FF 0.2 Understanding Group Dynamics and Decision Making

One key role of the facilitator is to identify the dynamics that develop when people interact with one another and to help group manage those dynamics. Dysfunctional dynamics have a negative impact on group members, hindering their ability to work together, and undermine the facilitator's best efforts to create a comfortable, productive work climate (open, trusting, safe) and to help members progress through their task work (content, agenda, outcomes).

The Nine Types of Group Dynamics:


1. Stages of Group Development
Groups commonly pass through various stages as their members work together. The stages related to both the task maturity of the group as it progresses toward completing its work and the psychosocial maturity of the group as individual or interpersonal needs are resolved.

One popular theory of group development describes these stages in terms of forming, storming, norming, and performing (Tuckman, 1965, Developmental Sequences in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.) In short, certain assumptions, benefits, conclusions, and expectations are held by each member about other members, the work itself, and the organization(s) within which they are working.

We can also approach group development by breaking it down into five stages:

1. Polite (Initial impressions, getting to know one another)
2. Goal (Why we're here, what we're going to do)
3. Power (Leadership, role, influence)
4. Work (Getting the job done)
5. Esprit (rewarding, celebrating, morale)

Productive work requires that the group first deal with the early stages (Polite, Goal, and Power) of group development and not have unresolved issues cluttering the group's task work.

2. Development of Group Roles
Every group requires two kinds of behavior in order to complete its task and survive as a group. These are refered to as task and maintenance behaviors (see Benne and Sheats, 1948, The Functional Roles of Group Members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2).)

Task behaviors help the group define and accomplish its work and reach its desired outcome. They include:

• Initiating, proposing, or suggesting
• Building on or elaborating
• Coordinating or integrating
• Seeking information or opinions
• Clarifying
• Questioning
• Disagreeing or challenging
• Testing for understanding
• Orienting the group to its task
• Testing for consensus
• Summarizing
• Recording or capturing content

Maintenance behaviors deal more with keeping the group together, maintaining functional relationships, and strengthening the ability to perform. They include:

• Energizing or motivating
• Gate-keeping or helping people stay included and participating
• Harmonizing
• Agreeing or following another's lead
• Encouraging
• Relieving tensions
• Setting work standards or reminding others of standards
• Compromising
• Observing the process
• Praising others
• Praising the progress of the group

The facilitator models, supports, and assists in building these behaviors. It is an important role of the facilitator to deliberately monitor the group for both types of behaviors, identifying imbalances, gaps, and needed changes.

3. Psychological Issues
Individuals have a variety of needs and styles as well as interpersonal and social preferences. The most common types of issues affecting individuals and interpersonal relations are:

• Trust (especially n another's motivation, honesty, safety, and confidentiality or being valued and respected by another)
• Control or power (the need to have it or the fear of it)
• Inclusion, identity, or status (the need to be a part of, or to feel recognized or important; the need to know who I am in relation to others)
• Autonomy, dependency, or counter-dependency (freedom from the influence of others, the need for approval of others, or the need to "go against" prevailing thought or authority)
• Tolerance for ambiguity or the need for structure (uncertainty, evolving answers vs. pinning everything down, the need to structure agendas, processes, etc.)
• Competition (insecurities, proving worth, being better than another)
• Intimacy (especially too much or too little; how close and personal is the group compared to "how I want it"?)

It is best to treat what you observe as useful data and not to interpret causality. Treat the possible underlying issues as hunches and keep them to yourself. If the group is unable to address what is going on or the situation gets worse, you may need to talk individually with some members or share some hunches to stimulate group discussion and resolution.

4. Task Progress
Essentially, groups need to be clear about, make decisions about, and follow through on four basic issues:

• What  the result will be and the outcomes will look like, what they will do and not do, and what they are accountable for
• How  they will accomplish their outcomes, take the steps they need to take, organize the steps and flow, use specific processes and procedures, and so on
• Who  will do what, will take on what functional roles, will be involved, and so on
• When  they will be done or complete different parts, and when they will meet, report, conduct various steps, and so on

One purpose of facilitation is to design processes to deal with the various task aspects of the work: data generation, consolidation, and analysis; decision-making approaches; and follow-up techniques.

The problem in the process design, for example, there might be too many alternatives for members to choose from, endless divergent thinking without converging processes, lack of clarity on the charter, or missing information.

5. Leadership
Some groups may not have a formally designated leaders. The key issue is to ensure that group leadership is present, effective, and accepted. Whether emerging, elected, or previously designated, leadership may or may not be effective (e.g. influencing, moving, helping) and may or may not be accepted by the group members. When leadership is not accepted, it is often criticized, challenged, ignored, or countered, and alternative leaders vie for position.

Facilitators have to guard against taking over the leadership. The facilitator will need to support or strengthen the effectiveness of formal leaders; support the efforts of effective, informal, emerging leaders when leadership is not in contention; facilitate the resolution of conflicts among members vying for leadership; or help the group identify and establish its leadership.

6. Communication Patterns
Paying attention to the communication patterns as they unfold can help you understand underlying dynamics. Who talks to whom and who follows whom with some verbal or nonverbal expression often indicate alliances, bonds of influence, or a clear demonstration of differences.

People who dot not talk are more difficult to understand because they could be agreeing, they could be disagreeing, they could be uninvolved or disinterested, they could be operating according to a cultural norm, or they could be holding back in response to an intimidating group environment.

