Page 253 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

236 Chapter 9

TABLE 9.1
Absolute versus Absolute (Must Be Met) Relative (Should Be Met)
relative criteria to Entertainment must not cost Location should be convenient, that is,
guide plans for a over $400. within 30 minutes’ driving time for all
club’s annual picnic
members.
Must be enjoyable to members and Facilities should be comfortable; for
their families. (Enjoyable means example, shelter in case of rain,
provide a variety of activities designed electrical outlets, hot and cold running
to appeal to people ranging in age water, restroom facilities, and so on.
from 3 to 80.)

American students whom they would save if their boat capsized and they could save
only one other person beside themselves: wife, child, or mother. All the Arabs chose
the mother (your mother holds a unique and irreplaceable position in your life), but
none of the Americans did— they split about evenly between the child and the wife.
50
In this case, Arab values and American values supported widely divergent criteria for
deciding whom to save. Without agreement about criteria, consensus may be
impossible.
Some criteria must be met and are absolute, but with relative criteria, the group
has some leeway. (Examples of absolute and relative criteria are shown in Table 9.1.)
For example, O’Fallon city officials held water quality as an absolute standard—
whatever solution they developed, the water had to be of “high quality.” But criteria
should be measurable, if possible; criteria such as “high quality” are abstract, so a
group should quantify its criteria. For example, “high- quality water” may mean water
that has certain specified maximum levels of heavy metals, particulates, and bacteria.
Water quality engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency helped the
O’Fallon officials specify what “high quality” meant to them.
Theorists have argued about whether and when a problem- solving discussion
should include a step for establishing explicit criteria. Many people place it early in
the problem- solving process, before talking about solutions. Others suggest that crite-
ria are better discussed after the group has accumulated all possible solutions first.
There is no simple, single answer to this. Brilhart and Jochem found that decision
quality was not affected by when criteria were discussed or whether discussion of cri-
teria was a separate step in the problem- solving outline. However, significantly more
participants wanted criteria discussed explicitly and preferably after brainstorming,
51
not before. Furthermore, if criteria are clear to all members, they may not need to be
discussed at all. 52
Advice from the research is mixed, and if the criteria are part of the group’s
charge or otherwise clearly understood, you do not have to discuss them; however, we
think it’s never wrong to discuss criteria. For one thing, group members may have
misjudged their degree of understanding of and agreement about criteria! Discussing
criteria explicitly, even briefly, may save you from unnecessary misunderstanding or
disagreement when you begin to evaluate options. When you discuss criteria is up to
you, although members seem to like brainstorming options before discussing criteria.

gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 236 3/28/18 12:37 PM