Page 78 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

The Small Group as a System 61

searching for diverse opinions, which is why Marina supported Bill when he
suggested putting one or two people on the bylaws committee who were most
vocal about limiting the power of the minister. Their norm was one of open
discussion and consensus.
6. Communication flows freely in all directions. There is a balanced distribution
of remarks made to the group as a whole and to individual members. Side-bar
conversations between members are minimal during group discussion and
members feel safe to talk to each other outside of meetings. Members build
on each other’s comments rather than ignore or continually disconfirm
comments.
7. Procedures are efficient and members contribute to developing them. Marina,
for instance, had experience with focus groups, and she offered to organize
some during a congregational meeting so that the board could learn how the
congregation thought things were going. Furthermore, when procedures
needed to be changed, the church board decided together how to do that.
When the board reduced its meetings to every other week, Norm questioned
this procedure by noting the problems it created (“Things really pile up in two
weeks . . .”) and requested others’ opinions: “Does anyone else feel bothered by
this or is it just me?” The board discussed the change together before returning
to weekly meetings.
A group’s outputs are the results or products of the group’s inputs and through- Outputs
put processes, including the tangible work accomplished (such as written reports, Anything that is
items built, and policies developed), changes in the members (such as increases in produced by a
commitment and increased self-confidence), the group’s effect on its environment, system, such as a
and changes in the group’s procedures. The church board’s most obvious tangible tangible product or a
output to its environment was the formation of a church now serving many people in change in the
southwest Missouri. Within the group, though, strong bonds of affection, cohesiveness, system; in a small
and pride at a job well done are examples of intangible outputs that developed. In one group, includes such
meeting, after the group had been together for over a year, members articulated their things as reports,
feelings: resolutions, changes
in cohesiveness, and
Don: As much as we complain about how much work we have to do, look at our attitude changes in
finances! We have nearly half a year’s salary in the minister’s fund. members.
Bill: I know. At times when I’m swamped and feel like giving up, I think about what
we’ve created and I’m energized again.
Marina: When I get discouraged about all that we haven’t done and all the things
that have fallen through the cracks, I think about how enthusiastic the congregation
is and how wonderful you all are, and I’m overcome with gratitude!
Gary: Speaking of gratitude, I haven’t told you all how hesitant I was to be part of
this group at first. You all have a lot more education than I do, and I didn’t feel like I
could express myself as well. But this has been one of the best experiences of my life,
and I’m grateful for your encouragement and support.

gal37018_ch03_051_074.indd 61 3/28/18 12:34 PM