Typology

Task Groups: Specialized Methods

Small Organizational Groups

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is probably the best known of the specialized methods presented in this chapter. The primary purpose of brainstorming is to increase the number of ideas generated by members. Elements of brainstorming, such as suspending judgment of ideas, have long been recognized as effective techniques, but Osborn (1963) was the first to develop a systematic set of rules for generating creative ideas, which he called brainstorming. The method is still widely used today (see, for example, Franz, 2012; Harrington & Mignosa, 2015; Levi, 2014; Thompson, 2014; Unger, Nunnally, & Willis, 2013). During brainstorming, the total effort is directed toward creative thinking rather than to analytical or evaluative thinking. Analytical and evaluative thinking can reduce the ability to generate creative ideas. Members are concerned about their status in a group, and if they expect critical judgments about their thoughts and ideas, they are not likely to express them. Analytical and evaluative thinking can also serve as a social control mechanism. Members who continue to present ideas that are viewed critically are likely to be sanctioned. Members may also screen out potentially creative, but controversial, ideas before they are ever expressed. By attempting to reduce analytical and evaluative thinking, brainstorming encourages free disclosure of ideas.

Procedures

Brainstorming includes determining the problem, discussing the different parts of the problem, generating ideas about the different aspects of the problem, and selecting the best ideas for further discussion and implementation (Basadur, Basadur, & Licina, 2012; Deuja, Kohn, Paulus, & Korde, 2014). Brainstorming can be conducted in any size group. It is unclear if larger groups (15 or more members) are better than smaller groups for idea generation (Paulus, Kohn, Arditti, & Korde, 2013). The procedure can be conducted in a short period of time (15 to 30 minutes), but longer meetings may produce higher quality ideas because those presented later in the brainstorming session build on the ones presented earlier (Kohn, Paulus, & Choi, 2011; Paulus, Kohn, & Arditti, 2011). Therefore, leaders who encourage members to extend the idea generation period can improve brainstorming results (Franz, 2012). Procedures for Brainstorming • Freewheeling is welcomed. Members are encouraged to express all their ideas, no

matter what they are. Members should not hold back on ideas that might be considered wild, repetitious, or obvious.

• Criticism is ruled out. Members are asked to withhold analyses, judgments, and evaluations about any ideas presented during the idea-generating process. Members should not try to defend or explain their ideas.

• Quantity is encouraged. Good ideas can emerge at any time during the method.

• Combining, rearranging, and improving ideas are encouraged. Often called hitchhiking, this technique calls on group members to build on ideas that have already been expressed. Members can combine or modify ideas and suggest how other members’ ideas can be improved.

At the beginning of the meeting, the worker explains the problem to be brainstormed and the four brainstorming procedures. A warm-up period of 10 to 15 minutes is helpful to familiarize members with the procedure and to help them learn to express and hear ideas without criticism. Acclimation to brainstorming and training in freewheeling idea generation has been shown to improve brainstorming results (Paulus & Coskun, 2012; Paulus, Kohn, & Arditti, 2011). Even when some members of the group have used brainstorming procedures previously, the warm-up time gives all members an opportunity to prepare to change routine patterns of analyzing and evaluating ideas. During this time, the worker can model appropriate behavior and make some suggestions about procedures to increase creativity and stop production blocking, such as encouraging members to continue to share or to work alone and generate ideas in silence when the worker suspects that verbal or nonverbal cues may be inhibiting members (Alencar, 2012; De Dreu, Nijstad, Bechtoldt, & Baas, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; Paulus, Dzindolet, & Kohn 2011; Putnam & Paulus, 2009). During the brainstorming procedure, it is helpful to write members’ ideas on a flip chart or a whiteboard so that all group members can view all ideas. Having a co-leader record ideas is particularly helpful because it is difficult for the leader to train members, record ideas, and model appropriate behavior at the same time. Ideas should be recorded by using the words of the speaker as much as possible. Key words should be abstracted so suggestions fit on a sheet of newsprint or a whiteboard.

The interaction pattern in the group should encourage the free flow of ideas. Members can be asked to offer one idea at a time to allow everyone to have a turn presenting ideas. The worker encourages members to continue until all ideas are exhausted. Sometimes groups run out of ideas or repeat similar ideas without pursuing new or alternative thinking patterns. At this point, instead of closing a session, the worker should read ideas from the list to stimulate thinking, focus the group’s attention on unexplored areas of the problem by using prompts, and pick out one or two ideas around which the group may want to generate additional ideas. Throughout the process, the worker should (1) express interest in the ideas as they are presented, (2) urge members to continue to produce creative ideas, and (3) help the group elaborate on ideas that have already been presented (Unger, Nunnally, & Willis, 2013). The worker should not try to have the group evaluate ideas immediately after the brainstorming procedure. Waiting a day or longer allows members to think of new ideas to add to the list and allows time for them to return to an analytical way of evaluating ideas. Once the meeting has ended, the worker should ensure that members are not blamed or sanctioned for the ideas they have expressed. If they are, brainstorming will not succeed in future meetings. Forsyth (2014) also recommends the following steps to ensure effective brainstorming. Making Brainstorming Effective • Do not deviate from the four previously described procedures. • Pay careful attention to each member’s contributions. • Use both group and individual brainstorming during the same session.

• Go slowly and take rest periods. • Facilitate persistence and motivation especially later in the session. • Use electronic brainstorming software to minimize idea production blocking.

Uses

Brainstorming procedures are useful under certain conditions. Brainstorming should be done in groups that have already defined a problem. In many respects, brainstorming can be used as a substitute for the methods described in the Developing Plans section of the problem-solving model described in Chapter 11. Brainstorming procedures are particularly appropriate if the problem the group is working on is specific and limited in range (Paulus, Kohn, & Arditti, 2011; Kohn et al., 2011). Therefore, the leader should consider partializing larger problems into smaller categories and doing sequential brainstorming (Baruah & Paulus, 2011; Deuja et al., 2014). The following example shows how brainstorming can be used in groups to accomplish organizational goals.

Case Example Brainstorming in an Organizational Setting

When a board of directors of a social service organization began a search for a new executive director, the board president decided to involve line staff in the hiring process. The president convened a diverse group of staff members to brainstorm ideas about what qualities a new executive director should demonstrate. Members of the brainstorming group were encouraged to think of as many positive qualities as they could, and each was asked to contribute creative ideas. When they were finished, the board president prompted members to generate additional ideas by mentioning aspects of an executive director’s job that did not appear to be fully considered. The board president prepared a written report from the ideas listed by staff and on flip chart pages used during the brainstorming session. The written report was presented to the board of directors for their consideration. The board decided to appoint a subcommittee to lead the search. The subcommittee considered the ideas generated by the focus group meeting of the line staff along with all the others gathered from various constituencies, and reported their findings and recommendations during a subsequent board meeting. Brainstorming methods are useful when the group wants to generate as many ideas as possible. Brainstorming, therefore, should not be used when the group faces a technical problem that requires systematic, organized thinking. Implicit in the brainstorming approach is the notion that the problem can have varied solutions. In many situations, groups confront problems that can be solved several ways, but sometimes problems have only one right answer. In these situations, brainstorming is not appropriate, and other techniques presented later in this chapter should be used instead. Intervention Behavior: Use inter-professional collaboration as appropriate to achieve beneficial practice outcomes Critical Thinking Question: Brainstorming is a common practice in groups. When is it appropriate to use this technique? Effectiveness There is evidence that brainstorming is effective for generating creative ideas (see, for example, De Dreu et al., 2011; Forsyth, 2014; Kohn, Paulus, & Choi, 2011; Paulus & Brown, 2007; Paulus & Coskun, 2012; Paulus, Dzindolet, & Kohn, 2011; Paulus, Kohn, & Arditti, 2011). It has been found that members of brainstorming groups are more satisfied and more effective when they are carefully trained in the procedure and practice it before beginning to use

