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

they choose, so there is not the inevitable competition for time or distraction. Research has found that computer-based groups do not suffer the same production loss as face-to-face groups (Dennis and Williams, 2003). However, there is also no special motivation to attend to the ideas of others under those circumstances. Unless group members are motivated to attend to these ideas, they may show little benefit of the group interaction. Facilitators need to develop procedures that ensure that group members do process the exchanged ideas at some time in the session. We have done this by instructing participants that we would test their memory for exchanged ideas (Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, and Yang, 2000). However, other strategies may also be useful, such as asking participants to note ideas from others that they think are particularly useful for later discussion.

It is not necessary to use computer networks to facilitate idea exchange. Similar benefits can be obtained by precomputer-era techniques for strengthening individual efforts such as the nominal group technique, in which group members work individually during certain stages (Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson, 1986), and brainwriting, in which individuals exchange ideas on pieces of paper (Geschka, Schaude, and Schlicksupp, 1973; Paulus and Yang, 2000; Siegel, 1996). (For additional examples, see Van Gundy, 1988.) It may also be useful to use multiple modalities for interaction. Some preliminary interaction by means of computer or writing may make a subsequent face-to-face interaction session more productive.

Structure of the Interaction Formal or informal brainstorming in organizations is typically done with groups, even though individual brainstorming may be more effective. It is true that individuals enjoy group interaction and may find individual brainstorming a bit awkward. This may be in part a cultural bias based on the expectations that brainstorming should be a group activity. It turns out that the most effective strategy may be a combination of group and individual brainstorming. It might be useful to have individuals generate ideas individually (possibly by writing ideas on a piece of paper) prior to sharing those ideas with the group to allow each individual to have a pool of highly available ideas to share in the group process. However, there may be a tendency to focus on these prior ideas rather than becoming fully engrossed in the idea flow of the group (so it might be best if the prior ideas were not written down).

Another option is to have individuals continue to brainstorm individually after group interaction. The group interaction may generate a lot of associations that do not have an opportunity to develop fully during the group interaction. A

Facilitation of Group Brainstorming

109

subsequent “incubation session” in which individuals reflect individually on the exchanged ideas and relate them to their own knowledge structure may allow the generation of a considerable number of additional ideas (Paulus and Yang, 2000). In our experience, such sessions are relatively rare in structured group sessions. Group information exchange sessions are typically followed by decision-making sessions or movement to unrelated activities (for example, going back to one’s regular work activities). Unfortunately, much of the intellectual gain of the interaction process may be lost by switching prematurely to such other activities. It should be noted that research on the nominal group technique has typically used an individual writing procedure followed by an exchange of the written ideas without comment and then a subsequent discussion (Van Gundy, 1988). However, this process is different from our suggestion of continued brainstorming with a variation of individual and group approaches. Unfortunately, evidence is mixed as to the differential benefits of various orders of individual and group brainstorming (Paulus, Larey, and Ortega, 1995).

Task Structure

Most brainstorming experiences are generally structured in the following manner. Group members typically focus on a general problem, discuss it until they feel they have depleted their ideas, and then try to come to a decision about the best alternatives. Although this seems a natural approach, minor changes in this procedure can greatly enhance the number of ideas generated.

Focusing on a broad issue or problem may sometimes be overwhelming. There are many different aspects to the problem to be considered and it is difficult to know how to allocate time effectively. We have found that one useful strategy is to decompose a problem into its basic subelements and have the group consider each element in turn (Coskun, Paulus, Brown, and Sherwood, 2000). This allows the group to focus its intellectual energies on each aspect of the problem in isolation. This technique is more likely to lead to a full tapping of the relevant group knowledge for each of these subareas. Also, it may allow group members to more clearly see connections among the different subelements (Brown and Paulus, 2002).

Another tendency of groups is to slow their idea generation process over the course of their allotted time. This slowing process appears to be used as a cue that they are reaching the bottom of their pool of ideas. However, we have found that simply giving the group a short break and then instructing them to continue the

110	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

task often leads them to generate a large number of additional ideas. Brief breaks in the ideation process may also help dissipate the cognitive inhibition or overload that group members may experience during the exchange process (Smith, 2003).

Another strategy for counteracting a reduction in ideation during the group process is to prime the group with key ideas or categories. This is often a strategy that facilitators use (Osborn, 1957). We have found that exposure to experimenterpresented ideas during the brainstorming process increases the number of ideas generated during both the exposure process and a subsequent session in which individuals continue to brainstorm without external priming. In a sense, the cognitive potential of groups should be very high as long as we keep priming them with relevant ideas or categories of ideas. This is especially true for groups that consist of experts in diverse fields relevant to the problem.

Active Facilitators

Each of the previous sections suggests strategies that facilitators can use to optimize the potential of their creative groups. We believe that each of these strategies can be quite useful. In addition, facilitators may want to intervene in the group process to make sure that the groups are following the best practices or rules for group interaction. They may intervene if groups are becoming prematurely critical or to encourage low contributors to increase their participation.

Several studies have examined the utility of such facilitator interventions and have found that they can improve group brainstorming (Kramer, Fleming, and Mannis, 2001; Offner, Kramer, and Winter, 1996; Oxley, Dzindolet, and Paulus, 1996), especially if the facilitators have considerable group experience. However, we have found that to some extent, groups can become self-facilitating. If brainstorming groups are trained to follow rules of effective group interaction, they can greatly increase the number of ideas generated. In our studies, these rules included the typical brainstorming rules of not criticizing, focusing on quantity, saying all ideas that come to mind, and building on the ideas of others. In addition, groups were trained to avoid discussing irrelevant issues, present ideas in an efficient manner (without unneeded elaboration or stories), encourage others to participate, and go back to old categories of ideas during lulls in the brainstorming session. We have found that groups can effectively use these additional rules of effective brainstorming without the active participation of a facilitator (Paulus, Nakui, and Putman, forthcoming).

Facilitation of Group Brainstorming

111

Facilitation of Group Decision Making

Although it may be fun to generate a lot of ideas, the basic goal of most brainstorming sessions is to come up with some subset of useful solutions or strategies. This involves some type of evaluation and selection process. This selection process can be done by outsiders, as when employees brainstorm new ideas that are then passed on to management for further evaluation and possible selection of some of the ideas for implementation. Sometimes the same group that brainstorms is involved in the subsequent selection and evaluation process.

We are just beginning to understand the connection between the ideation and decision phase of creative group interaction. It is quite possible that groups that generate ideas may not be good at selecting the best ideas since they may have personal and social biases that could influence those decisions. Objective outsiders might be able to evaluate the ideas based on their merits more effectively. However, in some high-level groups, such as scientific or industrial groups, only the group members have the expertise to evaluate the generated alternatives. Also, it is possible that some people are better at ideation and others at evaluation. Facilitators need to be aware of all of these possibilities. One useful strategy would be to have the ideas evaluated by both the group that generated them and an outside group. It is important to train evaluators in an effective selection process. It is of little benefit to have a highly trained brainstorming group’s output evaluated by a group that is not trained to make effective decisions.

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE

The various recommendations we have made are based on empirical data from controlled studies and are consistent with the social and cognitive information processing model (Paulus and others, 2002). How well do these fit with practices of those who actually do brainstorming sessions with organizations? We have not found a comprehensive summary of typical practices. A casual survey of articles by facilitators about brainstorming suggests than many use some of the suggested procedures (Paulus, Nakui, and Putman, forthcoming). We have found none that appear to have a broad theoretical grounding for their work or base their work on the empirical literature. For example, one common suggestion is that multisensory experiences will enhance group creativity. Yet we know of no empirical evidence for this. Another common suggestion is that making the creative experience fun will enhance creativity. There is some evidence that positive moods can enhance

112	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

creativity (Grawitch, Munz, and Kramer, 2003), but there is no evidence that such moods have an impact on group processes. Obviously, what is needed is a careful assessment of the benefit of the procedures suggested by empirical research and practicing facilitators in a variety of real-world settings.

