Page 353 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

336 Chapter 12

TABLE 12.10
(continued ) 13. People’s different ways of talking or acting cause
them to be treated as less competent or smart. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Performance evaluations seem to be biased
against those who are different, because super-
visors focus on very traditional ways of getting
work done. 5 4 3 2 1
15. You can just feel a difference in the way some
people are treated or talked to because they
are different. 5 4 3 2 1

TABLE 12.11
Postmeeting Instructions: Check the point on each scale that best represents your honest
reaction (PMR) form judgment. Add any comments you wish to make that are not covered by the
(Example 1) questionnaire. Do not sign your name.
1. How clear were the goals of the discussion to you?
very clear somewhat vague muddled
2. The atmosphere was
cooperative and apathetic competitive
cohesive
3. How well organized and vigilant was the discussion?
disorderly just right to rigid
4. How effective was the leadership supplied by the chairperson?
too autocratic democratic weak
5. Preparation for this meeting was
thorough adequate poor
6. Did you find yourself wanting to speak when you didn’t get a chance?
almost never occasionally often
7. How satisfied are you with the results of the discussion?
very satisfied moderately satisfied very satisfied
8. How do you feel about working again with this same group?
eager I will reluctant
Comments:

Two examples of PMR forms are shown in Table 12.11 and Table 12.12. Although
both are designed to be completed anonymously, groups can also set aside the last five
or so minutes of a meeting for an open postmeeting discussion about how members
felt about the meeting. Table 12.12, in particular, can guide such a discussion. These
forms can also be completed electronically via a service such as SurveyMonkey or
embedded in your group’s site.

gal37018_ch12_321_352.indd 336 3/28/18 12:38 PM