it (Ferreira, Antunes, & Herskovic, 2011; Paulus & Coskun, 2012; Paulus, Dzindolet, & Kohn, 2011). It has also been shown that brainstorming is more effective when large ideas are divided into categories, and separate brainstorming is done for each category (Baruah & Paulus, 2011; Deuja et al., 2014). Brainstorming is also more effective when warm-up sessions help members to be as motivated and as effective at processing shared ideas as possible (Baruah & Paulus, 2008, 2009; De Dreu et al., 2011; Paulus & Brown, 2007). Therefore, motivation and effective processing skills should be part of any warm-up or training session. Brainstorming generates ideas from a wide base because it encourages all group members to participate fully. The method also tends to establish members’ commitment to the idea that is ultimately decided on because members have helped shape it. Other benefits of brainstorming in groups are presented in the following list. Benefits of Brainstorming Dependence on an authority figure to come up with problem-solving ideas is reduced. Open sharing of ideas is encouraged. Members can build on others’ ideas. A maximum output of ideas occurs in a short period of time. Members’ ideas are posted immediately for everyone to see. Ideas are generated internally rather than imposed from outside the group, which increases the feeling of accountability. Brainstorming is enjoyable and self-stimulating. Despite its benefits, brainstorming is not without drawbacks. It is not easy to achieve an atmosphere in which ideas are generated freely. Brainstorming can initially cause discomfort to members who are not used to freely sharing their ideas, and it breaks norms that ordinarily protect members from making suggestions that may result in overt or covert sanctions. In fact, these norms may be very difficult to change and there is evidence that brainstorming alone, both initially and periodically during meetings, is more effective than group brainstorming (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Putnam & Paulus, 2009). Other factors also may reduce the efficacy of brainstorming procedures. For example, although the warm-up period is essential for optimal performance during brainstorming, warm-ups require time that may not be available. Inertia may also interfere with brainstorming because the technique requires a change from ordinary group procedures. The worker may not feel justified in imposing the procedure on reluctant or skeptical members who are unaware of its benefits. Although brainstorming has many potentially beneficial effects, if it is to be used effectively, members must be motivated to use it, and workers must apply it correctly. Variations on Brainstorming Reverse Brainstorming Reverse brainstorming is a procedure that can be used to list the negative consequences of actions quickly and thoroughly. Group members are asked, “What might go wrong with this idea?” Reverse brainstorming is useful after a variety of ideas have been generated, and members narrow the ideas to a few top choices. Members then brainstorm about the consequences of carrying out each alternative. After the group identifies potential obstacles to problem solving, the worker then can lead members in a discussion of the ways to overcome them. Therefore, reverse brainstorming can help groups to present the ideas that are likely to be the most appealing, and to be ready with thoughtful responses if decision makers raise implementation issues. Trigger Groups and Brainwriting The trigger group procedure uses the early findings of Taylor, Berry, and Block (1958) and Dunnette, Campbell, and Joastad (1963), who discovered that brainstorming is more effective when it is done by individuals working alone than by individuals interacting in groups. In a trigger group, each individual works alone for 5 to

10 minutes to develop a list of ideas and suggestions. Members then read their lists to the group. The group takes about 10 minutes to clarify, add to, or combine ideas that each member has presented. As in brainstorming, suggestions are made without criticism. After all members have presented their ideas, the group decides together on criteria for evaluating the ideas. Ideas are then screened by the group, one at a time, to arrive at a single solution to a problem. This approach allows members to work independently to develop ideas without verbal or nonverbal evaluative comments from other group members. Also, as each member reads, it focuses the attention of the entire group on the ideas of one individual, which gives members a feeling that their ideas are heard, understood, and carefully examined. It gives each member an opportunity to receive constructive comments from all group members. Trigger groups are best when conducted with five to eight members because the time necessary to develop ideas, to brainstorm, and to critically evaluate each individual’s ideas can be prohibitive in larger groups. The more modern adaptation, brainwriting, calls for members to pass the ideas they generated in silence to the members seated to their right (Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2003; Franz, 2012). These members then can take a few minutes to add ideas and pass the list to the next person on their right in the group. This continues until all members have had an opportunity to hitchhike or piggyback on everyone else’s ideas in silence. Variations on this procedure include (1) placing ideas generated silently into the center of a meeting table and having others pick them out at random and add their ideas, and (2) using post-it notes to write ideas and place them on meeting room walls so that others can add to them (Levi, 2014). Only after silent idea generation is completed can the group discuss combining, categorizing, and prioritizing ideas.

Focus Groups

Focus groups are designed to collect in-depth, qualitative information about a particular service or topic of interest. The emphasis is on facilitating members’ discussion of a subject until viewpoints are fully understood and points of agreement and disagreement become clear. The strength of focus groups is their ability to explore topics and generate hypotheses through the explicit use of group interaction (Hennink, 2014; Kamberelis, & Dimitriadis, 2013; Krueger, Richard, & Casey, 2015; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). They are also used to clarify and enrich data collected during surveys or other research methods. Focus groups are often associated with business marketing research where they are used to solicit opinions and reactions to new products or services. However, they were used as early as World War II in the social sciences to examine the effectiveness of wartime propaganda (Merton & Kendall, 1946). Today, they are used by many organizations where social workers practice to gather information for many purposes.

Procedures

Focus group meetings consist of a semi-structured group interview and discussion with 6 to 12 group members. Meetings typically last one to two hours. The worker’s task is to lead the semi-structured interview, keeping the group on track and making sure that all members have a chance to share their opinions. They gently direct the group to discuss topics of interest to the sponsor. Workers probe superficial answers, encouraging

elaboration and exploration while at the same time helping the group to move on when a particular topic is exhausted.

Aaker, Kumar, Leone, and Day (2013) have presented four key elements to the success of a focus group: (1) planning a specific agenda, (2) recruiting and screening appropriate participants, (3) effective moderation during meetings, and (4) clear and detailed analysis and interpretation of the results. Planning the agenda begins by carefully considering the purpose for the group and the topics to be covered. Because focus groups are meant to encourage in-depth discussion, it is important to maintain the focus by not exploring too many topics. The worker should develop a series of relevant questions for which responses are sought. From these questions, a discussion guide is prepared. The guide is an outline that helps ensure that specific issues are covered. The discussion guide should proceed in a logical order from general to specific areas of inquiry. Although all topics should be covered, the guide is not meant to be a rigid template for the conduct of group meetings. If a question does not generate useful, non- repetitive information, the facilitator should move on to the next question or probe. Similarly, new or interesting ideas that emerge from the interaction between members should be pursued using paraphrasing, follow-up prompts, and additional questions. Careful screening of participants is crucial to the success of a focus group. Focus group participants should be interested in the topic to be discussed and opinions about it. They should have enough characteristics in common so that they will feel comfortable interacting. To get a broad, in-depth understanding of a subject, it is important to select individuals with a wide range of experience and diverse opinions. Because individuals who have participated in previous focus groups may dominate the discussion, they are generally excluded from participation. Also, it is preferable to recruit individuals who do not know one another. Relatives, friends, and neighbors tend to talk to each other rather than to the whole group, and, because of the presence of individuals they know, they are sometimes less open about their true opinions.

Because positive, freewheeling group interaction can help reticent participants express in-depth opinions and discuss all aspects of a particular topic, effective leadership is essential in focus groups. Leaders should be familiar with the topic to be discussed and sensitive to the verbal and nonverbal cues given off by participants. Aaker, Kumar, Leone, and Day (2013) suggest that focus group leaders should have the ability to (1) establish rapport quickly, (2) listen carefully to each member’s opinions, (3) demonstrate a genuine interest in each member’s views, (4) avoid jargon and sophisticated terminology that may turn off members, (5) flexibly implement the discussion guide, (6) sense when a topic is exhausted or when it is becoming threatening, (7) know what topic to introduce to maintain a smooth flow of the discussion, and (8) facilitate group dynamics that encourage the full participation of all members and avoid domination by talkative members. Focus groups often yield a wealth of disparate comments and opinions. To prepare reports and to do qualitative analyses of the data derived from a focus group meeting, it is useful to have an audiotape or videotape of group meetings. Reports of focus group meetings should capture the diverse opinions that are expressed as well as any consensus that is achieved. It is also useful to categorize members’ comments in a

manner that relates the comments to the specific hypotheses or questions that the focus group was intended to address.

Uses

Focus groups can be used for many purposes, some of which are listed here.

Uses of Focus Groups • Generating hypotheses about the way individuals think or behave that may be tested

quantitatively at a later point • Obtaining in-depth information about a topic • Generating or evaluating impressions and opinions about the services an

organization offers or plans to offer • Overcoming reticence to obtaining personal views and opinions • Generating information to help develop client-satisfaction questionnaires and other

types of questionnaires • Providing in-depth analysis and interpretation of previously collected data and the

findings of previously reported studies Focus groups are particularly well suited for gathering in-depth data about the attitudes and opinions of participants (Krueger, Richard, & Casey, 2015; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). This is illustrated in the following case.

Case Example Using a Focus Group in the Community

The director of a community mental health clinic was concerned about her agency’s ability to reach out and effectively serve Native American communities in the large rural area served. During a weekly executive committee meeting, it was decided to recruit a focus group of Native American leaders to explore their communities’ perceptions of the mental health center and its services. Following a carefully planned agenda and using a structured interview guide, the group leader helped the focus members identify and elaborate on their perceptions of the agency and its strengths and weaknesses in serving Native Americans. The group leader prepared a written report summarizing the focus group findings for the executive committee. The report spurred the executive committee to plan a larger needs assessment project. The goal of this project was to develop recommendations about improving service delivery to Native Americans for the consideration of the board of directors of the agency.