Our review and analysis of the brainstorming literature suggests the following best practices:

Ten Best Practices for Group Brainstorming

1.If possible, select group members who are suited for the brainstorming task. This selection can be based on the factors we have highlighted but can also be based on facilitator experiences with these individuals in group situations. A similar approach might be used to select group members for the decision process.

2.Selecting diverse group members can enhance creativity but also create problems for interaction. Facilitators should train group members in skills required to function effectively in diverse groups, such as conflict management and empathy. Diverse groups are more likely to reach their potential if they have considerable experience working with one another.

3.Group members who believe that their contributions really matter and are intrinsically interested in the problem are likely to perform at higher levels. Facilitators should emphasize the contextual and task-related features that provide both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for the task.

4.Cognitive stimulation in the group can be enhanced by priming the groups with additional ideas or categories of ideas that they have not yet considered. Such ideas can be derived from a survey of experts in a particular idea domain.

5.The use of a variety of interaction modalities may optimize the ability of the group to have a full exchange of ideas. Facilitators should seek opportunities for mixing computer-based, written, and oral exchange of ideas by group members.

6.Effective group brainstorming can be overwhelming in terms of information overload and mental demands. Combining group sessions with individual brainstorming or reflection sessions may be optimum.

7.The group task should be decomposed into its basic elements, and the facilitator should guide the group to deal with each element in turn. After many

Facilitation of Group Brainstorming

113

ideas have been generated for each of these elements, facilitators may lead groups to consider possible connections among them.

8.Facilitators should intersperse the brainstorming process with brief rest periods or alternative activities. Our research suggests that it is probably best if those activities are in the same general cognitive domain. However, other research suggests that contrasting activities and exposure to nature can be most helpful in overcoming mental fatigue or inhibition.

9.Although facilitators should be active in developing an optimum environment and structure for group brainstorming, it is important for the facilitator not to dominate the interaction. This may distract the creative process and reduce intrinsic motivation.

10.Facilitators should train groups in effective procedures for both brainstorming and decision making so that they can use these skills in other contexts. Research suggests that such training is most effective if all members of such future groups are trained together.

114	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

Promoting Mutual Understanding for Effective Collaboration

in Cross-Functional Groups with Multiple Stakeholders

c h a p t e r

E I G H T

Sam Kaner

One of the intriguing aspects of being human is that each of us organizes our experience of life into a unique, personal set of perceptions, categories, assumptions, and meanings. In other words, subjective construction of reality is an inescapable feature of the

human condition.

This leads directly to one of the toughest, and deepest, challenges in participatory, collaboration-based decision making: the problem of intersubjectivity. The problem is that everyone who participates in a given discussion interprets it differently. It is hard not to hear what we want to hear or, rather, what we have programmed ourselves to hear. (For more information regarding intersubjectivity, see Rogers and Roethlisberger, 1991.)

In a multiple-stakeholder collaboration, the problem of intersubjectivity has huge significance. Diverse stakeholders often arrive at a given collaboration with very different starting positions. Furthermore, participants are not only stakeholders;

115

they are also human beings. Their individual frames of reference, influenced by their education, culture, gender, age, upbringing, and countless other factors, will inevitably create substantial communication obstacles, over and above the surface-level differences in their stakeholder positions.

As facilitators, how seriously should we take these obstacles? How can we understand the problem constructively and engage with it effectively? These are the questions I address in this chapter.

INTRODUCTION TO CASE STUDY

The following depiction of a multiple-stakeholder collaboration is typical of numerous cases we see at my consulting firm, Community At Work. The central narrative is based on an actual case: a success story of a school-based collaborative that got off to a rocky start but was able to adjust and grow into a broad communitysupported coalition. (Today, more than ten years after its inception, the collaborative is still functioning effectively.) All identifying information, including the specifics of the presenting request and the details that portray the individual characters and their conversations, has been disguised to preserve confidentiality, and the narrative flow has been simplified and fictionalized in places to bring key points into focus. Nonetheless, the overall trajectory and character of this depiction remain loyal to the realities of the actual case.

