making meetings more successful: plans, formats, and procedures for group problem-solving

http://job.sagepub.com/Communication

Journal of Business

http://job.sagepub.com/content/16/4/3The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/002194367901600401

1979 16: 3Journal of Business CommunicationDavid R. Seibold

for Group Problem-SolvingMaking Meetings More Successful: Plans, Formats, and Procedures

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Business Communication

at: can be foundJournal of Business CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 10, 2014job.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 10, 2014job.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://job.sagepub.com/

http://job.sagepub.com/content/16/4/3

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.businesscommunication.org

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



What is This?

- Jul 1, 1979Version of Record >>

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 10, 2014job.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 10, 2014job.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://job.sagepub.com/content/16/4/3.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



MAKING MEETINGS MORE SUCCESSFUL:

PLANS, FORMATS, AND PROCEDURES FORGROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING*

David R. Seibold

University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign

This essay treats several aspects of group meetings and conferences: 1)steps in planning for chairing a meeting or conference; 2) possible for-mats, or general superstructures, for organizing sessions and facilitatinggroup discussion and decision efforts; 3) alternative procedures forgroup problem-solving (Problem Census, Rational Reflection, Brain-storming, Buzz Groups, Nominal Groups, Delphi Method, ListeningTeams, Role Playing, Two-Column Technique, RISK, and PERT). Thereis an example illustrating how these formats and procedures can be usedconjoin tly.

THE CHAIRMAN of a park beautification committee in an In-diana town stopped short of nothing to keep meetings moving.An argument developed among committee members over wheth-er or not a tree sapling had been planted too near the local warmemorial. When the controversy persisted throughout two weeksof meetings, the well-intentioned chairman silenced the groupwith this announcement: &dquo;Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve gottennowhere on this issue. So, this morning I directed the park com-mission to transplant the tree 10 feet to the north. Now can weaddress the next item on the agenda?&dquo;

At one time or other we may all have wished we could breakan unproductive group deadlock by &dquo;transplanting the tree&dquo;-or

*This essay was prepared for the Michigan State University/Agency forInternational Development Management-Communication Workshops. Sev-eral techniques and examples discussed in the paper are drawn from theauthor’s experiences as a consultant to a project (&dquo;A Community Approachto Water Management Planning&dquo;) undertaken by the University of IllinoisWater Resources Center and the Office of Continuing Education and Pub-lic Service. The project was supported by the National Science Foundation(OSS 77-21209).

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 10, 2014job.sagepub.comDownloaded from


4

personally initiating conclusive action. &dquo;Meetings,&dquo; both smallgroup sessions and larger conferences, have become a major andoften frustrating part of our lives. We seem to be attending moremeetings than ever before. Our too frequent assessment of theseis &dquo;What a waste of time; nothing was accomplished.&dquo;On the first matter, meetings probably are more frequent

now. A study sponsored by the 3M Company revealed that thenumber of meetings and conferences in industry alone nearlydoubled during the past ten years and their cost tripled.’ I Esti-mates suggest that most organizations devote between 7 and 15percent of their personnel budgets to meetings. One large Cali-fornia-based corporation figures that almost $30 million of its$350 million personnel budget is spent on meetings. At the indi-vidual level, middle managers in industry may spend as much as35 percent of their work week in meetings. That figure can beas high as 50 percent for top management.’

This proliferation of meetings is not confined to industry.Doyle and Straus assert that as many as 11 million meetingsnow take place in America each day.3 3 News media reportsabound of decisions emanating from civic bodies, boards ofdirectors, blue ribbon commissions, juries, legislative subcom-mittees, school boards, church groups, task forces, councils,local agencies, and bargaining units. If we each attend just fourhours of work or civic meetings per week, we will have spentover 9,000 hours in meetings during an average lifetime-morethan one year of our life in meetings! Why this extraordinarynumber of group meetings? Perhaps because, whether in indus-try, government, legal and civic affairs, or academia, meetingsare essential for effective organizational functioning in our in-creasingly complex and interdependent world. They are a majormeans by which groups of people-as loosely defined as an adhoc community group concerned with traffic safety near theirchildren’s school, or as highly organized as the board of directorsfor a national electronics corporation-receive or gather infor-mation about their environment, arrive at collective orientationstoward that information, jointly utilize these interpretations tosolve problems, and simultaneously recognize their unity as apurposeful, functioning &dquo;group.&dquo; Meetings may be convened forany or all of these purposes: 1) to inform members; 2) to solicitopinions and request guidance from members; 3) to promoteunity and cohesiveness among members; 4) to have memberssolve problems, make decisions, or recommend policy.



5

But the second lament is not irremediable; meetings need notbe a &dquo;waste of time.&dquo; Careful analysis and proper planning forthe meeting, as well as judicious selection from among alterna-tive problem-solving formats and procedures, are preliminarysafeguards to the success of any session. This essay treats theseaspects as they relate to problem-solving meetings and largerconferences: planning for a meeting, possible formats for orga-nizing meetings and conferences, and alternative procedures forgroup problem-solving. A concluding example is provided illus-trating how these formats and procedures have been combinedeffectively at town meetings in a rural Illinois community.

PLANS

’

A doctor who sits on contract and grant review boards forseveral biomedical agencies and foundations recently told theauthor that the major factor in the success of review meetingshe attended was the care with which the agency’s executivesecretary and committee chairperson had planned the session.Thoughtful preparation for a meeting is a must, and the chair-person should:

-Determine that a meeting is necessary. A TV commentatoronce characterized a typical government meeting of bureaucratsas &dquo;a group of the unwilling, chosen from the unfit, to do theunnecessary.&dquo; If matters can be handled just as readily by meansof personal memoranda, a conference phone call, or individualmeetings with selected group members, perhaps a formal face-to-face meeting is unwarranted. On the other hand, the plannermust recognize that these alternative communication methodsoffer problems of their own (e.g., failure to read written mes-sages, members’ different interpretations, communication break-down as contacted individuals pass information to uncontacted

members, difficulty in getting feedback, false consensus, etc.).-Identify the specific purpose(s) for the meeting and delin-

eate a range of goals. Is the meeting meant for information dis-semination, bolstering morale, problem-solving and decision

making, grievance settling, and/or stimulating involvement? Whatare desirable potential outcomes given each purpose? The chair-person should be prepared to state both purpose(s) and goals inthe agenda and in convening the meeting, and even be ready torestate them if members digress too much during the meeting.



6

-Decide what will be the composition of the group for themeeting. If the group is an established one, such as a standingcommittee, will outsiders be invited to observe and participate?If attendance will not be settled by de facto membership, whoand how many will be asked to take part in the meeting or con-ference. How will the participants differ with regard to power;status; experience with the issue under discussion; concern aboutthe problem; interpersonal relationships with other group mem-bers ; hidden agendas (i.e., personal goals for the session); com-munication skills in the group? The homogeneity /heterogeneityof the group along each of these dimensions can affect the inter-personal and task dynamics which ensue during the meeting (e.g.,conflict, participation, time it takes to solve a problem and num-ber of alternatives considered, quality of the decision, mode ofdecision making, and members’ satisfaction with the group).4

-Settle the logistics of the meeting. Where and when will thegroup meet? Determine how long the meeting shall last and abideby the time limit (Samuel Adams reportedly solved the timelimit problem by locking fellow Bostonians into a room andthreatening continued detention until they resolved their dis-agreements over whether to form a Congress of Colonists).’Seating, audiovisual equipment, room arrangements, refresh-ments, photocopied materials, visual aids (charts, graphs, dia-grams), and demonstrations should also be considered and

planned for well beforehand.Delineate appropriate group roles, assign responsiblity, and

delegate authority where necessary. Certain members may beasked to act as group recorder, to prepare a special presentation,to introduce an invited expert, to secure room arrangements, orperhaps to lead a portion of the meeting. When possible havethese group members report back that they have carried outtheir responsibility or are prepared to do so during the session.

-Brief all members on the general point above by means ofan agenda, and identify particular issues germane to individualmembers (e.g., role responsibilities) in an accompanying memo-randum. If members can anticipate the purposes, goals, and is-sues which form the basis for their meeting, as well as their ownresponsibilities for its conduct, they may come better preparedand more motivated. The general manager of a hospital supplyfirm ensures these effects at each meeting by requiring thatmembers come prepared to identify the problem and the group’sneed to discuss it.



7

-Try to get your own &dquo;mental picture&dquo; of how the meetingwill proceed: opening statements? major themes and issues tobe discussed during the meeting? time limitations? format andproblem-solving procedures? other problems (e.g., one memberdominating discussion time or an unclear presentation by an-other member)? Then anticipate how to facilitate the goodpoints and how to manage potential problems. The chairperson’sjob before, during, and after meetings is demanding, a factthat Standard Oil Company recognizes when it suggests that achairperson must &dquo;plan, promote, lead, direct, inform, inter-pret, encourage, stimulate, referee, judge, moderate, and con-ciliate.&dquo;6

FORMATS

One of the major elements in the chairperson’s &dquo;mental pic-ture&dquo; of a meeting is its format, or the general structure for or-ganizing the session and facilitating discussion of the problem.Many alternatives are available, especially for larger conferences.

1. Begin the meeting with a media presentation (videotape,film, slides), whose purpose is to provide information to mem-bers and stimulate concern about the problem they face, andthen initiate collective problem-solving discussion.

2. Start with a presentation by one person, such as an invitedexpert, and follow with problem-solving discussion.

3. Open the session with a panel discussion (interrelated,brief, and informal presentations by several persons from withinthe group and/or invited panelists) or a symposium (formalstatements by experts), then begin joint group questioning (for-um discussion) and problem-solving.

4. Adopt a format discussion plan (in which all participantsjointly discuss topically or sequentially related issues which havebeen identified by the chairperson and distributed as questionsin outline form), a procedure analogous to following a generalagenda at all meetings.

5. Plan for open, unstructured discussion at the beginning ofthe meeting, followed by summarization and further, morefocused problem-solving thereafter.

These are preliminary and general superstructures for organiz-ing both large conferences and small group meetings.’ Each for-mat is sufficiently flexible that several of the problem-solving



8

procedures discussed below can be incorporated into it. Beforeconsidering those techniques, however, it is important to recog-nize that each of the formats above has certain advantages andcertain limitations.

For example, the preparation that group members must do toready themselves for discussion increases from formats 1 through5. That is, while media presentations, lectures, and symposia areeffective means for imparting much of the information necessaryfor ensuing problem-solving, the success of formats 4 or 5 de-pends on how much information participants bring to the meet-ing. Too, formats 4 and 5 presuppose that group members havesufficient prior awareness and understanding of the problem,and concomitant motivation, to arrive fully prepared to enterinto problem-solving discussion.On the other hand, participant involvement is highest from

the outset in formats 4 and 5, so the chairperson’s responsibilityfor keeping the meeting moving and focused is that much greaterthan with formats 1, 2, and 3.

In light of these considerations, the first three formats maybe especially appropriate for &dquo;problem-oriented&dquo; group sessions(meetings concerned with acquainting members with the natureand parameters of the problem). Formats 4 and 5 are perhapsbetter suited for &dquo;solution-oriented&dquo; sessions in which members’full participation is directed toward solving the problem or mak-ing decisions.

PROCEDURES

The final and major part of a chairperson’s &dquo;mental picture&dquo;of a meeting or conference are the potential problem-solvingprocedures which can be suggested to members during the ses-sion. These procedures can serve as vehicles for systematizing agroup’s discussion and decision efforts. Both common experienceand research suggest that group members are haphazard and un-organized in their discussion and decision attempts when organiz-ing schemes are not utilized.&dquo; For example, David Wojick states:

Unstructured discourse involves considerable waste and breedsconfusion. We routinely use only about 10 percent of the ideaspresented in any group discussion because the logical structure ofdiscourse is too complex. In any series of meetings redundancy maybe as high as 60 to 80 percent by the third session. Misunderstand-ings and conceptual confusion arise ...9



9

And in decisions that business firms make, write Irving Janisand Leon Mann,

... where the overriding value would seem to be to make thegreatest amount of profit, decision makers often do not orient them-selves toward finding the course of action that will maximize pro-fits and other tangible net gains. Without careful search and apprais-al, corporation executives often make judgments about a multiplic-ity of conflicting objectives, including &dquo;good will,&dquo; &dquo;growth poten-tial,&dquo; &dquo;acceptability within the organization,&dquo; and other intangiblegains that are difficult to measure in any way ... 10

Problem-solving procedures help circumvent this inefficiency,delay, confusion, redundancy, and occasional frustration by co-ordinating members, focusing their attention on common issues,and guiding them through jointly understood aspects of problemdiagnosis, solution selection, or implementation.&dquo; Among themany group and conference procedures which the chairpersonmay wish to utilize are the following techniques, which havebeen selected for their focus on means for solving a problem(problem-solving procedures) rather than for selecting among al-ternative solutions (that is, decision-making strategies such asoptimizing, satisfying, incrementalism, mixed scanning, andconsensus).12

Problem Census .