Although the information derived from focus groups is excellent for developing hypotheses and for exploring issues in-depth, caution should be exercised when using the information as the sole basis for making important decisions affecting large groups of individuals. Because a limited number of participants can be included in focus groups, the data derived may not be as representative of a larger population as data derived from a well-designed survey.

Effectiveness

Focus groups are considered to be a qualitative research method because they yield rich descriptions of participants’ attitudes and opinions about targeted topics. They can yield new insights and ideas and lend support or contradict commonly accepted notions

and ingrained beliefs. They are also frequently used to help understand the nuances and boundaries of problems or issues so that social workers can have a better idea about how to construct needs assessments, in-depth individual interviews, surveys, and other quantitative methods to gather more reliable data about particular populations of interest. Focus groups are more flexible than many other methods of collecting data. Leaders can pursue particular comments made by members with probes that ask for additional information, and invitations to elaborate. Another advantage is that they can help participants become actively engaged with the sponsoring organization in efforts to improve group work and other services.

Sometimes, focus groups are thought of as a quick, inexpensive way of collecting data, but considerable time and expense can be involved in recruiting participants and in analyzing the large amount of data that comes from these meetings (Rubin & Babbie, 2014; Monette, Sullivan, DeJong, & Hilton, 2014). Therefore, group workers can be helpful to organizations’ administrators by gently pointing out the hidden costs and time- consuming nature of focus groups. Another disadvantage of focus groups is that the data collected may not be generalizable to a larger target population. Workers can be helpful by pointing out the select nature of the individuals who participate in focus groups and the small sample sizes. Conformity, group think, the risky shift, and other group dynamics discussed in Chapter 3 may affect the data that is obtained from focus group meetings. Therefore, workers with experience in leading groups are often better at leading focus groups than other staff. It is also important to recognize that results from focus groups may not be clear or quantifiable, and sharp discrepancies in the data from different participants may be difficult to interpret (Rubin & Babbie, 2014; Monette, Sullivan, DeJong, & Hilton, 2014). Most experts also agree that the effectiveness of focus groups depends heavily on the moderator’s ability to facilitate the discussion (Aaker et al., 2013; Hennink, 2014; Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2013; Krueger, Richard, & Casey, 2015; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). Despite these limitations, with adequate preparation and a skillful moderator, focus groups can provide an effective and efficient method for collecting in-depth, qualitative data about the thoughts and opinions of consumers of health and social services. For more information about conducting focus groups, see Aaker, Kumar, Leone, and Day (2013); Hennink (2014); Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2013); Krueger, Richard, and Casey (2015); or Stewart and Shamdasani (2015).

Assess your understanding of specialized methods that facilitate generating ideas and information in task groups by taking this brief quiz.

Nominal Group Technique

The nominal group technique (NGT) is different from traditional interacting approaches to solving problems in task groups. The technique was developed in the late 1960s by Andre Delbecq and Andrew Van de Ven as they studied program planning groups in social service agencies and the operation of committees and other idea-aggregating and decision-making groups in business and industry (Delbecq, Van de Ven, &

Gustafson, 1986). Since its development, the technique has been used extensively in health, social service, industrial, educational, and governmental agencies as an aid to planning and managing programs (see, for example, Andersen & Fagerhaug, 2000; Levi, 2014; Thompson, 2015).

Research-Informed Practice

Behavior: Use and translate research evidence to inform and improve practice, policy, and service delivery

Critical Thinking Question: 1. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) minimizes group interaction. What

negative aspects of groups can be overcome using NGT?

Procedures

An NGT meeting should have six to nine group members. Larger groups should be separated into two or more smaller groups. Because participants are required to write and because ideas are presented on a flip chart, group members should be seated around a U-shaped table. A flip chart with newsprint should be placed at the open end of the U. Supplies that are needed include a flip chart, felt-tip pen, roll of tape, index cards, worksheets, and pencils. A summary of NGT procedures follows.

Procedures for Using NGT • Developing a clear statement of the problem • Round robin recording of ideas generated by group members • Hitchhiking: generating new ideas from ideas already listed • Serial discussion to clarify ideas • Preliminary ordering of ideas by importance • Choosing highest priority ideas and ranking in order of priority • Discussion of ranked ideas Before an NGT meeting, the worker should develop a clear statement of the problem in cooperation with the sponsoring agency. At the beginning of the group, the worker states the purpose of the meeting. Then the worker hands out lined paper with the problem statement written at the top, reads the problem statement, and asks all members to take five minutes to list their ideas or responses to the problem. Ideas and responses should be written in brief phrases, without verbal or nonverbal communication with other group members. To give the members some notion of what types of responses are being asked for, workers may want to prepare some sample ideas or responses as models. While group members are working, the leader also writes ideas in silence and ensures that members of the group do not interact with one another.

The next step is a round robin recording of ideas generated by each group member. The ideas are listed on a flip chart that is visible to all group members. The worker asks

one member for an idea, writes it on the flip chart, and then goes around the group by asking each person in turn for one idea. Members are encouraged to use ideas already on the chart to stimulate their thinking and add on their worksheets ideas that they did not think of during the silent period. When a member has no new ideas, the member passes and allows the next group member to present an idea until everyone is finished.

The ideas should be recorded as rapidly as possible in members’ own words. During the round robin, members should not critique, elaborate on, or defend ideas. Completed sheets from a flip chart should be taped to a flat surface in view of all group members.

The third step is a serial discussion to clarify the ideas that have been presented. Items from the flip chart are taken in order and discussed for two or three minutes. Each member who expressed an idea is encouraged to explain briefly the evidence and the logic used in arriving at it. At this point, members are free to express their agreement or disagreement with the idea and to discuss its relative importance. Although evaluative comments are welcome, the group should not be allowed to focus on any one idea for a long period of time or to get into a debate over the merits of a particular idea.

The fourth step is a preliminary ordering of the importance of the ideas that have been listed. Each member is asked to work independently in selecting from the list a predetermined number of the ideas with the highest priority. The number of items selected varies, depending on the length of the list, but should include about one- quarter to one-half of the original ideas. Members write their choices on index cards and hand them to the worker. The number of votes that each idea receives from all members is recorded next to the item. This process helps individual members obtain feedback about ideas that are highly regarded by their fellow members.

Each member is then asked to choose five highest-priority ideas from the narrowed- down list. The members rank the ideas on a scale of 5 = highest priority to 1 = lowest priority. The idea and its rank order are then placed on an index card. One index card is used for each idea. The cards are collected and the rank orders are tallied by writing them next to their corresponding ideas on the flip chart. After all ranks have been tallied, the mean rank for each idea is determined by adding the numbers (ranks) next to each item and dividing by the number of group members. The group may want to discuss the ranks and take a second vote when there are large discrepancies among members’ rating patterns. To avoid this being viewed as a way to manipulate the group process, it is recommended that before beginning NGT, the group as a whole should decide under what circumstances a second vote will be taken.

Uses

NGT was created to “increase rationality, creativity, and participation in problem-solving meetings associated with program planning” (Delbecq et al., 1986, p. 1). It is designed to prevent group processes that inhibit interaction (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1971). These inhibiting influences are presented in the following list. Factors Inhibiting Group Interaction • The pursuit of a single thought pattern for a long time period • Members relying on other group members to do the work, i.e., social loafing • Covert judgments that may or may not be expressed

• Status hierarchies and differentials preventing participation by low-status members • Group pressure for conformity, such as members participating only to the extent that

they feel equally competent to other members • Dominant or talkative group members • Reaching quick decisions without fully exploring the problem by information

gathering and fact finding

Case Example Nominal Group Technique

A multiservice community agency was facing a fiscal crisis. The executive council charged with tightening and balancing the budget by the board of directors decided to use NGT to generate ideas for saving money. The executive director led the council in this effort by first asking that each member work alone and write down creative ideas for saving money in the budget. In round robin fashion, each member was then asked to present one idea at a time to the group until all ideas were presented and recorded on a flip chart. Next, the executive director led the group in very brief discussions of the pros and cons of each suggested savings method. Then, she asked each member to independently rank each item in order of its value to the savings effort. These rankings were then used during a brief group discussion that focused on eliminating ideas that were not rated highly ranked by any member. Also during the discussion, whenever possible, similar money savings ideas were combined. Then, the members were asked to rank the five highest-priority suggestions. These ideas were studied more closely for their impact on the budget by the management of the agency. During the next board meeting, these and other recommendations were presented to the board for approval as part of the overall plan to balance the budget and restore the agency to fiscal health.

