A Model for Improving a Group’s Effectiveness
by Margaret S. Carlson
Note: This file contains the text of an article which appeared in Popular Government, vol. 63, no. 4, Summer 1998, 37–45. Delineations within the text indicating titles and headings are preserved. No attempt has been made to display graphic images or pagination of the typeset article. Footnotes appear in brackets at the reference point in the text. Figures and tables have been omitted. A printed copy of this article may be obtained for a photocopying fee of $.10 per page with a $2.00 minimum.
Please e-mail, phone, or fax Katrina Hunt at the numbers below for assistance and information about purchasing specific articles.
The author is an Institute of Government faculty member specializing in group facilitation and organizational change.
A city manager has formed a committee to recommend ways of meeting an increased demand for services resulting from the city’s rapid population growth. Members of the committee are employees from planning, housing inspection, and public works—the departments most affected by the growth. The manager has emphasized that he wants the group to be creative, focusing on better use of existing resources and greater cooperation among departments rather than asking for more money. Now he is unhappy with the group’s progress. Individual members have complained to him that the group is nowhere near producing recommendations and that members even disagree about what they have been charged to do.
The manager calls in an organizational development consultant to do some team building with the group. The consultant works with the group for a day, using various exercises and activities designed to illustrate how groups can make better decisions than individuals and to help members communicate more openly with one another. The group members’ reactions to the session are mixed. Some think it was extremely valuable; others think it was fun but are not sure of its relevance; still others complain about wasting their time on “touchy-feely stuff.”
Checking back a month later, the manager finds that nothing has changed. The group still is having difficulty developing recommendations, and members are becoming increasingly frustrated with their task.
What is going on here? What problems is the group experiencing, how might it address them, and—perhaps more important—could it or the manager have prevented them? This article describes a model of group effectiveness, explains how to employ the model to diagnose and remedy specific group problems, and discusses how to use the model to support continuing group development. [1] The strength of the model lies in its depiction of a work group as a complex system whose success (or failure) depends on many variables. Frequently, managers and consultants have particular strategies that they believe will help members of a group work together effectively. For example, a manager may think that the secret is to get the right people to participate, and a consultant may claim that training all members in problem-solving skills will ensure success. Both views have some validity. However, there is no one “cure” for an ailing group—and no “vaccination” to prevent a group from having problems! Just as medical treatment varies according to the physician’s diagnosis of the patient’s problem, the recommendations to improve a group’s effectiveness depend on the purpose of the group, the nature of its goals, and the difficulties it is experiencing. And just as good health care emphasizes prevention as well as treatment, a group that pays attention to the elements of group effectiveness early on can avoid problems later.
Researchers have studied groups in great detail in both laboratory and field settings, but most of them merely seek to explain why groups act the way they do. Research findings offer little guidance on how groups might become more effective, although specific guidance often is precisely what those who work in groups need. The model of group effectiveness described in this article focuses on more than understanding group behavior; it suggests ways to improve group functioning. [2] For example, understanding that some group members typically are more oriented to the task while other members prefer to attend to group communication and decision making is not enough. To be effective, a group must spend time talking about both what it needs to do (task) and how it wants to do it (process). This model is useful both for diagnosis (determining the source of a group’s problems) and intervention (improving the way the group does its work).
Scope of the Model
The group effectiveness model applies to organizational work groups, as defined by the following attributes: [3]
This definition includes many types of work groups—for example, a citizen task force making a recommendation to the county commissioners, a street-cleaning crew, and a group of employees charged with drafting a new safety policy. However, it does not include social groups, reference groups (for example, a national fraternity, a religious denomination, or a professional association), or individuals who report to the same manager but have no group tasks to perform.
Definition of Group Effectiveness
Assessing a work group’s effectiveness can be tricky. Consider a group that writes a proposal for federal funding to improve children’s health in a particular region of the state. Would the group’s effectiveness be determined by whether the proposal was funded? What if the proposal was funded but the group had such difficulty working together that the members resolved never to collaborate again? Recognizing that effectiveness has several components, the group effectiveness model uses the following three criteria: [4]
These three criteria work together, especially over time. Group effectiveness is a continuum, not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. A group may be functioning well by the first criterion (for example, the organization’s customers are impressed with the speed and the ease of the new billing services) but suffering by the second and third criteria (for example, members are blaming one another for delays in accomplihing the group’s work, and people are asking to be transferred out of the department because working conditions are so tense). This model proposes that, because of the interdependence of the criteria, the quality of a group’s product is likely to drop over time if all the criteria for effectiveness are not met.
