His answer was to work within the group's assumptions that were driving

their behavior rather than imposing his beliefs on them. He had to learn that the primary task of the group,

Organization Development MGMT 628

as they saw it, was to develop ideas that were so sound they could afford to bet the company on them.

Generating ideas and evaluating them were therefore the two most crucial functions that they worked on in

meetings.

Two kinds of interventions grew out of this insight. First, he noticed that ideas were in fact being lost

because so much information was being processed so rapidly. Partly for his own sake and partly because he

thought it might help, he went to the flipchart and wrote down the main ideas as they came out.

These ideas, incomplete or undeveloped because the presenter had been interrupted, led to the second kind

of intervention. Instead of punishing the group for its "bad" behavior, as he had done in the early stages of

the consultation, he looked for opportunities to turn the conversation back over to the person with the

idea. For example, he would say. "John, you were trying to make a point. Did we get all of that?" This

created the opportunity to get the idea out without drawing unnecessary attention to the reason why it had

not gotten out in the first place. The combination of these two kinds of interventions focused the group on

the ideas that were not on the flipchart and helped them navigate through their complex agenda. Ideas that

were about to be lost were written down, resurrected, and given a fair chance.

The lesson was clear. Until the process consultant understood what the group really was trying to do, he

could not focus on the right processes nor did he know how to intervene helpfully. He had to sense what

the primary task was and where the group was getting stuck (incomplete idea formulation and too-quick

evaluation) before he could determine what kind of intervention would be "facilitative."

In most cases, either the field studies did not directly measure performance or the effect of process

intervention was confounded with other variables.

A third problem with assessing the performance effects of process consultation is that much of the relevant

research has used people's perceptions rather than hard performance measures as the index of success.

Although much of this research shows positive results, these findings should be interpreted carefully until

further research is done using more concrete measures of performance.

Table of Contents: