“Informed Choice” versus “Participation:” Competing Democratic Values

As a new member of a community organization, I attended my first general membership meeting. Independent of the meeting, a referendum was underway regarding a somewhat controversial proposal. Although the meeting had a specific agenda that did not include the referendum, a number of people expressed dissatisfaction with the referendum process. The next day, I submitted some comments about the discussion of the referendum process and its implications for a revision. Since this situation brings into focus an issue that many organizations face—the competition between the values of “informed choice” and “participation”— I present my comments here without referring to the specific organization involved.

Some thoughts on last night’s meeting

In their comments about the referendum process, a number of speakers cited the Organization’s democratic values. I think it would be helpful to reflect on the particular democratic values in question, and consider them in developing an improved referendum process.

It seemed to me that one of the implicit democratic values was “informed choice,” the idea that each member should make a choice on the proposal, but that choice should be informed by the facts and views of others. Objections to the referendum process seemed to center on the lack of opportunity to exchange information and different points of view regarding the proposal. In short, the referendum process did not adequately support “informed choice.”

Putting “informed choice” into practice presents an important question: How do you know when you have sufficient information? An individual could say, “I have enough information to make a choice; I don’t need any more; I’m ready to vote.” But another person could say, “Wait! Don’t vote yet! You haven’t heard my point of view! I haven’t had the opportunity to influence your choice, and what I have to say is important and no one else has said it.”

At its democratic best, a decision-making process includes an agreed-on method for collectively determining when sufficient information and perspectives have been exchanged and the group is ready to make an informed choice. For example, Roberts Rules of Order includes the motion, “Previous Question” (or “call the question” or “close debate”), which—if passed—closes discussion and brings the main motion to a vote. It requires first that the presiding officer recognize the person “calling the question,” and then that the motion is seconded and then approved by a two-thirds vote. This represents a collective decision that the group is now capable of making an informed choice. Consensus decision-making processes often follow a more stringent practice that requires discussion to continue until every person who has something to say has the opportunity to do so, the equivalent of “Previous Question” with the requirement of a unanimous vote.

Regarding this particular matter, I was puzzled by the Organization’s decision-making process in two instances during the meeting. First, regarding the budget vote, towards the end of the discussion the presiding officer announced that some people had already left the meeting and submitted their ballots (before the question had been called). This provides an example of a process in which individuals can decide for themselves when they have sufficient information, whether or not others feel that they have had the opportunity to inform them. A similar situation occurred during the vote on the proposed change to the policy manual, when the person presenting the proposal asked members to complete their ballots while the discussion was still underway.

These practices were likely driven by another democratic value, “participation.” That is, affording all members the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Enabling people to vote prior to the end of discussion allows people to vote even if they cannot (or choose not to) stay any longer at the meeting. This value also drives the referendum process. As someone explained at the meeting, the purpose of holding a referendum rather than conducting a regular meeting to decide the issue was to enable more people to participate.

We can view these values—“informed choice” and “participation”—as competing with each other. That is, the more information required, the more time it takes, and the fewer the number of people who are inclined or able to invest that time and participate in making the decision. In reviewing and perhaps revising the referendum policy, the challenge will be to create a process that maximizes and balances the democratic values of “informed choice” and “participation.”

Schuman's Rules of Problem Solving

When I lead workshops on collaborative problem solving and decision making, I often refer to my “Rules of Problem Solving.” Here they are.

First Rule of Problem Solving: Don't be sure you have the right problem or purpose.

It is often useful to have a clear description of the problem and a statement of the purpose of the project or meeting. But sometimes the originally-stated purpose turns out to be unsatisfactory to some of those who become involved. So it’s important to be ready to modify the problem or purpose to accommodate those perspectives.

An Example: The new Research Director was alarmed at the high overhead costs and low utilization rates of his analytical chemistry laboratories. At a time of tight budgets, this was not sustainable. He hired me to facilitate a Study Team whose purpose—stated in a well-crafted “charge to the study team”—was to “recommend an optimal organization plan.” Armed with this purposeful document I felt confident in my ability to facilitate the group.

At its first meeting, members of the Study Team were outraged! The Director did not understand the particular natures of their laboratories or the conditions under which they operated. After considerable storming, I asked the group to suggest changes to the Director’s “charge to the study team.” They supplemented the above purpose statement to read “recommend an optimal organization plan that takes into account the commonalties as well as the differences among the existing laboratories” and made several other changes to take into account a broader range of issues, such as “how overhead charges and allocations are determined,” and “how decisions should be made regarding which equipment should be purchased.”

Now it seemed we had it right, but as the project proceeded, I kept wondering, do we have the right problem?

Second Rule of Problem Solving: Don't be sure you have the right people.

The people who participate in a collaborative effort make all the difference in its effectiveness. Who should be involved, and how and when they should be involved, are critical questions. If you don’t have the right people, you might not even obtain an adequate understanding of the problem.

An Example: I was asked to facilitate a meeting in a hierarchical organization in which a supervisor and subordinate employee had a longstanding conflict. There were about a dozen people in the room, and we all introduced ourselves. As the facilitator, I restated the organization’s formal ground rules for such meetings and ascertained that everyone understood and agreed to them. We then proceeded to hear from the employee about the nature of the conflict and what she wanted by way of resolution. A number of people asked clarifying questions and contributed supplementary information. After a series of questions to the employee from one particular person, the employee asked that person, “What are you doing here anyway? Are you collecting information to be used in a legal proceeding?” The person denied that was the case (this was not allowed by the organization’s ground rules), but it was only from the ensuing discussion that I came to realize two important things: first, that the person who had been asking questions was a lawyer in the employee relations division, and second, the supervisor who was involved in the conflict was not even present! At this point, the employee and her colleagues left the meeting, but if I had realized that one of the key individuals was not present, I would not have agreed to proceed with the meeting in the first place.

So the meeting was a failure, and made no contribution to improving the workplace relationships. It could have been avoided if I had the presence of mind to ensure that the right people were present.

Third Rule of Problem Solving: Don't be sure you have the right process or method.

When we plan problem-solving and decision-making processes, we have to make assumptions about the nature of the problem and the purpose that the group wants to fulfill. Sometimes the assumptions we make are on the mark, and the plan works effectively. Sometimes we have to change the plan, even drastically, building on what we learned up to that point.

An Example: The purpose of the Railroad Bridge Underclearance Committee was “to determine an appropriate standard for the vertical clearance of highway bridges over railroad lines.” This was important and timely since several major highway construction projects were about to get underway and many highway bridges would be rebuilt. If at any time in the next 75 years they were to be rebuilt to provide the higher clearances that would accommodate new types of rail shipping equipment, now was the time to do it.

As facilitators, we recommended that the Committee use a systematic matrix evaluation method. First, we worked with the Committee to establish a set of evaluation criteria. Second, we asked them to list the alternative clearances—18 feet, 20 feet, 22 feet, etc. Third, we asked them to describe each of the alternatives on each of the criteria. As we worked with these experts through a two-day decision conference it became apparent that this form of analysis was not enough. Indeed, the performance of a particular alternative on a specific criterion varied, depending on the railroad. For example, increasing the clearance to 22 feet on a railroad that ran through a sparsely populated section had little impact on the cost criterion, but a big impact on cost for a railroad that ran through a densely populated area. Towards the end of the conference we shifted to a resource allocation method that looked at the benefits and costs for each of five different railroads, and selected the alternative clearance that provided the highest benefit/cost ratio for each.

While the method we choose is a function of both the people and the purpose, it is useful to consider multiple methods, select the best fit, and still be ready to switch during the meeting if it seems appropriate.

Some additional thoughts.

You don’t know who the right people are until you have the right problem, but then, it’s the people in the room who ultimately define the problem! So the people and the problem define each other in an iterative process. And proposing a process or method often helps to clarify the problem, which in turn helps to clarify which people should be involved. They’re inter-related and inter-dependent.

Lastly, it would be more positive to state these rules in the form, “Be sure …” instead of “Don't be sure…” But it could create a trap. If I am sure that I have the right problem or purpose, the right people, and the right process or method, then I am less open to discovering that I do not have them right. Collaborative problem solving and decision making is sufficiently complex and dynamic that being close-minded about such things can lead to failures. So it’s important to proceed with an open mind and consider that even these fundamental aspects of a collaborative activity might be subject to change.

This article appeared in the IAF Europe Newsletter, February 2011, pp. 22-24.

Improving group performance: Recent research results

Conversational turn-taking—as opposed to having a few people dominate the conversation—wins the prize for the most effective way to increase a group's intelligence. Research reported September 30, 2010 in Science defines collective intelligence as "the general ability of the group to perform a wide variety of tasks" and shows that three factors contribute to it: conversational turn-taking, social sensitivity, and proportion of females in the group. Since women scored better than men on social sensitivity, and social sensitivity could reasonably lead group members to allow others to speak, I am prepared to conclude that conversational turn-taking is the key. Read more about the study here. If you're interested in research on improving group performance, please get in touch.

Why should we break into small groups?