Elements of the Model
Three factors contribute to a group’s ability to meet all three criteria for effectiveness: organizational context, group structure, and group process. [5] These factors and their constituent elements interact to create a complex organizational system.
Organizational Context
Organizational context includes aspects of the larger organization that influence the group but are not within the group’s control. A work group does not exist in a vacuum. Studies indicate that organizational factors have a significant effect on a group’s functioning. [6] Following are seven important elements of organizational context:
Clear mission and shared vision. This element answers the questions “Why do we exist?” (mission) and “What do we want to become?” (vision). A group must understand its purpose within the larger organization, including what the organization expects as the group’s product and how the group’s work contributes to the organization’s mission. In the example at the beginning of this article, part of the committee’s confusion about its task may result from the city government’s lack of clarity about how it plans to respond to the rapidly increasing population.
Supportive culture. Organizational culture is the set of values and beliefs that employees of an organization generally share. It represents “strategies for survival” that have worked well in the past and that employees believe will work in the future. [7] A work group often develops its own culture (see “Effective Group Culture” under “Group Structure”), but a group also must work within a supportive organizational culture to be successful. For example, an interagency task force whose members come from various state agencies may have trouble getting the information it needs to do its work if the organizational culture of the members’ agencies discourages sharing information across agencies. By contrast, a city team charged with creating new nonfinancial rewards for high performers may have an easy time coming up with options if the city’s top management encourages creative problem solving and innovation.
Rewards consistent with objectives. The presence of this element in the model is not intended to give the impression that groups need the lure of an extrinsic reward to do their work. Indeed, much research supports the view that a significant performance challenge, not the promise of a reward, is what energizes a team. [8] However, because rewards are a way for an organization to send a message about valued types of behaviors, it is important to determine whether the organization is using rewards to support or undermine a group’s work.
There are two critical aspects to rewarding a group in a way that is consistent with the group’s objectives. First, to prevent the group’s placing too much emphasis on a lesser goal, the organization should be sure that it is rewarding the overall objective. For example, rewarding a group for increasing the number of housing inspections completed per week may cause the group to focus on speed when the organization actually wants more thorough inspections with fewer errors. Second, the rewards should focus on group—not individual—behavior. Rewarding individuals according to some assessment of who contributed the most to a group product can create destructive conflict and competition among group members. [9]
Information, including feedback about performance. Key information needed by a group includes what limits it must observe, what resources are available to it, who will review its product, and what standards the reviewer will use. [10] For example, has the organization tried to solve this particular problem before? If so, what strategies were used, and how were the results evaluated? It is discouraging for a group to work hard on a task and then discover that its proposed solution is too expensive, does not meet the client’s criteria, or does not comply with the law.
Training and consultation. Even if its members are carefully selected (see “Appropriate Membership” under “Group Structure”), a work group may not have all the skills or information it needs to do its work. For example, a team assigned to reduce the number of errors in clients’ water bills may be having trouble determining the cause of the problem and need some training in basic problem-solving techniques (such as distinguishing symptoms from root causes and gathering data to test alternative solutions). Or the team may not know what license it has to change the existing billing system and may need outside assistance, such as consultation with the manager to learn the scope of its authority.
Technology and material resources. Groups use technology to transform raw materials into products or services. Material resources include tools, supplies, and raw materials the group needs to complete its product. [11] For example, access to a computer would greatly enhance a group’s ability to compile and analyze data from a citizen satisfaction survey. Even simple materials like a newsprint pad and easel can contribute to a group’s effectiveness, particularly if the members don’t work in an office setting. Line maintenance crews for Florida Power & Light carry pads and easels on their trucks so that they can hold meetings with a minimum of disruption and travel time. [12]
Adequate physical environment. Work groups can meet in many locations: in a conference room, around a lunch table, under a shade tree, even in a “virtual” environment on an electronic bulletin board. However, they do need to meet somewhere, ideally in a space that balances the need for coordination and the need for privacy. [13] As a general rule, the more members are physically separated from one another, the more effort must go into coordinating their activities. When the group does come together, it should have a setting that minimizes outside interruptions and allows it to focus on its work.
Group Structure
The structure of a group is not concrete and visible like the structure of a building. Group structure may be defined as the relatively stable characteristics of a group, such as membership, roles, and task. [14] Group structure results from group members continually interacting in certain ways and thus is closely related to group process. [15] Like organizational context, group structure includes seven important elements:
Clear goals. To map out how it will do its work and measure its progress, a group should have specific, unambiguous goals. This clarity is important whether the group has the authority to set its own goals or whether it receives goals from the larger organization. Organizations commonly fail to give clear direction when they create groups, [16] perhaps because they are trying to get away from the hierarchical, directive style present in many organizations. Giving clear direction is not dictatorial, for only with clear guidance on organizational priorities can a group make the myriad decisions it must make in the course of its work. One way to think about the role of externally imposed goals is that a group has the right to expect direction on what needs to be done but also should have considerable freedom to determine how to do the task.
A motivating task. A group is likely to work hard on a task if the task is engaging. It may work especially hard on a task when the following conditions are present: [17]
If these conditions are absent, the originator(s) of the group may need to redesign the task, rather than exhorting members of the group to “work harder.”
Appropriate membership. Having appropriate membership in a work group means having both the right number of people to complete the work and the right mix of necessary skills, knowledge, and experience among the people. Several kinds of problems are a common result of people being assigned to groups for reasons other than their ability to contribute to the task (for example, because of their position in the organization or the community). This practice frequently creates a group that is larger than the task demands, increasing the coordination costs among members. [18] Also, members may not have the requisite skills, or they may be so overloaded with other work (and with membership in other groups) that they cannot devote the time and the energy that the group’s work requires.
Clearly defined roles. “Role behavior” refers to the recurring actions of individuals interacting with one another to produce a predictable outcome. [19] Roles give order and predictability to a work setting as people “play their parts.” An individual may hold different roles in different settings. For example, an employee may be a supervisor in one setting and a subordinate in another. Because roles represent a set of expectations about an individual’s behavior, group members need to understand their own roles and those of other members in order to do their work effectively. A job title alone does not fully convey a group’s expectation of a role. For example, what are all the things expected of a committee chairperson? A group facilitator? A group member? The answers to these questions will vary according to the expectations of group members, so it is a good idea for group members to clarify roles when—or ideally, before—the group begins its work.
Sufficient time. A group needs two kinds of time to complete its task: performance time and process time. [20] The group prepares and produces its product during performance time. It reflects on how it can improve its performance during process time. Groups typically underestimate the amount of both kinds of time they need to complete their work. They give especially short shrift to process time.
A new group should allow extra process time. When members don’t know one another or have never worked together before, completing a group task takes longer because members are focusing on individual as well as group needs. [21]
Effective group culture. Group culture is the set of shared values and beliefs that guide members’ behavior. [22] In a group with a strong culture, the members act in ways that are consistent with the group’s shared values and beliefs. For example, a group that places a high priority on continuous learning will study previous attempts to perform tasks similar to its assigned one in order to analyze past mistakes and improve future performance. A strong culture can be an asset to a group if the values and beliefs are consistent with principles of group effectiveness. However, if the culture endorses values that are not conducive to effective group functioning—for example, if the group believes that top management should identify and solve all problems—a strong culture can be more of a hindrance than a help.
Group norms. Norms are expectations about how people should or should not behave, expectations that are shared by all or many group members and are closely linked to the group’s culture. [23] Norms are a way to increase the predictability of group members’ behavior and integrate members into the group. [24] Examples of group norms are having the newest member of the group take minutes of the meeting, beginning the meeting ten to fifteen minutes past the posted starting time, and waiting for the group leader to express an opinion on an issue before expressing one’s own views. Norms are often implicit rather than explicit. The quickest way to discover a group norm may be to (1) violate it or (2) ask a new member of the group what the norms are, for new members are highly attuned to how the group interacts. Like group culture, group norms do not always promote effective behavior. A group can benefit from having an explicit discussion of its existing norms and its desired norms.