The chairperson systematically polls all members at the meet-ing about items which should be discussed, or parameters of aproblem under consideration, or alternative issues which havenot been considered to that point in the deliberation. The pur-pose is to obtain a &dquo;census&dquo; from members about issues whichshould be considered. Results are posted for all to see. They canbe used to guide further discussion at the present meeting or toset a future agenda. Whether introductory or interim, this tech-nique also helps draw all members into the discussion.&dquo;

~

Rational Reflection

Participants attempt to solve a problem by proceeding througha comprehensive series of predetermined &dquo;reflective&dquo; phases in-tended to address specific aspects of a problem in &dquo;rational&dquo;fashion. Discussion at any time is limited to that phase of theproblem. The phases, in order, require discussion of: ,



10

1. What is the problem? (How can it be stated? What are itsrelationships to other problems? What are our assumptionsabout the problem as stated and isolated?).

2. What are the causes of the problem and our need to solveit? (Origin and history of the problem? Significance of thepresent harm? How persistent is the problem?).

3. What are the minimal criteria necessary for an adequatesolution? (Validity? Feasibility? Desirability?).

4. What are all the possible solu tions to the problem as anal-yzed ? (What are the data supporting each proposed solution?Have all possible solutions been considered?).

5. What is the best solution? (Does it minimize the signifi-cance of the problem? Does it alleviate the persistence of theproblem? Is it workable? Do the advantages of the solution out-weigh disadvantageous consequences?).

6. How shall the chosen solution be implemented? If adheredto, these phases can facilitate thorough and efficient smallgroup problem-solving}4 .

Brainstorming

This technique promotes creativity in discussion groups byreducing some of the inhibitory aspects of group problem-solving-especially criticism and evaluation. The sole concernof members while brainstorming should be idea generation, notidea evaluation. Toward this end, the chairperson tells membersthat criticism of any contribution must be withheld until later.He also suggests that they strive for as many ideas as possible inthe time available-the wilder the ideas the better, for it is easierto &dquo;tame down&dquo; than &dquo;think up.&dquo;

Members should be given some time alone to record their ideasbefore joint brainstorming is begun. The chairperson should alsobe prepared to contribute ideas and &dquo;prime the pump&dquo; when dis-cussion slows, and to have a recorder present to note all contri-butions. When criticism is genuinely avoided, members usuallyrelax, generate a longer list of contributions than they wouldotherwise, and often find this portion of the meeting invigorat-ing. Brainstorming can be used to stimulate discussion of anyaspect of a problem and it is a particularly good technique foruse during phase 3 of the rational reflection procedure above. Ifemployed at the outset of a session, it is usually followed by aperiod of evaluation of each idea by group members.’ S



11

Buzz Groups

Participants at the meeting are divided into subgroups andprovided a brief period of time to jointly discuss a specific as-pect of a problem or solution. Each buzz group may be directedto focus on maximizing the number of ideas generated (likebrainstorming), or conversely, on evaluating and discussing anitem in more detail than the larger group might devote to it.Each &dquo;caucus&dquo; then reports back to the larger group.

Like brainstorming, members often get more involved in theproblem when this subgroup procedure is used, and a wise chair-person can breathe life into a stagnant meeting by suggestingmembers break into buzz group. Buzz groups are also an espe-cially effective means of reducing the anonymity and cumber-someness of very large meetings, for members can be groupedwith four or five persons seated around them. Reports from eachof these buzz groups may then indicate on which issues consen-sus exists and which issues require further discussion by allpresent. 16

,

Nominal Group Technique

This procedure is so called because members are really a groupin name only. During most of this procedure members work in-dividually. The chairperson directs each member to create sepa-rate lists of the advantages and disadvantages associated with theproposition under discussion (e.g., unionization, shift changes,worker layoffs). After twenty minutes members are sequentiallypolled and a master list of all nonredundant advantages and dis-advantages is posted on a flip-chart or blackboard visible to all.

Then members are directed to work alone again for ten min-utes, but this time to rank order all advantages and all disadvan-tages from highest priority to lowest priority. Members private-ly submit their priority lists and an &dquo;average&dquo; master list is

compiled while all adjourn temporarily. When the meetingresumes ’the rank-ordered tabulations provide the basis forcollective discussion of the issue.17 The nominal group proce-dure thus generates a basis for group discussion which reflectsall members’ views, views carefully considered while workingalone and expressed without intimidation from more powerfulor talkative group members.