Working with the planning group for an upcoming meeting, I suggested that for a segment of the agenda we divide the group of 25 participants into smaller break-out groups. One of the planning-group members objected. “Why should we break into small groups? Can’t we just stay together? We all need to hear what everyone is saying.”

As a group facilitator, I hear this question a lot. Below is a modified version of my response. I'd be interested to hear additional reasons for using small groups and any differences with the reasons I gave.

---

There are a number of advantages in asking the participants to initially hold their discussions in small groups.

• By using small groups, each group can focus on a different topic. This increases the likelihood that each topic will be explored in some depth. It's akin to "parallel processing."
  
• Each person has more time to speak. For example, if we have a 50-person group and a 50-minute time block, on average each person will get only one minute to speak. If we split into ten five-person groups, on average each person will get 10 minutes to speak.
  
• Many people tend to participate less actively in a larger group, but more readily in smaller groups. This is true even for groups composed of high-status individuals who are expected to have no reservations about participating.
  
• In larger groups, people tend to speak for longer periods, with less interruption. In smaller groups there is more give and take; it is easier for a person to interrupt to gain clarification, ask a question, or pose an alternative point of view. So small groups tend to provide not only more speaking time, but greater exploration, depth, and understanding of ideas.
  
• The small-group discussion provides a "dress-rehearsal" for the large-group discussion by providing a more intimate and thorough opportunity for people to work out their ideas and how to present them. So the large-group discussion, which builds on the small-group discussions, is more efficient.
  
• In social terms, small groups enable people to connect with each other much more readily. Participants are much more likely to remember the people with whom they worked in their small groups and build ongoing relationships with them. Small group discussions are typically more lively, dynamic, and fun.
  
• After a morning-long series of presentations, small group conversations will give people the opportunity to externalize and integrate their own thinking, as well as learn from other's perspectives.
  

---

Your thoughts?

---

An earlier version of this post appeared in the IAF Group Facilitation Forum under the title, “Reasons for breaking into small groups.”

X Ways to Y Your Meetings

I was alarmed—even insulted—to find my years of education, professional training, and experience reduced to apparently simple advice, widely available on the Internet:

3 Ways to Use Icebreakers to Energize Your Meetings
4 Ways to Make Sure Meetings Are Not a Waste of Time
5 Ways to Overhaul Your Meetings Manners
6 Ways to Add Life to Your Meetings
7 Ways to Make Your Meetings More Productive
8 Ways to Juice Your Meetings
9 Ways to Cut Down on Meeting Time
10 Ways to Take Your Meetings from Good to Great
20 Ways to Improve Virtual Meetings
50 Ways to Liven Up Your Meetings
101 Ways to Make Meetings Active

I was alarmed—even insulted—until I remembered that I too had provided such a prescription.

It occurred some years ago I was asked to teach “Meeting Facilitation Skills” at a conference, but with only 40 minutes for the session. My initial reaction was, “Not enough time; can't do it!” Then I thought about Hillel's response to “Teach me the Law while I'm standing on one foot,”* and I figured since I had a full 40 minutes, it behooved me to give it a try.

Rather than attempt a comprehensive overview I decided to focus on four elements that are fundamental to groups, collaboration, and facilitation.

Meaning. I talked about the importance of meaning in organizational life and the value of having a clear purpose, negotiated and renegotiated as it may be, for any meeting and collaborative effort. This has implications for how we convene meetings, people's internal commitment to attend and participate, how we communicate, etc.

Understanding. I proclaimed that understanding is critical in organizational life and that understanding others is as important as being understood. And I proposed that objective as well as subjective information, and analytical as well as intuitive ways of processing information, are essential. This pertains to how we socially construct our individual and collective understanding.

Choices. I suggested that making choices is fundamental to organizational life and emphasized the value of having a clear choice-making process for any particular decision. Indeed, the choice of choice-making processes is a critical choice! This is related to the various decision-making tools and techniques that might be used by a group.

Relationships. I talked about the significance of relationships in organizational life – the relationships among the members of the group and the relationships between each of the members and others outside the group. It is important to recognize how our relationships affect our choices, and vice versa, and how the understandings and meanings we gain depend on our relationships, and vice versa.

Meaning is what we want.
Understanding is what we need.
Choices are what we make.
Relationships are what we have.

---

*Hillel's response to “standing on one foot.”

The Most Difficult Group?

“Isn’t this the most difficult group you’ve ever worked with?” a group member asked earnestly. As a group facilitator I have heard this question – in one form or another – many times. For years I responded by downplaying or outright denying the group’s difficulty. “Oh, this group isn’t so difficult, it’s not that unusual.” “Really?” the group member responded, “I thought this was a really bad group!” and the eagerness and energy that came with the initial question would fade.