The collaboration began with the formation of a simple committee, convened by the local junior high school to develop a policy on student discipline. The members were two teachers, a parent, the school principal, and an elected member of the school board. Partway through the committee’s first meeting, the following interchange took place:

Parent: We need a clearly structured disciplinary system, with severe consequences for misbehavior. Students who get into fights should be suspended immediately.

Teacher: Children misbehave because they have low self-esteem or problems at home. Our disciplinary system should emphasize activities that build self-esteem and prevent misbehavior.

Parent: That’s well and good, but safety must come first. Suspend them for fighting. Let the problem students get the message loud and clear. Once they learn to play by the rules, then we can think about their self-esteem.

116	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

Teacher: Suspension is often not the answer. These kids are facing some really challenging situations at home and on the streets. Forcing them out of school will only aggravate their problems.

Parent: I’m more concerned about protecting children who don’t have problems.

Teacher: But teachers are paid to be responsive to the needs of our entire community.

This interchange was typical of what happened at the meeting, and participants went home feeling frustrated and stuck. They could not figure out why they had not been able to make better progress. After all, everyone had acted in good faith, and they sincerely wanted to produce a policy that worked for everyone. “That’s why we created the committee in the first place,” said one of the teachers.

Despite their good intentions, they did not have a grasp on the fundamentals of effective collaboration. In the snippet of conversation shown above, both the parent and the teacher stood up for their own ideas, but neither of them made any effort to understand the other’s reasoning. They behaved as if they were in a debating competition.

Effective Collaboration

Here’s what the participants did not understand: that solutions that work for everyone are solutions that have incorporated everyone’s point of view. Effective collaboration means thinking together. And that means being able to think not only from one’s own point of view but also from another person’s different point of view. That’s how common ground is discovered.

Effective collaboration, in other words, means thinking within a framework of mutual understanding. And mutual understanding, in this sense, means more than merely understanding what someone says in words out loud; it also means taking the time to understand what that person means, wants, and needs. In other words, it means understanding someone’s perspective well enough to be able to think from that person’s point of view, with or without affinity for that perspective.

To the junior high school committee, all of this was invisible. The committee members had no training to understand the structure of an inclusive win/win solution, and they had no awareness that this type of solution emerges from a group’s ability to incorporate one another’s perspectives. As one member put it, they were “just trying to set a policy that everybody could sign onto.”

Promoting Mutual Understanding for Effective Collaboration

117

Membership of the Committee

It is easy to see how this group could become stuck (see Exhibit 8.1). Indeed, it is hard to imagine how this group would not become stuck.

Exhibit 8.1

Student Discipline Committee

TEACHER 1

“The problem is in the home life. I was trained to teach, not be a counselor, a nurse, and a police officer! Parents need to discipline their own children.“

PARENT	TEACHER 2
“Troublemakers	“Problem children
should be sent	need support, not
home at once.“	punishment.“

PRINCIPAL

“Teachers need to deal with discipline

in their classrooms, not send every minor offender to

the office.“

SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER

“What‘s wrong with the way we used to handle discipline when I was a kid? Everyone knew the rules: you got your knuckles rapped on your first offense, and spanked on the second. It worked just fine!“

Adapted from Kaner, Lind, Toldi, Fisk, and Berger, 1996.

And then what? Well, they could continue debating and miscommunicating until they finally exhausted the goodwill of the group.

And then? They could just stop coming to meetings, and eventually disband without reaching an agreement. Or they could agree to set up an altogether different committee (“because the issue needs further study.”) Or they could hand the problem back to the school principal, as in, “You’re in charge, so you deal with it.” Or they could come up with a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator compromise.

The Pseudo-Solution

Sure enough, the committee’s deliberations followed one of the predictable pathways. After four meetings of going around in circles, they nominated the school

118	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation