|
Groups that Work
by
Gerard M Blair
Groups
form a basic unit of work activity throughout
engineering and yet the underlying process is
poorly managed. This article looks at the basics
of group work and suggests ways to accelerate
development.
In
the beginning, God made an individual - and then
he made a pair. The pair formed a group,
together they begat others and thus the group
grew. Unfortunately, working in a group led to
friction, the group disintegrated in conflict
and Caian settled in the land of Nod - there has
been trouble with groups ever since.
When
people work in groups, there are two quite
separate issues involved. The first is the task
and the problems involved in getting the job
done. Frequently this is the only issue which
the group considers. The second is the process
of the group work itself: the mechanisms by
which the group acts as a unit and not as a
loose rabble. However, without due attention to
this process the value of the group can be
diminished or even destroyed; yet with a little
explicit management of the process, it can
enhance the worth of the group to be many times
the sum of the worth of its individuals. It is
this synergy which makes group work attractive
in corporate organization despite the possible
problems (and time spent) in group formation.
This
article examines the group process and how it
can best be utilized. The key is that the group
should be viewed as an important resource whose
maintenance must be managed just like any other
resource and that this management should be
undertaken by the group itself so that it forms
a normal part of the group's activities.
What
is a Group?
A
group of people working in the same room, or
even on a common project, does not necessarily
invoke the group process. If the group is
managed in a totally autocratic manner, there
may be little opportunity for interaction
relating to the work; if there is factioning
within the group, the process may never evolve.
On the other hand, the group process may be
utilized by normally distant individuals working
on different projects; for instance, at IEE
colloquia.
In
simple terms, the group process leads to a
spirit of cooperation, coordination and commonly
understood procedures and mores. If this is
present within a group of people, then their
performance will be enhanced by their mutual
support (both practical and moral). If you think
this is a nebulous concept when applied to the
world of industry, consider the opposite effect
that a self-opinionated, cantankerous loud-mouth
would have on your performance and then contrast
that to working with a friendly, open, helpful
associate.
Why
a Group?
Groups
are particularly good at combining talents and
providing innovative solutions to possible
unfamiliar problems; in cases where there is no
well established approach/procedure, the wider
skill and knowledge set of the group has a
distinct advantage over that of the individual.
In
general, however, there is an overriding
advantage in a group-based work force which
makes it attractive to Management: that it
engenders a fuller utilization of the work
force.
A
group can be seen as a self managing unit. The
range of skills provided by its members and the
self monitoring which each group performs makes
it a reasonably safe recipient for delegated
responsibility. Even if a problem could be
decided by a single person, there are two main
benefits in involving the people who will carry
out the decision. Firstly, the motivational
aspect of participating in the decision will
clearly enhance its implementation. Secondly,
there may well be factors which the implementer
understands better than the single person who
could supposedly have decided alone.
More
indirectly, if the lowest echelons of the
workforce each become trained, through
participation in group decision making, in an
understanding of the companies objectives and
work practices, then each will be better able to
solve work-related problems in general. Further,
they will also individually become a safe
recipient for delegated authority which is
exemplified in the celebrated right of Japanese
car workers to halt the production line.
From
the individual's point of view, there is the
added incentive that through belonging to a
group each can participate in achievements well
beyond his/her own individual potential. Less
idealistically, the group provides an
environment where the individual's
self-perceived level of responsibility and
authority is enhanced, in an environment where
accountability is shared: thus providing a
perfect motivator through enhanced self-esteem
coupled with low stress.
Finally,
a word about the much vaunted "recognition
of the worth of the individual" which is
often given as the reason for delegating
responsibility to groups of subordinates. While
I agree with the sentiment, I am dubious that
this is a prime motivator - the bottom line is
that the individual's talents are better
utilized in a group, not that they are wonderful
human beings.
Group
Development
It is common to view the development of a group
as having four stages:
|
|
|
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Forming
is the stage when the group first comes
together. Everybody is very polite and very
dull. Conflict is seldom voiced directly, mainly
personal and definitely destructive. Since the
grouping is new, the individuals will be guarded
in their own opinions and generally reserved.