Effectiveness

Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1986) developed NGT by combining the positive aspects of noninteracting nominal groups and interacting problem-solving groups. NGT (1) stimulates members’ active participation because it requires members to work both in silence and interactively, (2) avoids dominance by strong personalities and enables minority opinions to be expressed, (3) prevents premature decision making, and (4) structures the process so that all members participate and feel that their views and opinions are given equal weight in the solution (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1971). NGT builds consensus by giving each group member an equal opportunity to express ideas and participate in reaching a decision. By structuring the interaction, NGT reduces the domination of a few members and makes full use of the creative capabilities and pooled wisdom of all group members. This, in turn, helps to ensure a broad base of support for any decision made by the group. NGT is based on social science findings about task groups that have been accumulated over decades of research. Each step is designed to make use of these findings. Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1986) reported that NGT incorporates the following research-based findings to increase decision-making accuracy. Procedures to Increase Judgment Accuracy • Having members make independent judgments • Expressing judgments mathematically by ranking or rating items

• Using the arithmetic mean of independent judgments to form the group’s decision • Having members make decisions anonymously • Using feedback about preliminary judgments for final voting The NGT technique uses these research findings in its decision-making step by taking the mean rating of independent rank-order judgments that have been placed on anonymous index cards. There is also some limited empirical evidence that NGT is more effective than interacting group methods for idea generation, problem solving, and consensus building (Toseland, Rivas, & Chapman, 1984; Van de Ven, 1974), and members are more satisfied with their participation in NGT groups than in untrained groups (Kramer, Kuo, & Dailey, 1997). NGT has some limitations. It takes a considerable amount of time to arrive at a decision (experience suggests at least two hours in most cases). This can present an obstacle for some task groups that have many decisions to make and must complete their work in a short time frame. Therefore, NGT is often reserved for important decisions. It is less frequently used for routine decisions that may not require the precision afforded by this method.

Another limitation is that the group process is highly structured, which some members may find too restrictive. One study found that members of NGT groups were less satisfied than members of less structured groups using a problem-solving approach (Toseland, Rivas, & Chapman, 1984). NGT may also raise members’ suspicions about being manipulated. For example, having the worker rather than group members define the problem and having the worker or a powerful group member influence voting procedures by calling for a second vote may feel constricting or even manipulative to members who are used to having more freedom during freely interacting problem- solving and decision-making groups. Although consensus is built by including all members in every step of the decision making process, NGT uses voting to make final decisions, which is not recommended for building consensus (Forsyth, 2014).

Multi-attribute Utility Analysis

Multi-attribute Utility Analysis (MAU) uses decision rules to specify the relationships between attributes of a problem. The decision rules that are derived from the process promote rational and transparent decision making and enable sponsors and oversight bodies to understand the basis for judgments. For social group workers without statistical backgrounds, MAU can be a bit complicated to understand. Still, it is presented in this chapter because it is very effective for helping groups make sound, rational decisions, especially when important policy decisions are being made or when decision-making processes may be scrutinized. It helps members avoid conflict by focusing on the reasoning behind their choices, rather than by them defending particular choices without sharing their underlying reasoning. Also, MAU is well suited to intranet and Internet decision making in virtual meetings, which are efficient in large multisite organizations or when interagency decisions are needed. Virtual meetings are likely to become more common in the next decade (see Chapter 7).

Procedures

A group’s use of MAU begins by having each member work alone, either in individual meetings between each member and the worker or in a nominal group meeting in which all members work separately on instructions given by the worker. During this time, the problem and its alternative solutions are explained to members. For example, members are informed that their group has been appointed to decide among applicants for the position of assistant program director. The worker helps group members clarify their thinking about the problem. Specifically, the worker helps each member determine the attributes that are thought to be relevant to making a decision. As presented in Figure 12.1, a member might decide that the attributes he or she considers important for the position of assistant program director include (1) amount of supervisory experience, (2) amount of clinical experience, (3) level of management skills, and (4) extent that the candidate likes to develop new and innovative service programs. Alternatively, the attributes might be developed through a brainstorming or NGT process. The worker also helps each member specify the levels of each attribute by deciding on (1) the minimal criteria for a solution, (2) any constraints on the solution, (3) the utility function that accompanies each attribute, and (4) the weight placed on each attribute and its accompanying utility function. For example, members might decide that minimal criteria for the assistant program director’s position include three years of supervisory experience and five years of clinical experience. The members also decide that the candidate must have an MSW or an MPA degree.

The utility function of each attribute specifies its relationship to the overall solution—that is, how levels of an attribute are related to a particular solution. Figure 12.1presents one member’s utility functions for the four attributes mentioned previously. The utility functions indicate that as the amount of supervisory experience increases, satisfaction with the candidate increases until the candidate has more than 10 years of experience, at which time the members’ satisfaction with the candidate declines. At this point, the member’s utility function indicates that she thinks candidates would have too much supervisory experience for the position. For the clinical experience attribute, a utility function with a similar form occurs, except that satisfaction with a candidate increases until the candidate has more than

Figure 12.1 A Group Member’s Decision Rules for Choosing Among Applicants for Assistant Program Director 15 years of clinical experience. For the management skills attribute shown in Figure 12.1, the utility function shows an ascending linear relationship, which suggests that the higher the score on a management skills test and interview, the higher the satisfaction with the candidate. In the case of developing innovative programs, a curvilinear relationship is present; that is, candidates who are either low or high on this attribute are less preferred than candidates who have moderate inclination to develop new programs. Figure 12.1 also shows the weight that a group member gave to each attribute. Weights can be assigned by dividing 100 points among all attributes in a manner that reflects the relative importance of each in proportion to the others. In Figure 12.1, the management skills attribute is assigned a weight of 40, making it four times as important as clinical experience, which has been assigned a weight of 10. The procedure of establishing minimal criteria, constraints, and attributes with their weights and functional forms is the basis of a member’s decision rule—that is, how a group member will use information about a problem to make a judgment. Members develop their own decision rules. When all members have completed this task, they share their decision rules with each other. It is helpful for the worker to post each member’s decision rules side by side on a flip chart or whiteboard so that all members can see how their decision rules compare.

The next step when using the MAU method is to have members discuss the logic behind their decision rules. During this unstructured discussion, the only “rule” is to focus on the reasoning behind the choice of attributes, weights, and functional forms. For example, members should not discuss individual candidates for the position, but would be encouraged to discuss why a member gave management skills four times the weight of clinical experience when considering candidates for this particular job.

Members discuss the decision rules until they agree on a common group rule that satisfies all members. Consensus is usually not difficult to reach because members find it easier to agree on how information will be used than on specific alternatives. Once a group decision rule has been decided, it is a routine procedure to see how each alternative (in this case, a job candidate) is ranked on the basis of the decision rule. First, alternatives that do not meet the criteria or the constraints set up by the decision rule are eliminated. The next step is to calculate each alternative’s score on the decision rule. Each score is multiplied by that attribute’s weight, and the total score is summed across each attribute. A total score on each alternative is calculated. The alternative that is rated the highest based on the decision rule is the one selected by the group as its final decision.

Uses

MAU is used primarily as a decision-making method for choosing among distinct alternatives or for ranking numerous cases by priority. The method should not be used for generating ideas. MAU has been used in a variety of health, social service, and mental health settings (see, for example, Carretero-Gomez & Cabrera, 2012; Clark & Unruh, 2009; Dolan, 2010; Peacock, Richardson, Carter, & Edwards, 2006; Stoner,

Meadan, Angell, & Daczewitz, 2012; Weiss, Edwards, & Mouttapa, 2009). In the future, it is likely that an increasing number of large human service organizations, particularly at the state and national level, will use computer-based group decision making, sometimes called electronic brainstorming or electronic group decision support systems, to enhance the quality of group decision making. For more information about electronic brainstorming and computer-assisted group decision support systems, see Bose (2015), Dzindolet, Paulus, and Glazer (2012), Paulus et al. (2013), or Thompson (2015).

Effectiveness

MAU is the most rational and technical method discussed in this chapter for making decisions in task groups. It attempts to order and systematize information by identifying important decision making attributes and assigning each a weight and a functional relationship to the overall decision. There is empirical evidence for the effectiveness of this method (for reviews, see Cabrera & Raju, 2001; Roth, Bobko, & Mabon, 2001). By providing for a thorough discussion of each individual’s decision rules instead of a more traditional discussion of alternative choices, the group achieves consensus about how information will be used to make a decision. MAU helps to eliminate the polarization that often takes place when members try to defend their choices of alternative solutions. Once the group decides on a decision rule, all alternatives are rated according to that rule. In this way, MAU is an impartial and transparent method. Because members have had a chance to influence the decision rule, the choice that is made by the group reflects the input of all members and, therefore, is likely to have the cooperation and commitment of all members when it is implemented. The primary drawback to MAU is that it is a technical method limited to making decisions between clear, established alternatives. When decisions between clearly delineated alternatives are crucial and consensus is important, MAU should be considered the method of choice for problem-solving groups. However, MAU should be used only by a trained worker who has both conceptual and practical experience in developing decision rules. In addition, MAU is not useful for generating ideas or alternative solutions but can be used after alternatives have been developed by brainstorming or other methods.

Quality Improvement Groups

Following trends in business and industry, continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become increasingly popular in health and human services. Groups are used extensively in CQI. In fact the literature is replete with many different names for quality improvement groups, including Quality Circles (QCs), Learning Collaboratives, Quality Improvement Teams (QITs), Continuous Quality Improvement Work Groups, and Self- Managed Work Teams (see, for example, Clark & Unruh, 2009; Davis et al., 2012, 2014; Dresser et al., 2009; Strating & Nieboer, 2013; Nadeem et al., 2014; Nolan, 2014; Lewis, Packard, & Lewis, 2012; Murphy, 2015; Neck & Houghton, 2006; Patti, 2009; Paul, Smith, & Blumberg, 2010; Strating & Nieboer, 2013).

Intervention

Behavior: Critically choose and implement interventions to achieve practice goals and enhance capacities of clients and constituencies

Critical Thinking Question: 1. Private industry uses group methods for problem solving. What types of

problems lend themselves to solutions using task groups in social work? QCs are small groups of employees who get together voluntarily, elect a leader, and identify and solve problems they have in completing their work assignments in a particular department or other settings. The intent is not only to improve quality but also to prevent workers from becoming alienated from the process and place of their work. Self-Managed Work Teams extend the concept of QCs by taking responsibility for all the work functions assigned to them and may use QC techniques as a way to ensure the quality of their work. They are often associated with organizations that are attempting to reduce hierarchical management. For more about these groups see Neck and Houghton (2006). In contrast to QCs and Self-Managed Work Teams, QITs and Continuous Quality Improvement Work Teams frequently consist of employees from different organizational levels and a variety of departments or functions within the organization. Members are often selected by management, and membership on the team is often required. Also, the projects the teams work on are often selected and approved by management.

Learning Collaboratives are relatively new phenomena. They can occur in a single organization or include members from other organizations. Their purpose is to improve usual care by sharing and disseminating evidence-based practices and by using quality improvement methods. They sometimes work at multiple levels in the same organization or across organizations to improve the quality of care. For example, a mental health Learning Collaborative may hold seminars focused on evidence-based practices for different mental health problems and also join with organizations focused on substance abuse or developmental disabilities to plan comprehensive treatment approaches for dually diagnosed consumers. Although Learning Collaboratives are growing in mental health and other practice fields, there is still very little information about their makeup, methods, or effectiveness (see, for example, Nadeem et al., 2014 or Strating & Nieboer, 2013). Because more is known about QCs and QITs, the remaining portion of this section will focus on these groups.

Procedures

Organizations generally have a coordinator for all CQI activities. This individual’s role is to ensure that (1) training is provided, (2) there is coverage when facilitators are sick or take personal leave, and (3) each circle or team has a way of communicating suggestions about problem solving to top-level management. QCs and QITs generally

consist of six to eight employees who meet regularly (e.g., weekly, monthly) to identify and solve problems that they face individually or as a larger work force. In QCs, a facilitator is selected by the membership; in QITs, this member may be appointed. Often the facilitator is a mid-level manager who serves as the link between the QC or QIT and upper management. To ensure that QCs and QITs run smoothly and effectively, facilitators should be trained in group dynamics and leadership skills. During meetings, the facilitator uses group dynamics, problem solving, brainstorming, and other procedures to facilitate an in-depth discussion and analysis of the topic or issue being addressed by the group.

QCs operate on the basis of core principles rather than specific steps or procedures. These principles are presented in the following list.

QC Core Principles • Commitment from top-level management to the process • A commitment to provide training for members of QCs in brainstorming, problem

solving, and information technology to gather evidence-based procedures • Voluntary membership in QC groups • A focus on problems identified by workers rather than by management • The selection of leadership and the ownership of the QC process by line staff • A focus on data-based problem solving • A focus on solving problems in ways that benefit both line workers and management Unlike QCs, QITs use the following specific steps for quality improvement: (1) understanding the opportunity or problem, (2) defining the specific target for improvement, (3) designing strategies to reach the target, (4) designing data-acquiring strategies, (5) designing a process to use the data, and (6) determining how the project will be managed. QCs are often used for idea generation and for improving the work environment, whereas QITs emphasize systematic, data-based, problem-solving strategies for improving the quality of services delivered by an organization.

Uses

The primary purpose of QCs a nd QITs is to improve the quality of the service delivered to consumers. Thus, QCs and QITs are two ways for management and line staff to demonstrate their commitment to delivering health and social services in the most effective manner.

Case Example A Quality Improvement Team

In a multiservice agency serving developmentally disabled adults, staff members became increasingly aware that clients often have multiple service providers. In these situations, problems often arose in the coordination of service plans among all the providers. In a QIT meeting, staff decided to review a selected number of consumer files to obtain data about the number of providers, and how services were currently coordinated. The QIT group used these data as the basis for recommendations about the design of a new care management system.

QCs and QITs have several benefits including encouraging workers to solve problems that interfere with their job satisfaction and performance, and gaining a greater sense of control and autonomy. In turn, workers are likely to feel better about their work, and more committed to it.

Effectiveness

Many writers have claimed that QCs and QITs improve services and workers’ morale by reducing vertical and horizontal demarcations of power (see, for example, Harrington & Mignosa, 2015). Despite these assertions, there is not yet a great deal of high quality empirical evidence about the effectiveness of quality improvement groups in social service organizations, and little is even known about the extent of use of the different types of quality improvement groups mentioned in this section. Therefore, this is an area that could benefit from additional research.

Large Organizational Groups

Parliamentary Procedure

Parliamentary procedure is a framework for guiding decision making and problem solving in large task groups. It has been developed over time in many different settings to meet the needs of a variety of task groups. Although there are some commonly accepted rules, there is no single body of laws that is universally accepted as parliamentary procedure.

Parliamentary procedure originated in 1321 in the English Parliament. From these roots, Thomas Jefferson developed a Manual of Parliamentary Practice in 1801 for use in Congress, and in 1845, Luther Cushing formulated a manual for use in lay, as well as legislative, assemblies (Robert & Robert, 2011). Today, Robert’s Rules of Order is the set of parliamentary procedures most frequently followed by task groups (Robert & Robert, 2011).

Procedures

In parliamentary meetings, the activity of the group is determined by motions brought by group members.

Classes of Motions in Parliamentary Procedures • Privileged motions deal with the agenda of the group meeting as a whole. They do

not have a relationship with the business before the group and include motions such as adjournment and recess.

• Incidental motions are concerned with procedural questions relating to issues on the floor. Some examples are a point of order and a point of information.

• Subsidiary motions assist in the handling and disposal of motions on the floor. Motions to table, postpone, or amend are subsidiary motions.

• Main motions introduce the central, substantive issues for group consideration. There can be no pending motions when a main motion is proposed. Examples of

main motions are reconsideration of an issue previously disposed of and resuming consideration of a tabled motion.

All motions made from the floor follow procedures governing the introduction of that type of motion. It is the chairperson’s job to ensure that the rules and procedures are followed. Although the chairperson is supposed to remain neutral during group deliberations, the person can influence the group’s work in a variety of ways. Group members must be recognized by the chair before they can make a motion. The chairperson rules on questions of procedure that arise during a meeting and also organizes the meeting by ordering the agenda items and specifying the amount of time available to discuss each item.

Robert’s Rules of Order provides a method for prioritizing motions during parliamentary meetings. Table12.1 shows the priority that each motion takes during a meeting. Table 12.1 Procedures for Acting on a Motion During a Parliamentary Meeting

Type of

Motion

Priority

of the

Motion

Can the

Speaker Be

Interrupted?

Does the

Motion

Need a

Second?

Is the

Motion

Debatable?

Can the

Motion Be

Amended?

Vote

Needed

to

Adopt

the

Motion

Privileged Motions

Set the time

of

adjournment

1 N Y N Y Majority

Call for

adjournment

2 N Y N N Majority

Call for

recess

3 N Y N Y Majority

Question of

privilege

4 Y N N N Chair’s

decision

Call for

prescheduled

5 Y N N N No vote

Type of

Motion

Priority

of the

Motion

Can the

Speaker Be

Interrupted?

Does the

Motion

Need a

Second?

Is the

Motion

Debatable?

Can the

Motion Be

Amended?

Vote

Needed

to

Adopt

the

Motion

items of

business

Incidental Motions

Point of order 6 Y N N N Chair’s

decision

Request for

information

6 Y N N N No vote

Call for a

revote

6 N N N N No vote

Appeal the

chair’s

decision

6 Y Y N N Majority

Object to

consideration

of a motion

6 Y N N N 2/3

Call to

suspend the

rules

6 N Y N N 2/3

Request to

withdraw a

motion

6 Y Y N N Majority

Type of

Motion

Priority

of the

Motion

Can the

Speaker Be

Interrupted?

Does the

Motion

Need a

Second?

Is the

Motion

Debatable?

