Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal
Click here to Download Entire Issue 5 in PDF format(1.9 megs)
You can order a laser-printed version of this file from the office for $15.
Contents of Issue 5:
Editorial
Information Technology for Groups Sandor P. Schuman
Theory and Research
Voting Before Discussing: Electronic Voting as Social Interaction
Brian Whitworth and Robert J. McQueen
A field study is presented which used voting before discussing (VBD) as a means of social influence and communication in a computer supported group interaction, rather than using voting as the final stage in a rational decision making process. The approach is based on a cognitive, three-process model of group interaction, which proposes that group cohesion and agreement arise primarily from normative rather than informational or personal influence. This initial investigation found that the VBD technique can result in higher agreement of group members with the decisions of the group, higher satisfaction with the computer-mediated interaction, higher satisfaction with group performance, and higher group awareness. The voting before discussion method may be useful in situations where agreement is an important group output, or where interpersonal conflict is creating problems in meetings.
KEYWORDS
Agreement, cognitive, CSCW, conflict, group interaction, GDSS, normative influence, CMC, social influence, voting
The Journey of Meaning at Work
John L. Epps
The quest for meaning at work is a topic that occupies the attention of a growing number of writers. It is a familiar quest recognized by most people who are employed, whatever their profession. As facilitators we strive to find meaning in our own profession, and like everyone else at work, we need ways to do so. We also see the question arise among our clients. Hardly ever are we retained to address this question of meaning, but it is central in almost every organization we serve. Being clear about authentic approaches to the journey of finding meaning at work may provide us insights for addressing it effectively. By “meaning at work” we mean the worthwhileness of an undertaking, a sense of importance in a larger framework.
“Meaning at work” is the contribution of a particular undertaking to a larger context that the meaning-seeker values. Work that contributes to nothing beyond itself is often considered meaningless. “Meaning at work,” then, is the relationship between a particular undertaking and a larger framework in which it exists and to which it contributes. This article provides a “road map” of the journey of meaning as it is experienced at work. It is important, because we do not serve our clients by offering unachievable poppycock. To find meaning at work requires neither a quick fix nor a simple solution. It is profound, dealing with the depth of your self and your work, and it is complex, including a variety of pathways and phases. Having a map provides a realistic view of the shape of the journey.
The search for meaning in work can take one of three possible pathways: the way of Significance, the way of Professionalism, and/or the way of Purpose. There are three discernable phases to finding meaning at work. In Phase One, you are subjectively fixated on the broader context of your work. In Phase Two, your attention reverts to the particular situation in which you are immersed. In Phase Three, you experience attraction to the relationship between particular and universal. Another way to put it is that in Phase One, you have a naïve attachment to a grand cause; in Phase Two, the cause shows up as finite, fallible, or fraudulent, wholly unable to allay the awareness of spending your life in trivial particulars. In Phase Three, you “see through” to the ultimate unworthiness of all that is and therefore its objective value as a connected interrelated whole. The article provides approaches that facilitators and coaches can use to assist clients to deal with their position on their own journey.
Keywords
meaning, significance, professionalism, purpose, coaching
Application and Practice
Multiple Roles of Online Facilitation: An Example of Any-Time, Any-Place Meetings
Nandhini Rangarajan and John Rohrbaugh
Facilitating meetings of virtual teams—with members who are geographically dispersed and who often communicate electronically with considerable time lags between messages—is a recent specialization. This article describes eight facilitator roles that can lead to the improved effectiveness of these “any time, any place” (ATAP) meetings. Evidence from a recent evaluation study of three ATAP meetings suggested that virtual team members especially appreciated the value added by a facilitator to their meeting process. KEY WORDS online facilitation, virtual teams, asynchronous meetings, distributed group facilitation, virtual meetings, electronic meeting system, any-time, any-place meetings
Facilitation Through Online Scripting
Jennifer H. Landau, Harry Chesley, Suzana Seban, Lili Cheng and Shelly Farnham
As business interactions go online, so do facilitation and agenda design. Most electronic meeting system (EMS) applications replicate the contemporary meeting paradigm, including the presence of a facilitator. Addressing both online and self-managed work, the Microsoft Lead Line prototype uses standard browser technology and scripting to guide same-time interaction in a text chat environment. Facilitators design process scripts for groups of three to seven participants. Together these design elements make it possible to simultaneously facilitate an infinite number of small groups in a meaningful task. Lead Line offers ease of user access, balance of structure and creativity, and clarity of group goals and roles.
Key words
computer supported collaborative work, electronic meeting system, facilitation, online facilitation, process design, scripting, social interaction, text chat, virtual meetings
Book Reviews
Editorial
Information Technology for Groups
Sandor P. Schuman
The aim of the workshop, underway in a classroom at the State Teachers College in New Britain, Connecticut, was to achieve a practical understanding of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. As the session proceeded, the workshop facilitators recorded the group's ideas on the classroom chalkboards. They were delighted with the productivity of the group, but soon became frustrated as the few chalkboards filled up with notes. To preserve the older notes they quickly transcribed them onto notepaper and then erased the chalkboards to make room for more. Desperate to maintain a visible record for use by the group, two of the facilitators—Ron Lippitt and Lee Bradford—hurried off after the day's session to the local newspaper and acquired the remains of a roll of newsprint. They spent the evening unrolling the newsprint and cutting it into usable-sized sheets. Using masking tape, they attached the sheets of paper to the walls and chalkboards of the classroom. The next day, instead of writing with chalk on the boards, they used grease pencils on the paper, and everyone was able to see the complete record of ideas. The year was 1946. Two facilitators, adapting information technology to meet the needs of groups, invented the first flip charts (French and Bell 1999, 33-34; Benne 1964, 81).
Cam Peterson, a consultant at Washington, DC-based Decisions and Designs Inc. (DDI), found himself working with customers whose problems were sufficiently complex as to benefit from "back-room" analysis typically performed by decision theory experts using computers running sophisticated software. He was asked by Westinghouse to apply these analytical approaches to the design of their new technical center. Cam asked Westinghouse for just a few experts to attend a two-day meeting to develop a framework for the design, and brought in his DDI colleague, Ken Kuskey, to be on the consultant team. Instead of just a few experts, the entire executive team attended the meeting! Adapting to the situation, Cam facilitated the group discussion while Ken ran the IBM 5100 and conducted the analysis. The "decision conference," combining group facilitation with computer-aided decision analysis, was born. The year was 1979. Decision analysts and group facilitators, adapting information technology to meet the needs of groups, were the first to bring computers into the conference room (Ring 1980; Kuskey 2003).
Group facilitation is dependent on information technology: blackboard, whiteboard, flip chart, paper roll, sticky paper, sticky wall, overhead projector, teleconference, videoconference, computer projector, Local Area Network, Internet … This Special Issue on Online Facilitation examines some of the more recent technology innovations that continue to shape the ways groups work and the ways group facilitators try to help them. Our thanks to the editors of this special issue,Daniel Mittleman and Robert Briggs.