This is particularly so in terms of the more
nervous and/or subordinate members who may never
recover. The group tends to defer to a large
extent to those who emerge as leaders (poor
fools!).
Storming
is the next stage, when all Hell breaks loose
and the leaders are lynched. Factions form,
personalities clash, no-one concedes a single
point without first fighting tooth and nail.
Most importantly, very little communication
occurs since no one is listening and some are
still unwilling to talk openly. True, this
battle ground may seem a little extreme for the
groups to which you belong - but if you look
beneath the veil of civility at the seething
sarcasm, invective and innuendo, perhaps the
picture come more into focus.
Then
comes the Norming. At this stage the sub-groups
begin to recognize the merits of working
together and the in-fighting subsides. Since a
new spirit of co-operation is evident, every
member begins to feel secure in expressing their
own view points and these are discussed openly
with the whole group. The most significant
improvement is that people start to listen to
each other. Work methods become established and
recognized by the group as a whole.
And
finally: Performing. This is the culmination,
when the group has settled on a system which
allows free and frank exchange of views and a
high degree of support by the group for each
other and its own decisions.
In
terms of performance, the group starts at a
level slightly below the sum of the individuals'
levels and then drops abruptly to its nadir
until it climbs during Norming to a new level of
Performing which is (hopefully) well above the
start. It is this elevated level of performance
which is the main justification for using the
group process rather than a simple group of
staff.
Group
Skills
The
group process is a series of changes which occur
as a group of individuals form into a cohesive
and effective operating unit. If the process is
understood, it can be accelerated.
There
are two main sets of skills which a group must
acquire:
Managerial
Skills
Interpersonal
Skills
and
the acceleration of the group process is simply
the accelerated acquisition of these.
As
a self-managing unit, a group has to undertake
most of the functions of a Group Leader -
collectively. For instance, meetings must be
organized, budgets decided, strategic planning
undertaken, goals set, performance monitored,
reviews scheduled, etc. It is increasingly
recognized that it is a fallacy to expect an
individual to suddenly assume managerial
responsibility without assistance; in the group
it is even more so. Even if there are practiced
managers in the group, they must first agree on
a method, and then convince and train the
remainder of the group.
As
a collection of people, a group needs to relearn
some basic manners and people-management skills.
Again, think of that self-opinionated,
cantankerous loud-mouth; he/she should learn
good manners, and the group must learn to
enforce these manners without destructive
confrontation.
Accelerating
Development
It
is common practice in accelerating group
development to appoint, and if necessary train,
a "group facilitator". The role of
this person is to continually draw the groups'
attention to the group process and to suggest
structures and practices to support and enhance
the group skills. This must be only a short-term
training strategy, however, since the existence
of a single facilitator may prevent the group
from assuming collective responsibility for the
group process. The aim of any group should be
that facilitation is performed by every member
equally and constantly. If this responsibility
is recognised and undertaken from the beginning
by all, then the Storming phase may be avoided
and the group development passed straight into
Norming.
The
following is a set of suggestions which may help
in group formation. They are offered as
suggestions, no more; a group will work towards
its own practices and norms.
Focus
The
two basic foci should be the group and the task.
If
something is to be decided, it is the group that
decides it. If there is a problem, the group
solves it. If a member is performing badly, it
is the group who asks for change.
If individual conflicts arise, review them in
terms of the task. If there is initially a lack
of structure and purpose in the deliberations,
impose both in terms of the task. If there are
disputes between alternative courses of action,
negotiate in terms of the task.
Clarification
In
any project management, the clarity of the
specification is of paramount importance - in
group work it is exponentially so. Suppose that
there is a 0.8 chance of an individual
understanding the task correctly (which is very
high). If there are 8 members in the group then
the chance of the group all working towards that
same task is
|
|
|
0.17. And the same reasoning hold for every
decision and action taken throughout the life of
the group.
It
is the first responsibility of the group to
clarify its own task, and to record this
understanding so that it can be constantly seen.
This mission statement may be revised or
replaced, but it should always act as a focus
for the groups deliberations and actions.