12

Delphi Method

Like the nominal group technique (NGT) discussed above,the Delphi method severely restricts interaction among groupmembers. The procedure is especially useful when the meetingis an ad hoc conference of experts. To minimize overcommit-ment to previously expressed personal views, domination by themost vocal or highest status experts, or the tyranny of majorityopinion, the experts’ opinions are pooled as the participantswork alone and anonymously. The procedure calls for partici-pants to complete an initial questionnaire designed to elicittheir expert opinions about some problem, issue, recommenda-tion, or policy. After an intermission, all group members receivea second questionnaire listing others’ contributions and are askedto evaluate each idea by several specified criteria. During thefollowing session a third questionnaire reports the second roundratings, a mean rating, and any consensus. Members are asked torevise their earlier ratings in light of the average or consensualview, or to justify their deviant position.A final questionnaire includes all ratings, the consensus, and

remaining minority opinions. Members are given a last chance torevise their original positions.18 Depending on the nature of theconference, these final data may be forwarded to an indepen-dent body of decision makers, or the experts may be directed toinitiate face-to-face discussion and strive for a final recommen-dation. The difficulties associated with gathering experts, ad-ministering questionnaires, collating results, writing all opinions,and lack of interaction obviously limit the applicability of thisproblem-solving procedure. The -Delphi method has been em-ployed widely and successfully, however, including recently atan international conference on solutions to world hunger.

Listening Teams

When media presentations, panel discussions, symposia, orguest lectures are used to start a meeting (i.e., before group dis-cussion of the problem takes place), there is always the possibil-ity that information is lost by the time it is needed during thediscussion session or sessions which follow. This loss may occurbecause too much information is presented, the information istoo detailed, good information is presented poorly, participantsare distracted, or participants only attend to specific aspects of



13

the presentation. Especially when the discussion group is large,much of the preliminary information presented can be retainedthrough the use of &dquo;listening teams&dquo; according to Potter andAndersen.

Before the presentations, subgroups of audience members areformed and assigned a particular listening task. For example,one group may be asked to listen for causes of the problem, an-other for solutions suggested, a third to consequences of eachsolution, and so forth. Each subgroup is then provided time tocodify their recollections before the group convenes to jointlydiscuss the problem. Then, regardless of which problem-solvingprocedure is utilized by the entire group, these members canserve as resource persons when the aspect of the problem towhich they paid special attention is discussed.&dquo;

Experimental research by Zajonc suggests that persons attendto, comprehend, and recall more of a message when they are cuedto the fact that they will be asked to recall and restate it.2° Thesame principle may make listening teams an advantageous inter-face between informational presentations and problem-solvingdiscussions.

Role Playing

In some group meetings the &dquo;problem&dquo; at issue is a human re-lations one. A church group meets to consider how to improvefamily relations among congregants. A work unit is called to-gether to settle grievances with their supervisor. Top manage-ment undertakes analysis of their interpersonal relations. Roleplaying is often a helpful technique for presenting, analyzing,and remedying problematic human and management relations.

In essence, participants are asked to &dquo;play&dquo; a known or un-known other’s role based on their perceptions of how that per-son does or should act. Members, first, may be supplied a casestudy similar to their own for warmup purposes. Then they maybe asked to jointly construct a case/script which includes all theroles in the problem they are discussing, their interrelationships,and a specific situation. Participants are then asked to act outroles they have been assigned. Discussion among all group mem-bers follows, focused on the analysis of the reasons and remediesfor the difficulty.

Role playing is used widely for counseling, interviewing, train-ing, and problem-solving. As Ernest Bormann observes, &dquo;The



14

drama inherent in role-playing makes it an excellent device toheighten audience interest and involvement. People playing theroles can relax and act out the part, because the group membersknow that they are not playing themselves.&dquo;2’ However, roleplaying is usually directed by a qualified trainer and probablyshould not be undertaken by the chairperson alone. Good roleplaying requires motivation on the part of members, careful in-troduction into the meeting or conference, considerable time,and full discussion afterwards. Bad role playing can damage themomentum of the conference, adversely affect the image thatgroup members have of the role players, and become unwieldy.Qualified role playing trainers increase the probability that thegood, not the bad, effects will accrue.22

Two-Column Method

The dynamics which accompany controversy about an issue(listening in order to refute rather than to understand; polariza-tion and further entrenchment in one’s position; selective searchfor facts which support one’s own view and refute others’) miti-gate against objective, collective problem-solving. According toNorman R. F. Maier, &dquo;the two-column method is designed todeal with controversy constructively and to lead to an apprecia-tion of the fact that each position has merits as well as weak-nesses.&dquo;23 Like the problem census procedure, the two-columnmethod requires that the chairperson poll all group membersand post their reactions in a visible place, as on a blackboard orflipchart. Members express arguments over why position X isbetter than position Y (i.e., favorable and unfavorable pointsabout each), and the chairperson lists all contributions in the

appropriate columns.The chairperson should attempt to elicit as many listings as

possible in the shortest time. Then discussion turns to consider-ation of the merits of each column, how to resolve differences,comparison of advantages and disadvantages of both, and soforth. As Maier notes, the controversial dimensions of the issuebecome objectified during this procedure, and members do notbecome divided around each position. And once the two listsare completed both sides of the issue can be more realisticallyand cooperatively appraised.