Can the

Motion Be

Amended?

Vote

Needed

to

Adopt

the

Motion

Subsidiary Motions

Table a

motion

7 N Y N N Majority

Call for

immediate

vote

8 N Y N N 2/3

Limit/extend

debate

9 N Y N N 2/3

Postpone the

motion

10 N Y Y Y Majority

Refer the

motion to a

subcommittee

11 N Y Y Y Majority

Amend the

motion

12 N Y Y Y Majority

Postpone the

motion

indefinitely

13 N Y Y N Majority

Main Motions

Type of

Motion

Priority

of the

Motion

Can the

Speaker Be

Interrupted?

Does the

Motion

Need a

Second?

Is the

Motion

Debatable?

Can the

Motion Be

Amended?

Vote

Needed

to

Adopt

the

Motion

General main

motion

14 N Y Y Y Majority

Reconsider a

motion

already voted

on

14 Y Y Y Y 2/3

Rescind a

motion under

consideration

14 N Y Y Y 2/3

Resume

consideration

of a tabled

motion

14 N Y N N Majority

Set a special

order of

business

14 N Y Y Y 2/3

Although main motions contain the essential business of the parliamentary meeting, they receive the lowest priority because privileged motions govern how all agenda items are considered, and incidental and subsidiary motions are always made in reference to a main motion. Therefore, these motions are given a higher priority than main motions. For further information about parliamentary meetings, see Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (Robert & Robert, 2011), and for other ways of running meetings to reach consensus, see Breaking Roberts’ Rules (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006).

Uses

Parliamentary procedure is often used in large groups because it provides a well- defined structure to guide group process. The rules of parliamentary procedure help ensure a high level of order and efficiency in task group meetings when many agenda items are discussed. Order and efficiency are achieved through rules that demand consideration of one issue at a time. The rules prescribe the way in which issues are brought before the group, processed by the group, and disposed of by the group. In a meeting of a delegate council composed of representatives from many social service agencies, for example, parliamentary procedure can be used to lend order to how representatives interact. Thus, with many members representing the diverse interests of several agencies, meetings are run in a formal manner, and members are generally guaranteed a structured means by which they can bring their interests, motions, and agenda items to the large group.

Parliamentary procedure is especially useful for considering well-developed agenda items that need some discussion and debate and a relatively speedy decision by an entire task group. Parliamentary procedure is a formal and technically precise set of rules that is widely used but has a tendency to squelch directness, openness, and vitality (Forsyth, 2014). Thus, the procedure should not be used as a substitute for brainstorming or problem solving done by subcommittees of the larger task group.

Effectiveness

The long history of using parliamentary procedure in important decision-making bodies throughout the Western world testifies to its usefulness in providing a structure for task group meetings. By limiting and focusing the deliberations of a task group to one solution at a time, discussion and debate are facilitated, and motions are dealt with expeditiously. Clearly specified rules lead to an orderly and systematic consideration of each agenda item. Rules that remain consistent throughout the life of a group assure members that there is an established order that they can rely on for fair and equitable treatment when sensitive or controversial issues are presented.

Parliamentary procedure also protects the rights of the minority. For example, it takes only two members to introduce a main motion, one to state the motion and another to second the motion. Some motions can be made by a single member. Every group member is given an equal opportunity to participate. Majority rights are also protected because a quorum is needed to conduct a meeting, and majority rule is relied on for all decisions.

Parliamentary meetings have several disadvantages. Meetings are subject to manipulation by members who are familiar with parliamentary procedures. Members who are less familiar with the procedures may be reluctant to speak or be unsure of when or how to raise an objection to a motion. Another limitation is that private deals may be made outside a meeting to gain a member’s support for an agenda item in a forthcoming meeting. Private deals circumvent the intent of parliamentary procedure, which is based on openly debating the merits of a proposal. They also tend to enforce the will of powerful members who offer attractive incentives to members who support their positions on particular agenda items.

Parliamentary meetings have other limitations. The procedure encourages debate, which can lead to polarization of members’ opinions. Also, members often try to defend their positions rather than understand the logic behind opposing viewpoints. Perhaps the most important limitation of parliamentary procedure is that it is not well suited for problem solving, especially when the problem is complex, muddled, or not fully understood. A large task group using parliamentary procedure does not usually attain the level of interaction, the depth of communication, or the flexibility necessary to explore alternative solutions that may be necessary to resolve difficult problems. Large task groups should conduct most problem-solving efforts in subcommittees that report back to the larger group. The larger group can then debate the merits of a proposed solution and reach a decision based on majority rule.

Phillips’ 66

Phillips’ 66 was developed to facilitate discussion in large groups (Phillips, 1948). Originally, Phillips’ 66 referred to a technique of dividing a large group or audience into groups of six and having each group spend six minutes formulating one question for the speaker. The method has been expanded to include many different ways to facilitate communication in large groups. For example, members of the larger group may be asked to form smaller groups and discuss different aspects of a problem. Each group is asked to designate a recorder who uses a flip chart or other method to display the results of the subgroup’s work. Then, the recorder or another member reports a summary of the subgroup’s work when the larger group reconvenes.

Procedures

Phillips’ 66 should be used only after clear instructions are given to members about what they will be doing during the procedure, especially because once the large group has broken down into smaller groups, the sudden change from the structure and control of a large group meeting can cause confusion. If the groups are not clear about their direction, they may flounder or begin to work on something other than what was assigned by the leader.

To reduce the chances for confusion, the worker should ensure that each group is clear about the problem or task it is facing. Problem statements, tasks, and goals should be specific. When they are broad and nonspecific, the small groups have to spend time refining them, which may lead to work that is quite different from what the worker had intended. Members should also be clear about their assignments. They should understand what subgroup they belong to, what the group is supposed to do, what should be contained in the recorder’s report, how much time they have, and where and when the subgroup is supposed to meet.

The size of the subgroups and the amount of time each subgroup spends together depend on the situation. The original design of six-member groups meeting for six minutes may be appropriate in some situations but not in others. Generally, at least 20 to 30 minutes are required for a large group to break down into smaller groups and accomplish any meaningful work. Subgroups should be separated so members can hear each other and conduct their work. However, in a large meeting room, it is not

necessary to ask members to talk quietly. The noise and activity of other groups can be contagious and thus spur all groups to work harder (Maier, 1963). In very large meetings, having each subgroup report back to the larger group may be monotonous and time-consuming. Alternatives include limiting the reporting time to a few minutes for each subgroup, having each subgroup report on a portion of the discussion, and having each subgroup prepare a brief written report that can be shared after the meeting.

Phillips’ 66 can be combined with a procedure known as idea writing(Moore, 1994). When participants break into small groups, each member can be given a sheet of paper with a triggering question or item to which the member should respond in writing. After approximately five minutes, members place their sheets in the center of the group. Each member then selects another member’s sheet and responds in writing for approximately 5 to 10 minutes to the initial idea prepared by the first member. This process is repeated until all members have prepared written responses on every idea sheet. Members may react by writing what they like and dislike about the previous ideas and reactions and can offer suggestions for improvement. After this process is completed, members find their original sheets and read their ideas and other members’ reactions to them. The members of the small group then discuss the ideas that emerge from the written interaction, and the group facilitator summarizes the discussion on a flip chart. When the larger group reconvenes, the small-group facilitator can use information on the flip chart to present a summary of the small group’s ideas. Another way to use Phillips’ 66 is to have each of the smaller groups who have worked on ideas on a flip chart, tear off their pages and tape them to the walls around the room. Then members of the larger group can go around and select their top two or three favorite ideas by placing a tally mark next to the items of their choice on the sheets hanging on the walls. Then, when the group reconvenes, the marks can be tallied, and the larger group can decide to work on one or more of the ideas that were given the most checkmarks by members of the entire group.

Uses

Although most problem-solving activities take place in small task groups, occasionally there is a need for large groups, such as members of a social agency or a delegate assembly, to engage in problem-solving discussions. Parliamentary procedure, in which the chair must recognize individual speakers from the floor, is not designed for large problem-solving discussions. It is designed for debating the merits of proposals and voting on alternatives that are already well developed. Phillips’ 66 can be used as an alternative method for problem solving in large task groups. For example, during an in- service training program covering management skills, the group trainer asks the large group to divide into smaller groups and answer the question, “What makes a good manager?” Members of the small groups work to develop a short list of answers to the question within a limited period of time. When the large group reconvenes, each group reports its answers, and the material is used by the trainer in the didactic presentation and in group discussion following the presentation.

It can be difficult to hold the attention of all members when individual members are speaking. It is also difficult to encourage shy members to express themselves,

particularly if they have minority opinions. Using Phillips’ 66, the worker can involve all members in a group discussion. The small size of the groups makes it easier for shy members to express themselves. Also, members can choose to participate in groups that are focused on topics of particular interest to them. Reporting ideas generated by subgroups back to the larger assembly ensures that input from all members is considered in the problem-solving process. Overall, Phillips’ 66 is a useful method that overcomes the limitations of parliamentary procedure when large groups are called on to solve problems.