The
mouse
In
any group, there is always the quiet one in the
corner who doesn't say much. That individual is
the most under utilized resource in the whole
group, and so represents the best return for
minimal effort by the group as a whole. It is
the responsibility of that individual to speak
out and to contribute. It is the responsibility
of the group to encourage and develop that
person, to include him/her in the discussion and
actions, and to provide positive reinforcement
each time that happens.
The
loud-mouth
In
any group, there is always a dominant member
whose opinions form a disproportionate share of
the discussion. It is the responsibility of each
individual to consider whether they are that
person. It is the responsibility of the group to
ask whether the loud-mouth might like to
summarize briefly, and then ask for other views.
The
written record
Often
a decision which is not recorded will become
clouded and have to be rediscused. This can be
avoided simply by recording on a large display
(where the group can clearly see) each decision
as it is made. This has the further advantage
that each decision must be expressed in a clear
and concise form which ensures that it is
clarified.
Feedback
(negative)
All
criticism must be neutral: focused on the task
and not the personality. So rather than calling
Johnie an innumerate moron, point out the error
and offer him a calculator. It is wise to adopt
the policy of giving feedback frequently,
especially for small things - this can be
couched as mutual coaching, and it reduces the
destructive impact of criticism when things go
badly wrong.
Every
criticism must be accompanied by a positive
suggestion for improvement.
Feedback
(positive)
If
anyone does something well, praise it. Not only
does this reenforce commendable actions, but it
also mollifies the negative feedback which may
come later. Progress in the task should be
emphasised.
Handling
failure
The
long term success of a group depends upon how it
deals with failure. It is a very British
tendency to brush off failure and to get on with
the next stage with no more than a mention - it
is a very foolish tendency. Any failure should
be explored by the group. This is not to
attribute blame (for that is shared by the whole
group as an individual only acts with delegated
responsibility), but rather to examine the
causes and to devise a mechanism which either
monitors against or prevents repetition. A
mistake should only happen once if it is treated
correctly.
One
practise which is particularly useful is to
delegate the agreed solution to the individual
or sub-group who made the original error. This
allows the group to demonstrate its continuing
trust and the penitent to make amends.
Handling
deadlock
If
two opposing points of view are held in the
group then some action must be taken. Several
possibly strategies exist. Each sub-group could
debate from the other sub-group's view-point in
order to better understand it. Common ground
could be emphasised, and the differences viewed
for a possible middle or alternative strategy.
Each could be debated in the light of the
original task. But firstly the group should
decide how much time the debate actually merits
and then guillotine it after that time - then,
if the issue is not critical, toss a coin.
Sign
posting
As
each small point is discussed, the larger
picture can be obscured. Thus it is useful
frequently to remind the group: this is where we
came from, this is where we got to, this is
where we should be going.
Avoid
single solutions
First
ideas are not always best. For any given
problem, the group should generate alternatives,
evaluate these in terms of the task, pick one
and implement it. But most importantly, they
must also monitor the outcome, schedule a review
and be prepared to change the plan.
Active
communication
Communication
is the responsibility of both the speaker and
the listener. The speaker must actively seek to
express the ideas in a clear and concise manner
- the listener must actively seek to understand
what has been said and to ask for clarification
if unsure. Finally, both parties must be sure
that the ideas have been correctly communicated
perhaps by the listener summarizing what was
said in a different way. Conclusion
Groups are like relationships - you have to work
at them. In the work place, they constitute an
important unit of activity but one whose support
needs are only recently becoming understood. By
making the group itself responsible for its own
support, the responsibility becomes an
accelerator for the group process. What is
vital, is that these needs are recognized and
explicitly dealt with by the group. Time and
resources must be allocated to this by the group
and by Management, and the group process must be
planned, monitored and reviewed just like any
other managed process.
Gerard
M Blair is a Senior Lecturer in VLSI Design at
the Department of Electrical Engineering, The
University of Edinburgh. His book Starting to
Manage: the essential skills is published by
Chartwell-Bratt (UK) and the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (USA). He
welcomes feedback either by email (gerard@ee.ed.ac.uk)
or by any other method found here
|
|