Group Process
Structure includes the what and the who of a group; process is the how. For example, how does the group make decisions? How does it handle disagreements? How does it share information about its work with people outside the group? Group process consists of five key elements:
Decision making. A group makes many decisions in the course of its work, including how to approach its task, how to choose among alternatives, and how to decide who will be involved in making and implementing decisions. One of the most important decisions a group makes is the “meta” decision of how to make all these decisions (for example, by consensus or by majority rule). Research indicates that groups that use systematic decision-making processes are much more likely to be effective than groups that do not. [25] Systematic decision-making processes are disciplined ways of collecting information, evaluating alternatives, and agreeing on a course of action. Groups often find it helpful to have a facilitator assist them in learning and applying decision-making skills consistently, particularly because groups have a tendency to revert to old—and less effective—habits when confronted with tight deadlines.
Problem solving. A “problem” may be defined as a situation or a condition in need of improvement. [26] Problem-solving skills are closely related to decision-making skills, discussed earlier. However, problem solving usually is defined more narrowly than decision making. Although most groups would agree that they need to make decisions as part of their work, not every group sees itself as needing to solve problems, perhaps because a “problem” often is perceived as something to be remedied quickly. Like decision making, problem solving benefits from the use of a systematic process. The specific steps may vary, but the basic elements of a problem-solving process usually include identifying the problem, determining its cause, agreeing on criteria for an acceptable solution, generating potential solutions, selecting a solution, implementing it, and evaluating the results.
Groups often encounter difficulties when they are attempting to solve problems. A common pitfall is that they begin discussing possible solutions before agreeing on the nature of the problem. Or some members of the group may still be debating the cause of the problem while others are evaluating possible courses of action to remedy the situation. Effective groups monitor their discussion to ensure that all members are focusing on the same step of the problem-solving process at the same time.
Conflict management. Different viewpoints are a fact of life for work groups: organizations use groups instead of individuals when a problem requires a mix of skills, knowledge, and experience that is not likely to reside in one person. The goal is not to get everyone to think or behave in the same way but to manage a group’s differences so that members can use their diverse views to respond in creative, productive ways. As with most of the elements in the group effectiveness model, members should discuss their preferred methods for resolving conflict before a specific conflict arises, for it is more difficult to have such a discussion after people are deeply invested in a particular view or position.
Communication. Communication—exchanging information in a way that conveys meaning—is the one process that cuts across all others. [27] An expert in group dynamics suggests that an observer use the following questions to track some of the most important communication processes in a group: Who communicates? How often? For how long? Who communicates to whom? Who talks after whom? Who interrupts whom? [28]
It also is important to note what people are—and are not—talking about in a group. Groups often have undiscussable issues—“important issues relevant to the group’s task that members believe they cannot discuss openly in the group without negative consequences.” [29] Undiscussable issues may include a group leader’s defensive reaction when others disagree with her, or a member’s failure to complete his assignments between meetings. To work together effectively, groups must learn how to discuss such issues.
Communication may be nonverbal as well as verbal—say, one group member looking around the room instead of at the speaker, or another group member leaning forward in his chair to emphasize a point. Many communication problems occur in groups because people misunderstand other members’ verbal and nonverbal messages, fail to check whether they have correctly interpreted the messages, and then respond on the basis of their untested inferences. For example, Sue may interpret Frank’s pencil tapping as impatience and cut her comments short, thereby omitting valuable information from her report. By altering her behavior without checking whether her inference is correct, Sue may reduce the group’s ability to complete its assignment successfully. Additionally, if she believes that Frank does not value her ideas, her relationship with him may suffer.
Communication is such an important part of a group’s process that groups should try to increase their effectiveness by adopting a set of ground rules. Examples of ground rules include testing assumptions and inferences, sharing all relevant information, staying focused, and being specific. [30]
Boundary management. All work groups exist in some type of organizational environment; therefore, one of a group’s primary tasks is to manage its relationship with that environment. [31] “Effective work groups manage their relationships with the larger organization by simultaneously differentiating themselves from and integrating themselves into the larger organization.” [32] Boundary management includes obtaining the resources the group needs to do its work and sharing information with others about the group’s work (a particularly important activity when others in the organization receive and evaluate the group’s services or products—see the first criterion under “Definition of Group Effectiveness”). This element also includes managing members’ entry into and exit from the group.
Applications of the Group Effectiveness Model
The following examples illustrate how groups can use the model to diagnose their problems and devise strategies to improve their functioning.
Scenario 1 (the Opening Scenario Revisited)
In the opening scenario, a city manager has formed a committee of employees from three departments to submit recommendations on how to meet an increased demand for city services. The manager wants the group to make better use of existing resources, not ask for more money. Now he is unhappy with the group’s progress. It is nowhere near producing recommendations, and members even disagree about what they have been charged to do. A team-building session conducted by an organizational development consultant draws mixed reactions from the group and produces no noticeable change in its functioning.
Applying the model. The committee is unclear about both the scope of its task and the degree of its autonomy. Members are not sure whether they should assume that the current services and organizational structure will remain the same or whether they may recommend significantly changing certain services or even eliminating some departments. In addition, they do not possess the skill to analyze the financial implications of their options. Most members of the committee are not familiar with basic data-gathering techniques. Further, they are having difficulty agreeing on the current situation (that is, identifying the gap between the demand for services and the organization’s ability to meet the demand) and determining how to evaluate alternatives. As a result, much of the group’s discussion has consisted of members trying to convince one another why their various theories and suggestions are correct, on the basis of their own beliefs and inferences. Because only three departments are represented—planning, housing inspections, and public works—the members have not considered options involving other departments. Finally, the group is concerned that the task is too big to be completed in the six weeks given by the city manager. The members are unable to meet more than one hour per week, being swamped with regular duties.
The consultant’s team-building exercises do not help the group because the group’s problems are rooted in structural factors—lack of clarity about the scope of its task and its degree of autonomy—not group process. Research findings confirm that attention to group process will not improve a group’s effectiveness when structure is inadequate or organizational support is lacking. [33]
The committee meets with the city manager to clarify the scope of its task and its authority. The manager says that he wants the committee to consider all options, including comprehensive changes in how services are provided and work is structured. He concedes that increased funds are not completely out of the question, but he verifies that the city council is not going to increase taxes and probably will not agree to add personnel, at least not until the committee can show that it has tried other options. The manager agrees that the group members need to learn how to gather and analyze information about service levels, and he arranges for a person from the local community college to provide training on quality-management techniques. Finally, given the ambitious charge that he has presented to the committee, he agrees to add a staff member with skills in financial analysis, extend the deadline six months, and temporarily relieve the members of some of their other job responsibilities so that they can make the committee’s work a priority.
Scenario 2
The county commissioners have created a task force to investigate and recommend new ways to reach citizens through information technology (for example, a county government Web site). The task force consists of fifteen members, including representatives from the local economic development commission, the schools, a citizens “tax watch” group, and a local senior citizens group. Several local government staff, including the director of information services, also are members. The task force has met monthly for six months and is having great difficulty completing its task. Some of the members never have used a computer, while others are comfortable with information technology and spend much of the group’s meeting time explaining the field to the less-experienced members. As the deadline nears, the county director of information services drafts a list of recommendations, which the task force rubber-stamps and sends on to the commissioners. Many of the members are frustrated by the experience and unhappy about how much time they have spent on the task relative to how little they have contributed to the product.
Applying the model. This task force suffers from a lack of appropriate membership in two ways: it is too large, and most of the people do not have the requisite skills or experience to be contributing members. Frequently, public-sector agencies (or in this case, boards) want to include a cross-section of the organization or the community when they are creating a group. Although broad representation is a valid interest, it must be weighed against the coordination costs incurred with each new member. Also, many members of this group lack a basic familiarity with information technology. In a group with a longer life, training and consultation can overcome this lack, but the task force cannot afford the time to bring members up to speed.