Effectiveness

Phillips’ 66 is a practical, commonsense procedure for facilitating discussion and problem solving in large groups. Although there is little empirical evidence about its effectiveness, its effective use has been reported in several sources (Gulley, 1968; Maier, 1963; Stattler & Miller, 1968). When applied correctly, Phillips’ 66 can be used in a variety of situations. However, poor planning, confused or nonspecific instructions, or a muddled explanation of the goals of the procedure can turn a large task group meeting into disorganization and chaos.

Methods for Working with Community Groups

Work with community groups such as social action groups, coalitions, and delegate councils involves many of the methods and skills described throughout this text. For example, community groups frequently use brainstorming and other problem-solving methods to generate ideas and address issues during meetings. Work with community groups is distinguished from other forms of group work practice by special emphasis on the following: (1) mobilizing individuals to engage in collective action, (2) building the capacity of the group and its members to effect community change, and (3) planning and organizing social action strategies. The remainder of this chapter focuses on these three aspects of practice with community groups.

Mobilization Strategies

Whether working with social action groups, coalitions, or delegate councils, a primary task of the worker is to mobilize individual members to action. The worker is a catalyst who stimulates interest in community problems and motivates members to work together (Hardina, 2013; McKnight & Plummer, 2015; Pyles, 2013; Walls, 2015). When engaging in mobilization efforts, the worker identifies and works with several constituencies, including the individuals who are experiencing the problem, community leaders, informal and formal community groups and organizations, and larger social institutions. For example, to mobilize a coalition to prevent domestic violence, a worker meets with victims of domestic violence, women’s groups, the staff of domestic violence shelters, dispute resolution centers, police departments, family courts, and departments of social services, as well as with ministers, priests, rabbis, and local politicians. An important initial step in any mobilization effort is to become familiar with the perceptions of community members about the issues the community group will attempt

to address (McKnight & Plummer, 2015). It is often helpful to begin by meeting with civic and religious leaders and with community activists. These individuals can provide a helpful overview of the community’s past responses to the issue and to similar issues. However, it is also essential to meet with as many community residents as possible. McKnight and Plummer (2015)emphasize the importance of getting to know the community where any mobilization strategies will occur. Person-to-person contact with community residents helps build community groups and organizations in which each member feels valued (Pyles, 2013). When meeting with community residents, the worker should avoid telling residents why they should be concerned about a particular issue or problem. A more effective strategy is to ask them to describe their problems and concerns and validate and affirm the issues they raise by mentioning how their views are consistent with views of other community residents. In this way, community residents begin to get a sense that it is their issues, not the worker’s issues, that will be addressed through collective action. Hardina (2013) suggests that after one-on-one interviews are conducted, it is helpful to meet with community residents in groups. Hardina (2013) also notes that group dialogue can be fostered in many different ways. For example, she mentions using the nominal group technique, focus groups, study circles, and larger community forums to help mobilize community residents. As workers become familiar with communities, they should identify key individuals, community groups, and organizations that might be willing to help with mobilization efforts. To determine the extent to which individuals, groups, and organizations can help, the worker should evaluate their positions within the power structure of the community (McKnight & Plummer, 2015; Walls, 2015). The worker should then consider how forming a partnership with particular individuals and groups may help or hinder mobilization efforts. Often, the worker decides to form partnerships with a wide range of individuals, community leaders, and organizations. However, the worker should also be careful about involving individuals or organizations who do not share compatible goals or who have such a negative reputation in the community that they might damage the group’s effort. Therefore, a careful analysis of community power structures is essential for effective mobilization efforts (Hardina, 2013; Kuyek, 2011). Meyer (2013) notes that members are motivated to become part of coalitions to preserve what they have had or to promote new or different ways of behaving toward community residents. When something that is important is at risk, community members are motivated to form social action groups and larger coalitions to preserve what is dear to them. Members of social action groups and coalitions are also motivated by the opportunity to make better lives for themselves, their families, and others in their community (Meyer, 2013). Mobilization involves consciousness raising and empowerment. Working with individual citizens, community leaders, and formal and informal organizations, the worker attempts to bring a single issue or a group of related issues to greater public awareness. Consciousness raising may be done in several ways. Strategies for Raising Public Awareness • Meeting with community residents • Making presentations to civic and religious organizations • Testifying at public hearings

• Publicizing the issue through local newspapers, radio or television stations, and websites

• Demonstrating, picketing, and boycotting The goal of consciousness-raising efforts is to encourage community members to gain a renewed sense of individual and community pride and to join forces to improve their community. McKnight and Plummer (2015) point out that consciousness raising involves helping community residents to realize that the way things are is not a result of fate or their own failings, but rather social structures that promote the status quo. With this new awareness, residents are then encouraged to stand up for themselves. Mobilization to action involves helping members understand the power of collective action against injustices and inequities. Helping individuals vent their frustration and anger by public declarations and acting against those causing the problem can sometimes resolve individual problems (Rubin & Rubin, 2008). However, individual actions are easily ignored, dismissed, or punished by persons in power. Therefore, the goal of the worker should be to help individuals understand the value of pooling their efforts so they can exert sufficient influence to effect change. One way to accomplish this goal is to highlight the incentives for collective action. Individuals become actively involved in a community group if they think they have something to gain, if they think they can contribute, and if they believe in the goals of the group. According to Rubin and Rubin (2008), the worker can use a variety of material incentives, such as improved income or better housing; solidarity incentives, such as the enjoyment of belonging to the group; and expressive incentives, such as the excitement and satisfaction of articulating opinions and values. Mobilization to action also involves engaging in action projects that build interest and commitment in a community (Hardina, 2013; Pyles, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2008). A good way to begin is to identify a project or activity that is relatively easy and leads to an immediate success. For example, a social action group, a coalition, or even a delegate council might sponsor a community forum to which they invite local politicians and the news media. Similarly, a “community education day” might be planned at a shopping mall, a “teach-in” might be scheduled at a school, or a rally might be organized in a public square. Later, when members have experienced the initial successful completion of a project, they can be encouraged to tackle larger projects, such as a community survey or an extensive lobbying effort, that require more effort and resources.

Capacity-Building Strategies

Assessment

Behavior: Collect and organize data and use critical thinking to interpret information from clients and constituencies

Critical Thinking Question:

1. Groups are important parts of communities. How can the worker help group members use capacity-building strategies?

Capacity building means helping community groups develop the ability and the resources to successfully tackle one issue or a set of issues. Community development and other forms of community work are a form of capacity building (Hardina, 2013; Pyles, 2013). Group workers facilitate the formation of groups of involved citizens in private, voluntary, and public settings for the purpose of social action (McKnight & Plummer, 2015; Pyles, 2013). This process of community development involves the locating and bringing together of local assets in the community, including but not limited to groups (Pyles, 2013). The worker plays the role of coordinator in helping members gather data and build resources. A first step in capacity building is to help group members become as knowledgeable as possible about the issues they are addressing. Workers should facilitate exchanges of information among members about the issues facing groups and about ways to accomplish particular objectives.

In many instances, the worker and the members will not have enough information about a problem. In these situations, the worker should encourage groups to gather data before proceeding. Original data can be gathered through community surveys or focused interviews with key informants (Hardina, 2013). The worker might also help members gain access to public records and reports as the following case example illustrates.

Case Example Organizing in a Community

Several workers from a large family service agency decided that they would like to do something to reduce urban blight in the catchment area served by their agency. After talking with community leaders and other key stakeholders, the workers were able to identify a significant number of community residents who expressed interest in organizing a neighborhood association. The workers called a meeting with community leaders, neighborhood small business owners, other key stakeholders, and interested citizens, to discuss how to begin. The social action group decided to collect data to help them apply for funding. They decided that (1) city building department files could be used to gather data on building-code violations, (2) police department records could be used to collect data on the number and type of crimes in a particular neighborhood, (3) the county clerk’s office could be used to gather data on property ownership, and (4) the department of public welfare and the local community development agency could be used to obtain estimates of poverty rates, and the homeless population. In this way, the social action group began to build a database to be used for an application for seed funding from the United Way and a local foundation to obtain the necessary resources for beginning and sustaining a vibrant neighborhood association.

A second step in capacity building involves helping the group or coalition become familiar with the structures within a community that can aid change efforts. It is important to identify individuals with the power to bring about needed changes within a community and determine to whom these individuals report. The worker also can help the group identify and contact religious and civic organizations that may be interested in

joining forces to work on a particular issue, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of opponents to change, or decide what tactics might be used to change opponents’ minds (Hardina, 2013). For example, would a landlord be most vulnerable to a rent strike, to moral pressure from a church group, or to having housing-code violations strictly enforced?