15

RISK

After group members have decided upon a solution to theproblem discussed, the chairperson may wish to employ theRISK procedure.24 Participants are asked, one by one, to listwhat they view as the major &dquo;risk&dquo; involved with the adoptionand implementation of the preferred solution. These &dquo;secondchance&dquo; concerns then receive the attention of the full group.At least, each member’s unwarranted fears can be allayed onceand for all. At best, risks which appear serious and insurmount-able should signal reservations about the solution of choice andthe need for further discussion. This technique helps to reducethe chance that members will uncritically adopt a solution orthat false consensus about the solution exists.

PERT

Once a group has identified a solution to the problem underdiscussion, the details of implementing that solution must bediscussed. PERT (Program Evaluation Review Technique) is aprocedure well suited to systematically reviewing all of the stepsneeded to carry out a complex plan, in what order the stepsshould be performed, how long each will take, and what re-sources and materials are needed. PERT may be performed in asmall group meeting as follows:

1. Determine the final step (i.e., how the solution should ap-pear when fully operational).

2. Enumerate any events which must occur before the final

goal state is realized.3. Order these steps chronologically.4. If necessary, develop a flow diagram of the process and all

the steps in it.5. Generate a list of all the activites, resources, and materials,

that are needed to accomplish each step.6. Estimate the time needed to accomplish each step, then

add all the estimates to get a total time for implementation ofthe plan.’

7. Compare the total time estimate with deadlines or expec-tations and correct as necessary (by assigning more persons orless time to a given step).

8. Dotermine which members shall be responsible for eachstep. 25



16

EXAMPLE

The following example, based upon a recent series of meetingsin a midwestem community, illustrates how different formatsand problem-solving procedures discussed above can be mixedeffectively. State water resources scientists and representatives ofthe federal Environmental Protection Agency informed officialsof a rural Illinois town that their community faced a series of wa-ter problems: inadequacy of supply and reserve during droughts,poor water quality following treatment processes, and a failingdistribution system. Improvements were a practical and legalnecessity. But the town, which barely had been able to financethe present water system through its meter system, had no fundsto make the necessary changes. Community residents were un-aware of the scope or severity of the situation. Before improve-ments could be made they would have to be educated about theirwater system, informed of the problems with it, persuaded of theneed for changes and motivated to finance necessary improve-ments, and organized for decisions about the best particular so-lutions to their supply, treatment, and distribution problems.

Following the creation of an advisory board of local leaders,plus public and private water experts, a series of town meetingswere held on weeknights during five successive weeks. Each ofthe meetings was advertised locally, and a core of thirty personsattended all. Under the leadership of a chairperson elected bythe advisory board, the participants addressed these issues dur-ing successive weeks: overview of the system and the nature ofthe supply problems and solutions; treatment solutions; distri-bution solutions; and financial considerations. During the meet-ings a variety of formats and procedures were utilized.

For example, on the first evening a film was used to educateresidents about the elements and processes of a water system.The local water commissioner then lectured on the particularsof that town’s system and problems which had been identifiedin it. A forum discussion followed with questions from the audi-ence. Then, under the guidance of the chairperson, subgroups ofcitizens were formed to further investigate solutions to the sup-ply, treatment, distribution, and financing problems which hadbeen discussed and agreed upon.

During the following weeks these subgroups played a crucialpart as &dquo;listening teams&dquo; in listening to and questioning invitedexperts on issues related to each team’s specific concerns; as



17

&dquo;brainstorming groups&dquo; in generating alternative solutions forraising the necessary capital for improvements; as &dquo;buzz groups&dquo;during deliberations about whether search for a new groundwatersupply was preferable to dredging the existing supply lake; and asa &dquo;panel&dquo; on the evening that each of their topics was discussed.

The chairperson very adeptly used the &dquo;two column&dquo; methodduring one session in which participants had become polarizedover whether or not to replace existing water pipes with ductibleiron or reinforced concrete pipes. On the evening of the finalsession the chairperson guided the participants to a final decisionon raising the necessary funds by means of a &dquo;format discussion&dquo;plan. Too, after a decision was made to recommend that thecity council apply for a federal loan, float a long-term municipalbond, and raise property taxes, the chairperson utilized the&dquo;RISK&dquo; procedure to allow all participants a final opportunityto express their fears about each of the solutions and how theywere to be financed. Finally, a crude form of &dquo;PERT&dquo; wasundertaken in an attempt to see whether the treatment improve-ments planned could be completed within the time constraintsimposed by EPA. The flexibility manifest by the chairperson,the involvement stimulated by participation in the subgroupactivities, and the judicious utilization of varied formats and pro-cedures all seemed to keep motivation high and progress smoothin this community’s attempts to solve its water problems.