A good facilitator needs to consider all of the dynamics and sources of data and not hastily conclude something from observing a few brief behaviors. For instances, a person pacing about the room might be (a) frustrated with what the group is saying, (b) turned on by the conversation and thinking intensely, (c) a little or a lot hyperactive, (d) sleepy and trying to stay awake, or (e) trying to signal that a break is needed.

Most experienced facilitators will agree that nonverbal behavior is very easy to misread and that interpretation should be carefully constructed.

The facilitator can play an active role in making group members more aware fo their communication patterns and focusing attention on productive communication patterns.

7. Participation
Equal participation is generally not natural. However, it is necessary to facilitate the involvement of everyone and the appropriate level of participation from all participants.

High and low participation are both important to watch for and can have various meanings. High levels of participation can signal enthusiasm and/or discontent. Low levels of participation can indicate apathy, general agreement, or a faulty process design. Uneven participation is more often a problem.

In enabling group to succeed, facilitators will often have to design or intervene to increase participation, create more even participation, or reduce participation by some while maintaining the involvement of others.

8. Conflict Management
Conflict is inevitable. Heterogeneous groups with a variety of diverse viewpoints, backgrounds, functional interests, and expertise will naturally have differences.

The expertise and opinions of the participants need to be shared and used. Differences in this process are healthy and useful in pursuing most group tasks, as long as they are managed effectively. Groups are debilitated and unproductive only when conflits become fights.

It is the facilitator's job not only to safeguard ideas but also to create a safe atmosphere for the open airing of differing viewpoints. The facilitator is responsible for helping differing parties state their positions, hear one another, engage in balanced, rational dialogue, and involve all group members in resolving issues.

Sometimes the conflit need to be aired and resolved within the group sessions, while at other times, it may be more effective to help the differing parties "off-line" or away from the meeting setting, with appropriate reporting back th the group.

9. Decision-Making Processes
Basically, the members' goal is always to make the best decisions they can with the information they have (quality); to make their decisions as quickly as possible (Speed); to make their decisions with a high level of participant agreement (consensus); and to make decisions that get implemented (commitment).

Decisions can be made in many ways. Below shows six common types of decision methods:

A. Individual

The leader of the group makes the decision.

Advantages

• Speed
• Simplicity
• Clarity

Disadvantages

• May waste group intelligence
• Invites resistance
• Lowers motivation for participation
• Creates messes

When to Use

• When one person's content expertise far exceeds that pf others
• When speed is of paramount concern
• When group is conflicted and time is short
• When a decision contrary to members' interests must be made

B. Consultative

The leader makes the decision after listening to all group members in a group meeting.

Advantages

• Allows for input of others without taking undue time
• Most cost- and time-effective of all decision methods
• Guard against "group-think"
• Allows for quick action and high levels of action

Disadvantages

• May cause resentment in those whose advice is spurned
• Loses quality gain that comes from "give and take" and integration of differing proposals

When to Use

• When leader is highly expert
• When leadership is clear and unquestioned
• When leader wants to take advantage of different ideas but does want to invest the time required to work through to consensus
• When leader wants to certain control
• When speed is critical

C. Consultative Consensus

The leader consults with other group members, seeking consensus yet still clearly retaining control of the decision.

Advantages

• Avoid deadlock in decision
• Enable leader to lead, retaining sense of person control, while still building consensus in group
• Group members in some cases may be more likely to support implementation

Disadvantages

• Time to attempt consensus
• "Murkiness of mixing two decision methods
• Requires considerable skill if not to be perceived as manipulative

When to Use

• When one person is either highly expert or has a high degree of responsibility for the implementation of the decision
• When there is a desire to be collaborative and maintain a participative ethic
• When facilitation skills are high in leader or available through neutral facilitator

D. Modified Consensus

 The group members each agree upon a decision that all can support or at least "live with."

Advantages

• Supports a more democratic, participative culture
• Forces dealing with all significant conflicting views and opinions in the group
• People have belief that it fosters more commitment

Disadvantages

• Time-consuming to work through all concerns
• Compromises necessary; often does not improve quality
• Often tedious to work through the process
• No hard data that MC produces more intelligent results

When to Use

• When group agreement is considered critical
• When a participative ethic is highly valued
• When all group members are willing to invest the time
• On critical decisions that require high levels of agreement
• When those who will implement are in the group
• When a neutral facilitator is available

 E. Absolute Consensus

All group members are in absolute agreement that the decision is superior to what exists in the status quo.

Advantages

• Produces most intelligent decisions of highest quality
•  Support for decision is unequivocal

Disadvantages

• Groups fail to achieve decision 2 out of 3 times AC is attempted
• May take a very long time; often emotionally difficult, stressful

When to Use

• When the cost of making less than the most intelligent decision is exceptionally high 
• For strategic, safety, or survival decision
• When the quality of the decision matters more than anything else
• When enough time is available

F. Voting

Group members vote on alternative proposals and the alternative receiving the required number of votes (majority, 2/3, etc.) becomes the group decision.

Advantages

• Speed - when handled properly
• Perceived fairness
• Avoids impasses, deadlock
• Anyone can lead
• May be only means possible when differences are irreconcilable
• Can help build a consensus if used as a process tool

Disadvantages

• Creates sides, factions; divides the group
• Encourages debate rather than dialogue
• Detracts from cohesion of group
• Entrenches people rather than expanding group IQ

When to Use

• When stakes are low; when almost any decision will work
• When little discussion or debate is required and any choice will probably work
• When consensus cannot be achieved and no leader is available as a fallback decision maker
• When you want to "poll" the group about several alternatives and then proceed with alternative selection 

(Justice, Thomas (1999) The Facilitator's Fieldbook, HRD Press, NY. P13~21)