A third step is to help the group learn how to influence local government. The worker can help group members identify policy makers and bureaucrats who might support group efforts to have existing laws enforced or to introduce new legislation to address a particular issue. The worker can help the group develop a clear position on the issues with as much supporting documentation as available. To the extent possible, the group might form a partnership with legislators and bureaucrats so they can collaborate on the change effort. Rubin and Rubin (2008) note that legislators are receptive to ideas that make them look active, creative, and effective. The worker can help legislators and bureaucrats place the issue on the agenda by testifying at public hearings and by using lobbying efforts.

A fourth step in capacity building is to help the group make an inventory of its existing resources and identify resources needed to accomplish particular goals. In this way, members are empowered to use their own resources to help them tackle the problems they are facing as a community. For example, the group may find it needs legal advice. Can a lawyer be identified who would be willing to work with the group? Similarly, the group may want to publish a fact sheet or a brochure for a lobbying effort. Can a business or community organization that would be willing to help the group design or print the brochure be identified? An important role of the worker is to help the group locate resources to accomplish its objectives. For more information about capacity building through the formation of coalitions, see Feinberg, Bontempo, and Greenberg (2008), Mattessich, Murray-Close, and Monsey (2008), Meyer (2013), or Zakocs and Edwards (2006).

Social Action Strategies

According to Harrison and Ward (1999), social action has two central characteristics. First, it promotes the capacity of all people to take action to improve their situation. Second, this action is based on open participation, when people working collectively in groups explore underlying social issues and take action to alleviate problems. Self- management and empowerment are essential ingredients. There is no victim blaming or a focus on deficits. Instead, workers facilitate members’ skills, helping them to take action for themselves. Although there are a number of theories and ideas about how to organize (see Pyles, 2013), social action is based on the idea that the people who are most affected by a problem are in the best position to articulate their experiences and to define and implement solutions. A variety of social action strategies can be used to help community groups accomplish their objectives during the middle stage. These include political advocacy, negotiation, legal strategies including legal and regulatory suits, asset-based community development, direct action, and alternative community and cultural development strategies (Hardina, 2013; Pyles, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2008; Walls, 2015).

Many forms of political activity are available to community groups, such as those that follow.

• Community Group Political Activity

• Organizing voter registration drives

• Nominating and working on the campaigns of public officials

• Developing and supporting referendums, propositions, and other grass-roots efforts to bypass legislators and get proposals directly on the ballot

• Lobbying and advocating positions

• Participating in public hearings

• Monitoring compliance with laws by bureaucratic and regulatory agencies

Although political action strategies are designed to get persons in power to pay attention to the goals of a community group, legal action strategies are designed to force politicians and bureaucrats to take action on issues supported by a community group or a coalition of community groups. Political action strategies can have sweeping and binding effects, but they are often expensive and time-consuming. Sometimes, the threat of legal action by a single counsel on retainer can create some action. More often, however, legal action requires a professional staff, a large budget, and a great deal of patience. Although coalitions of community groups and community groups affiliated with national organizations can use legal strategies effectively, political action strategies and direct action strategies are often preferred.

Direct action strategies include rallies, demonstrations, marches, picketing, sit-ins, vigils, blockades, boycotts, slowdowns, strikes, and many other forms of nonviolent and violent protest. Direct action strategies allow members to ventilate frustration and anger, but they can be counterproductive. Negative publicity, fines, physical injury, fines, imprisonment, physical injury, and time lost at work are just a few of the possible consequences. Thus, direct action strategies should not be undertaken without careful thought and preparation, and then only if it is clear that safer political and legal strategies are unlikely to achieve the desired objective. It is also important to keep in mind that the threat of direct action is often as terrifying as the action itself. Therefore, if a community group is serious about engaging in a direct action strategy, it is often wise to publicize the group’s intent and the specific steps that an opponent can take to avoid the action.

In his text, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky (1971) developed a number of pragmatic rules for choosing among different action strategies. For example, he suggested picking a direct action strategy that enjoys wide support among members. He also suggested picking a strategy that emphasizes the weaknesses of the opponent. Thus, a rally that gets widespread news coverage might be particularly effective against an opponent concerned about negative publicity, but an economic boycott might be more effective against a corporation under pressure from shareholders to increase profits. When selecting a social action strategy, there is a generally accepted protocol that should be

adhered to when carrying out work with community groups. Less-intrusive and more cooperative strategies should be tried before disruptive or conflict-oriented strategies are engaged. Collaboration and negotiation strategies should be employed before conflict strategies. Collaboration means that in attempting to effect some change in a target system, the worker tries to convince the target system that change is in the best interests of all involved. In negotiation, the worker and the target system both give and receive something in the process of change. The process of bargaining involves a good faith quid pro quo arrangement and assumes that each party will make some change desired by the other.

Should collaboration and negotiation fail to achieve a desired change, the group may be forced to engage in conflict strategies. In any case, the worker should always help group members use each of the three strategies in a constructive and an ethical fashion. The worker should carefully guard against a group choosing conflict as an initial strategy because of the perception that the strategy will result in change more quickly or because members wish to carry out personal retribution. For more information about working with community groups, see Hardina (2013), McKnight and Plummer (2015), Pyles (2013), Walls (2015), and Wells-Wilbon (2016).

Assess your understanding of specialized methods for working with community groups by taking this brief quiz.

Case Example

Funding sources for the AIDS Outreach Association were so impressed with Nora’s research and documentation that they approved a budget allocation for hiring four people to fill newly created case-management positions. Because of the importance of this new initiative, Nora wanted to have input from all constituencies within the organization. Therefore, she formed an ad hoc committee composed of supervisors, program directors, and two consumers to assist in the recruitment and selection procedures and processes.

During the first meeting of the committee, Nora discussed the development and implementation of the purpose of the group and its charge. She noted that the group would be responsible for deciding what skills would best fit the position and for rating and ranking job candidates. During this first session, the group discussed the tasks, activities, and services that case managers would be providing to consumers. The first session ended with a list of potential duties that could be assigned to the new employees.

One week later, Nora convened the group for the second time. The group members tried to design a procedure for screening candidates but were unable to focus on what criteria would guide the selection process. There were lots of ideas, but the group could not seem to keep track of them. Nora suggested that the group take a short break. When group members returned, Nora placed a flip chart at the head of the table. She suggested that members use brainstorming techniques to generate ideas about the

skills and attributes needed for the job. She explained that in brainstorming, members should develop as many ideas as possible without evaluating the importance of the ideas. In other words, members were asked to come up with as many ideas as possible and not to critique any ideas until the idea-generation phase of the process was complete. As each member contributed an idea, it was recorded on the flip chart. At the end of the brainstorming session, Nora took all the criteria that had been listed and rearranged them into a comprehensive list. She was amazed at the number of criteria the group had generated.

Armed with many creative ideas for how to rate candidates, the group now faced the task of reducing the list to the most important set of criteria. Nora suggested that the group use elements of the nominal group technique (NGT) to identify important criteria. She guided the group members in a review of the list of criteria, and she asked members to write their top choices on a piece of paper, ranking their choices from highest to lowest. During this process members were asked to refrain from discussing their choices with each other. Next, Nora asked members to present their highest- ranked ideas in round robin fashion, going around the group until all members had contributed their choices for the five highest criteria. Nora used this list to sort criteria into categories. She then asked members to take turns discussing their choices with the rest of the group. Following the discussion, Nora asked members to vote on a consolidated list of criteria by assigning values to their top five choices within each category. After this was done, Nora tallied up the numerical ratings and listed the top five criteria as determined by the vote of each group member. These included amount of experience working with persons with AIDS, knowledge about AIDS, knowledge of the service system, interpersonal skills, and potential for developing new programs. The group agreed that these would be the criteria that they would use to screen and rank job applicants. They ended the group meeting by developing a position description using the criteria and directed Nora to advertise the position in two local newspapers.

Some weeks later, Nora convened the group to discuss their next task. Since the last meeting, the positions had been advertised, and a number of applications had been sent to the organization. The group’s next task was to screen the candidates and to rate them according to the criteria the group had established.

At first, members rushed into the task of discussing individual candidates without establishing ground rules for how to proceed. Nora suggested that the group use a more organized approach to the process, namely, multiattribute utility (MAU) analysis. This required the group to review and specify the criteria they had previously decided on to rank candidates, to specify minimum and optimum levels of qualifications for the job, and to systematically rate candidates according to the decision criteria. Although some members were skeptical in the beginning of this procedure, they soon found that using this method enabled them to systematically review each job candidate. At the close of this procedure, members were able to rank the top candidates for the open positions. To ensure that consensus about the ranking of the top candidates was achieved, a final round of discussion followed the group’s ranking process. The committee ended its work by presenting the chief executive officer of the AIDS Outreach Association with a ranked list of candidates to be interviewed for the new positions.