CONCLUSION

A final caveat is in order. In lieu of a participant-oriented,&dquo;group-centered&dquo; approach,26 this essay has emphasized thechairperson’s preparation and orchestration in making meetingsa success. Too, this essay has focused on &dquo;procedures&dquo; to theexclusion of &dquo;process&dquo;-,the interactive, dynamic, emergentaspects of task groups’ problem-solving the decision-making.27Both these emphases are but one side of the small-group coin.The success of a meeting obviously is not dependent only on achairperson no matter how skilled he or she may be. As LelandBradford observes:

Member interaction and the needs, purposes, and emotional reac-tions of individuals have a profound effect on the task solution and,therefore, need to be understood and appropriately dealt with.Leadership is not something that just the designated leader does.Leadership happens when any intervention by the leader or a group



18

member moves the group forward toward three goals: the accomp-lishment of the task, the resolution of internal group problems andthe ability of members to work together effectively as a group.2

The designated leader thus shares the leadership role and the re-sponsibility for a successful meeting with all the participants.To suggest an analogy to the systems theory concepts of &dquo;in-

puts,&dquo; &dquo;thruputs,&dquo; and &dquo;outputs,&dquo; we might say that a success-ful, productive group meeting of satisfied members (&dquo;outputs&dquo;)can in part be affected by the preparation and judicious choicesa chairperson makes concerning purposes, logistics, composition,agendas, formats, and procedures (&dquo;inputs&dquo;). But the dynamic,mediating effects of &dquo;thruputs&dquo; variables like group develop-ment ; the emergence of norms, roles, and power; and the group’ssocio-emotional climate all interact with the &dquo;input&dquo; variables toproduce final &dquo;outputs.&dquo; The purpose of this essay has been toalert potential chairpersons to specific ways in which meetings canbe positively affected by thorough preparation and careful plan-ning. The chairperson’s &dquo;inputs&dquo; should therefore create a struc-ture within which the group process can flow more smoothly.29

ttt

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Cited in E. F. Wells, "Rules for a Better Meeting," Mainliner, May1978, p. 56.

2. Michael Doyle and David Straus, How To Make Meetings Work:The New Interaction Method, New York: Wyden Books, 1976, p. 4.

3. Doyle and Straus, How To Make Meetings Work, p. 4.4. For a review of research on the effects of group member homoge-

neity/ heterogeneity, see Marvin E. Shaw, Group Dynamics: The Psychol-ogy of Small Group Behavior, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976, pp.219-232.

5. Cited in Wells, "Rules ...," p. 53.6. Wells, "Rules ... ," p. 51.7. For a more differentiated discussion of formats for discussion

groups see Alvin A. Goldberg and Carl E. Larson, Group Communication:Discussion Processes and Applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1975, pp. 70-73.

8. See the diverse research evidence provided by A. Paul Hare, Hand-book of Small Group Research, 2nd ed., New York: Free Press, 1976, pp.331-356; and Harold H. Kelly and John W. Thibaut, "Group ProblemSolving," in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.), The Handbook ofSocial Psychology, 2nd ed., IV, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969,especially pp. 76-78.



19

9. David E. Wojick, "Planning for Discourse," Water Spectrum, Spring,1978, pp. 17-23.

10. Irving L. Janis and Leon Mann, Decision Making: A PsychologicalAnalysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, New York: Free Press,1977, pp. 24-25. Emphasis supplied.

11. Research supports the importance for good problem-solving ofstructuring group communication. Larson found that groups following anytype of systematic analysis form were more likely to produce adequatejudgments about industrial relations problems (i.e., similar to experts’assessments) than groups not provided with a technique for systematizingtheir discussion. See Carl Larson, "Forms of Analysis and Small GroupProblem-Solving," Speech Monographs, 36, 1969, 452-455.

12. See John K. Brilhart, Effective Group Discussion, 3rd ed., Dubuque,IA: William C. Brown, 1978, pp. 120-121 for elaboration upon the distinc-tion between group problem-solving and decision-making. Also see AmitaiEtzioni, The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes,New York: Free Press, 1968, pp. 249-252 for a useful definition of decision-making and further distinction from more general policy-making.