Scenario 3
A nonprofit agency that administers Head Start and numerous other programs for a two-county area has been growing rapidly. Staff are experiencing great stress and complain of not being able to manage all the issues and resources coming their way. The agency director suggests that they try Total Quality Management or some other organizational development process to help them deal with problems more effectively and work better across service-area boundaries. Some in the group feel that this would just take time away from work. They are not convinced that a problem-solving process is the right place to start. [34]
Applying the model. When an organization is considering embarking on a major change effort, going through the group effectiveness model and discussing how current work processes affect each element can be helpful. When staff of the nonprofit agency discuss the model, one person comments that, as he sees them, the three major barriers to change in the agency cut across the three factors in group effectiveness: information (organizational context), clearly defined roles (group structure), and communication (group process). He thinks that if staff start addressing these issues, they will make significant improvements. Staff agree that they could start at several places in the group effectiveness model but feel comforted by the fact that the elements are interconnected. Regardless of where they start, they believe that they will eventually address all the elements. They decide that a problem-solving process is probably not the most important place to start. They will meet again to discuss the elements further and choose one or two priority areas to address in the coming year. In general, they say that they find working from the model incredibly freeing: developing their organization is not an either-or choice of learning a problem-solving process or continuing to work as they currently do.
Summary
The group effectiveness model described in this article is an essential tool for people who are responsible for creating work groups. It also can be valuable to anyone who participates in work groups. The elements of the model provide a checklist that managers can use to make sure groups obtain the support they need to do their work. As groups play an increasingly important role in how organizations do their work, managers must do what they can to create the conditions for group success.
1. This group effectiveness model is outlined in Roger M. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), 20–36. The model relies extensively on two works:
J. Richard Hackman, “The Design of Work Teams,” in Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed. Jay W. Lorsch (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987), 315–42; and Eric Sundstrom, Kenneth P. De Meuse, and David Futrell, “Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness,” American Psychologist 45 (Feb. 1990): 120–31.
2. Hackman, “Design of Work Teams,” provides a good summary of the descriptive research on group behavior and effectiveness. It also articulates the need for a normative model of group effectiveness.
3. J. Richard Hackman, ed., Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), 5–7; Hackman, “Design of Work Teams,” 322–23.
4. See Hackman, “Design of Work Teams,” 322–23; Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 21–22.
5. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 22.
6. For a discussion of studies that have demonstrated the effect of organizational context on group effectiveness, see Sundstrom, De Meuse, and Futrell, “Work Teams,” and Ruth Wageman, “Critical Success Factors for Creating Superb Self-Managing Teams,” Organizational Dynamics 26 (Summer 1997): 49–61.
7. Daniel R. Denison, Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990), 2.
8. For a detailed discussion of the importance of a specific performance challenge, see Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith, The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (New York: Harper Collins, 1993).
9. See Hackman, “Design of Work Teams,” 325–26. For an excellent article on the power of rewards, see Steven Kerr, “On the Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B,” Academy of Management Journal 18 (1975): 769–83.
10. See Hackman, “Design of Work Teams,” 330.
11. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 35–36.
12. Trainer Doug Gorham uses this example in training provided by Qualtec, formerly a division of Florida Power & Light.
13. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 36.
14. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 29.
15. Floyd H. Allport describes the concept of group structure in “A Theory of Enestruence (Event Structure Theory): Report of Progress,” American Psychologist 22 (Jan. 1967): 1–24.
16. For a good description of the importance of giving clear direction to a team, see Susan Albers Mohrman, Susan G. Cohen, and Allan M. Mohrman, Jr., Designing Team-Based Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).
17. Hackman, “Design of Work Teams,” 324.
18. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 30.
19. For a comprehensive discussion of roles, see Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (2d ed.) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978).
20. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 31.
21. Edgar H. Schein discusses the issues involved in group formation in Process Consultation: Its Role in Organizational Development, vol. 1 (2d ed.) (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1988).
22. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 31.
23. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 32.
24. Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology.
25. Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman, Team-Based Organizations, 251.
26. Michael R. Kelly, Everyone’s Problem Solving Handbook: Step-by-Step Solutions for Quality Improvement (White Plains, N.Y.: Quality Resources, 1992), 155.
27. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 25.
28. Schein, Process Consultation, 21–27.
29. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 26.
30. For more information, see Roger M. Schwarz, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups” (rev.) (Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1994).
31. Deborah L. Gladstein discusses the importance of boundary management to a group’s effectiveness in “Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (1984): 499–517.
32. Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 27.
33. Hackman, Groups That Work, 498.
34. Special thanks to Anne Davidson for providing this example.
This material is copyrighted by the Institute of Government. Any form of copying for other than the individual user’s personal reference without express permission of the Institute of Government is prohibited. Further distribution of this material is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to, posting, e-mailing, faxing, archiving in a public database, or redistributing via a computer network or in a printed form.