After many such exchanges I finally realized two things. First, from my perspective the group did not seem unusual or difficult, but from the perspective of its members, it was. Second, instead of hearing me deny their reality, these group members wanted me to acknowledge that their group was indeed difficult, provide some insight into why it was difficult, and suggest what they could do about it.

When finally I caught on to the meaning of this question I started responding differently. Instead of negating their sense of the group’s difficulty I replied, “That’s an interesting question! What makes this group difficult from your perspective?” The responses I heard were often illuminating, and they helped me appreciate the many ways in which groups can be experienced as difficult. And indeed, even for the most experienced and wise group members, leaders, and facilitators, there are “difficult groups.”

This leads to an important element in how we think about our work with groups: rather than think in terms of how to work with difficult groups, the approach we take in Working with Difficult Groups is to think in terms of what makes working with groups difficult. That is to say, a particular group is not innately difficult; rather there are various things that make working with the group difficult. Wouldn’t it be useful if we had a way of thinking systematically about all the ways in which working with a group might be difficult? That would provide a basis for understanding why working with the group is difficult and then, what you could do about it.

Excerpted from The Handbook for Working with Difficult Groups: How They Are Difficult, Why They Are Difficult, and What You Can Do About It

Group Facilitation Trivia

Here are a few group facilitation “trivia” questions. Answers below.

1. The term “brainstorming” refers to:

1. Any technique used to generate ideas. It’s a generic term.
   
2. An idea-generation method, found in a number of studies (as early as 1958) to be less effective than others.
   
3. A procedure for generating ideas, developed in the 1940s and described in a book by Alex Osborn in 1953.
   
4. All of the above.
   

2. What was the name of the first liquid-ink marker, and when did it become commercially available?

1. McCready Marking Pen, patented by Richard L. McCready, 1890
   
2. Flair® fiber-tip pens, invented by Yukio Horie, Tokyo Stationery Company, 1962
   
3. Magic Marker®, developed by Sidney Rosenthal, 1952
   
4. Pen-Brush, marketed by Ferdinand Silcox, 1936.
   

3. Who first explicated the role of the group facilitator (with or without using that term)?

1. Emory Stephen Bogardus, in his 1942 pamphlet, Democracy by Discussion
   
2. Norman R. F. Maier, in his 1967 journal article, Assets and Liabilities in Group Problem Solving
   
3. Michael Doyle and David Straus in their 1976 book, How to Make Meetings Work
   
4. Bernard Lubin and William Eddy in their 1987 book chapter, The Development of Small Group Training and Small Group Trainers
   

4. In the world of group facilitation, what does the acronym “NGT” stand for?

1. Nascent Gregarious Tendency
   
2. Nominal Group Technique
   
3. Neo Generative Thinking
   
4. Name, Gather, Test
   

5. When were flip charts invented, and by whom?

1. Gee, I never thought about it. I just assumed they were always around.
   
2. In the 1980s, fulfilling a practical need generated by the Total Quality Management movement.
   
3. 1946 by Ron Lippitt and Lee Bradford
   
4. Early 1920s by the Dennison Manufacturing Company (later merged with Avery International to form Avery Dennison Corporation)
   

Answers

Here are mine. Let me know if you have better ones!

1. (d) All of the above. Alex Osborne described his brainstorming method, developed over the preceding decade, in Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving, published by Scribner's in 1953. “Brainstorming,” like the trademarked names Jello, Kleenex, BandAid, and Xerox, has come to be used as a generic term. For details regarding choice (b), see Taylor, D. W., C. B. Berry, and C. H. Block (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking. Administrative Science Quarterly 3(1), 23-47.
   
2. (c) The Magic Marker was developed by Sidney Rosenthal and marketed commercially beginning in 1952. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpen.htm. Richard L. McCready's "Marking Pen Improvements" were patented in 1890 (but I don't think they had much of an impact). http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Marker-pen
   
3. (b) If you have a different answer, please let me know. My nomination is Norman R. F. Maier, who described the role of a "discussion leader" in a “cooperative problem-solving activity” in his 1967 article, "Assets and Liabilities in Group Problem Solving: The Need for an Integrative Function," published in Psychological Review, Volume 74, Number 4, Pages 239-249. His article was reprinted in the premier issue of Group Facilitation: a Research and Applications Journal.
   
4. (b) One of the most widely used group facilitation techniques, Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is well documented in Delbecq A. L., VandeVen A. H., and Gustafson D. H., (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planners, Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company.
   
5. (c) For a more complete story read my blog post below on Information Technology for Groups.