13. As originally described by Maier, this procedure was called the"Posting Problems" technique; see Norman R. F. Maier, Problem-SolvingDiscussions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1963, pp. 161-171. The procedure has received more wide-spread recognition as "Problem Census" for the greater descriptive utilityof that label.

14. This problem-solving scheme owes its origins to John Dewey, HowWe Think, Boston: Heath, 1910, in which Dewey explicated the stepsrational individuals might utilize in solving a problem. James H. McBurneyand Kenneth G. Hance, Discussion in Human Affairs, New York: Harperand Brothers, 1939, proposed that groups could be trained to systematicallysolve problems through application of Dewey’s steps. Since then the"Reflective Thinking" procedure has been described and prescribed inmost discussion texts under a variety of labels and minor modificationsincluding "Reflective Pattern," "Truncated Problems," "Single QuestionForm," "Ideal Question Form," and the "Kepner-Tregoe Approach." Ihave chosen the label "Rational Reflection" for its fidelity to the reflectivenature of these techniques and its generic description of these problem-solving techniques as rationalism. For a comparison of the techniquesabove see Dean C. Barnlund and Franklyn S. Haiman, The Dynamics ofDiscussion, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960, pp. 91-93; Alvin A. Goldbergand Carl E. Larson, Group Communication: Discussion Processes and Appli-cations, pp. 149-151; and Stewart L. Tubbs, A Systems Approach to SmallGroup Interaction, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978, pp. 229-233.

15. For a treatment of the origins of brainstorming, the details of itsapplications, and a review of empirical research on this technique seeFredric M. Jablin and David R. Seibold, "Implications for Problem-SolvingGroups of Empirical Research on ’Brainstorming’: A Critical Review of theLiterature," Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43, 1978, 327-356.

16. Buzz groups are general instances of a discussion pattern known asPhillips 66, so called because it was frequently utilized by a conferenceconsultant named Phillips to divide large audiences into groups of sixpersons for six minutes of discussion time to formulate questions for a



20

panel they had just listened to. These "buzz" periods thus provided aname for any subgroup given brief periods of time. For a description ofthe original technique see J. Donald Phillips, "Report on Discussion 66,"Adult Education Journal, 7, 1948, 181-182. For a recent treatment ofbuzz groups as a conference technique see John K. Brilhart, EffectiveGroup Discussion, pp. 218-220.

17. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for problem-solving isdescribed more fully in Andre C. Delbecq, Andrew H. Van de Ven, andDavid Gustafsen, Group Techniques for Program Planning, Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman & Co., 1975, pp. 7-10.

18. See the discussion of the Delphi method and list of references

provided by Alvin A. Goldberg and Carl E. Larson, Group Communication,pp. 147-148.

19. David Potter and Martin P. Andersen, Discussion in Small Groups:A Guide to Effective Practice, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1976, pp.177-178.

20. Robert B. Zajonc, "The Process of Cognitive Tuning in Communi-cation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 1960, 159-167.

21. Ernest G. Bormann, Discussion and Group Methods: Theory andPractice, 2nd ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1975, p. 328.

22. Potter and Andersen, Discussion in Small Groups, pp. 143-153 pro-vide a good treatment of role playing in discussion groups. Also see A. F.Klein, How To Use Role Playing Effectively, New York: Association Press,1959.

23. Norman R. F. Maier, Problem-Solving Discussions and Conferences,p. 179. This comparison of two positions is central to another discussionguide recommended by Martin P. Andersen, "The Agree-Disagree Discus-sion Guide," The Speech Teacher, 8, 1959, 41-48.

24. _____, Problem-Solving Discussions and Conferences, pp.171-177.

25. An excellent treatment of PERT is supplied in Gerald M. Phillips,Communication and the Small Group, 2nd ed., Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1973, pp. 114-133.

26. Roger A. Kaufman, Identifying and Solving Problems: A SystemApproach, La Jolla, CA: University Associates, 1976.

27. For a discussion of the procedure-versus-process orientation seeDennis J. Gouran, Discussion: The Process of Group Decision-Making,New York: Harper & Row, 1974, pp. 23-32.

28. Leland P. Bradford, Making Meetings Work: A Guide for Leadersand Group Members, La Jolla, CA: University Associates, 1976, p. 10.

29. For a vivid example of how a manager’s planning and choice ofproblem-solving procedure can complement the dynamics of committeedecision-making, see Andre L. Delbecq, "The Management of Decision-Making Within the Firm: Three Strategies for Three Types of Decision-Making," Academy of Management Journal, 10, 1967, 329-339.

making meetings more successful: plans, formats, and procedures for group problem-solving

Documents