First, who selects and applies techniques? It might be well to recall the discussion of leadership, particularly regarding the opinion that diffusion of leadership represents the most efficient form of the democratic process.
When “leader” or “leadership” is mentioned or implied in the following discussion, remember that the research evidence indicates that the broader the base of such leadership, the more efficient the group is in accomplishing its goals. The authors are also aware from a practical standpoint that ideal situations are seldom achieved and that in many groups the leadership load must be carried by the few.
To return to eariler outlined concepts, the techniques may be considered the link between the group and its objectives. It is therefore logical that in selecting a technique the leaders look both ways; toward the group and its members and toward the ends desired.
First the group – its individual members, its internal and external dynamics – should be considered. The leader must take into account the membership; their interests, drives, and skills as well as their inhibitions, blocks, and frustrations. The human individual is the unit of raw material with which the group leader must work, and the greater the leader’s knowledge of human behavior in general and of the individual concerned in particular, the more useful choices he can make.
If a person were in a group largely for the security he felt the group gave him, it might be unwise to place him in a totally new situation. It would probably not be wise to throw one who has great difficulty expressing himself into a situation where he had to give a lecture. Some other technique should be used to tap the resources which this person can contribute to the group. Techniques should be tailored to fit the individuals concerned.
Forces at work within and without the group – dynamics of the group – must be considered in any rational selection of a group method. Several, or all, of the following elements of group dynamics should enter into the selection of a technique: size, atmosphere, standards, skills available, social controls, identity, general role definition, functional unit act roles, participation, and evaluation.
Group discussion, for example, works best in a small group in which the atmosphere is democratic and permissive rather than tense and inhibited. When a group is large “buzz groups” may accomplish similar ends. This technique is a waste of time when the group is of manageable size.
The most common of all techniques, the lecture, has a serious fault. It is only one-way communication. A very effective method, “role playing,” is also dangerous when social controls, identity, and objective evaluation are on an insecure basis within the group. Recreational or musical activities are sometimes chosen to break down status stratification in a group, but if injected into the wrong situation may actually increase hostility and tension.
A full knowledge of the forces making up the internal dynamics is the most likely way of avoiding pitfalls in technique selection.
The leader’s choice of a technique will also be affected by what he sees when he looks at the external dynamics. Forces impinging upon the group from the outside may have very significant effects upon the choice of a technique. Some institutions, such as certain churches and schools, frown upon music and dancing, thus placing severe restrictions on recreational methods. Other institutions place certain functionaries above the necessity of answering to the group. It might be unacceptable to involve a member of a church hierarchy in many types of activity, even though it could be very desirable from the standpoint of ends sought.
Community expectations often cause groups to bring in “name” lecturers when a different technique entirely might be more effective. Outside consultants are often used when local people might be expected to do a better job if they were free from community pressures. Choices are affected by the attitude of the community – the external dynamics.
When the method selector looks in the other direction, toward the goals of the group, he will again see a wide and varied assortment of factors influencing his choice. It will be remembered that all goals were divided into those which were strictly informative to the group and those which ostensibly call for action. It is obvious that this division frequently calls for completely different methods. Goals were also divided into long-run and short-run objectives, and again the means of achieving them may be better adapted to one form than another.
If the purpose of a meeting is a straightforward, logical, uninterrupted presentation of a single subject the “symposium” technique might be ideal. If the varying points of view are to be presented by only two people of roughly equal qualifications, the “dialogue” is a useful technique. An interesting combination of several techniques was presented in the Nixon-Kennedy television “debates” in the 1960 presidential campaign. To tap the ideas of as many people as possible, “buzz groups” or “huddle groups” are often used to approximate the benefits of general discussion in small groups. Full group discussion may be the only way to achieve consensus, but to’ free inhibitions and create a permissive atmosphere it may be necessary to precede this with some recreational or relaxing techniques.
Another characteristic of group objectives not previously stressed is that almost invariably they are subject to subdivision. Even short-run goals can be broken down into a series of intermediate objectives, and this may also be true of single-meeting goals. Each of the resulting intermediate goals may then be approached with a different technique which would seem to apply more logically to the situation. Combined techniques are really the rule rather than the exception and are particularly used when the objectives can be fragmented.
A general example of this would occur when some group might wish to solve a certain problem – say to improve some item of group process. First, a panel discussion might be set up, with those most concerned presenting the various aspects of the problem. The moderator would have the function of getting the panel under way and of keeping the discussion on the point. An important function of this technique would be to stimulate interest of all participants and to identify essential elements. The panel discussion might end with a general colloquy which in essence would serve to complete the definition of the problem and a crystallization of the essential facts involved. The group might then go into buzz groups to discuss the problem with instructions for each to suggest a solution. Then a general discussion could follow with the aim of achieving consensus. The advantages of such a prepared series of techniques over a desultory general discussion should be obvious as should the fact that combined techniques are often the most effective solution, even to a fairly simple problem.
It should be re-emphasized that to carry out the above program the leadership needs to know much about the individual members and their personalities. Also it is important to understand the “group personality,” its internal and external dynamics, and to have a clear appreciation of the specific objectives of the group. An understanding of the basic techniques and what each might be expected to accomplish can then be applied in the selections eventually made.
It is axiomatic in the discussion of methods that each technique has a definite potential for the mobilization of individual and group forces and for directing them toward group goals. This potential can only be realized, however, when knowledge, understanding, experience, and skill are present.
Groups are as old as mankind. Some sort of technique for securing group action is certainly as old as communication, no doubt antedating oral language. With the development of languages and written history we find many references to group action techniques in religious, pre-historical, and mythological literature. We recognize the “lecture” technique. Many times we read of groups being swayed to action by forms of the lecture; for example the “harangue” or the “exhortation.”
But while group techniques are ancient, their study under scientific methods is relatively new. Revolutions in group methods accompanied the development of spoken language. They were further changed with the advent of printing and the spread of literacy. Today we may be seeing a new revolution centered around mechanical aids: tape, film, television, and amplifiers.
Everything that furthers the group process is a technique. This logically includes coffee breaks, banquets, picnics, and teas. Various types of entertainment serve a similar purpose, and result in group singing, dancing, and talent nights. The difficulty of trying to cover the entire field in detail is apparent.
In Part II, a number of specific group techniques will be discussed in detail. However, those included are rather straightforward, relatively pure types. Social creativity remains the goal of this book, and specific techniques are introduced only to establish a pattern – a study method which will aid the leader as he develops and uses more inventive methods.