This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 16 October 2014, At: 08:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal for Specialists in Group WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usgw20

Visual conceptualizations of meetings: A group workdesignDiana Hulse-killacky a , Kurt L. Kraus b & Rebecca A. Schumacher ca University of New Orleansb Shippensburg Universityc University of MainePublished online: 31 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Diana Hulse-killacky , Kurt L. Kraus & Rebecca A. Schumacher (1999) Visual conceptualizations ofmeetings: A group work design, The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24:1, 113-124, DOI: 10.1080/01933929908411423

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933929908411423

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Visual Conceptualizations of Meetings: A Group Work Design

Diana Hulse-Killacky University of New Orleans

Kurt L. Kraus Shippensburg University Rebecca A. Schumacher

University of Maine

This article highlights the need for balance between content and process in tasklwork groups A conceptual model with visual maps depicting an ideal meeting of a tasklworkgroup is presented along with four scenarios in which the balance be- tween content and process fails to OCCUR Implications of balance and imbalance be- tween content and process in groups, especially meetings, are discussed.

For most people, the term "group work" evokes images of counseling groups, therapy groups, and self-help groups (Jacobs, Harvill, & Masson, 1994). Daily activities confirm the existence of other types of groups. Groups are found in families, at work, in educational settings, and in social or community settings. The idea that groups vary in purpose and in structure is evident when considering a broad perspective. This broad view is supported in the training standards of the Association for Spe- cialists in Group Work, in which four specialty groups are identified: tasklwork, psychoeducational, counselinghnterpersonal problem solv- ing, and therapy. Conyne, Wilson, and Ward (1997) W h e r delineated the nature of tasklwork groups as places to make decisions and achieve goals while using the resources and skills that members bring to the tasWwork endeavor. Both Hayes (as cited in Hulse-Killacky, 1993) and

Diana Hulse-Killacky is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Coun- seling, and Foundations at the University ofNew Orleans. Kurt Kraus is an assistant pro- fessor in the Department of Counseling at Shippensburg University. Rebecca Schumacher is a doctoral candidate at the University of Maine. The structure of this article evolved from preparing and presenting the ASGW featured session at the 1994 annual convention of the American Counseling Association in Minneapolis, MN. The authors thank Dianne Coffey and Anne Geroski, University of Vermont; and Annette Nelligan, Old Town Regional Program, Old Town, ME, for their contributions to the development of the concep- tual map presented in this article. The authors also thank Samuel T. Gladding and James P. Trotzer for their support and feedback.

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK, Vol. 24 No. 1, March 1999,113-124 Q 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

114 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK I March 1999

Conyne (as cited in Ward, 1993) supported the view that leaders need to engage members as resources in developing such groups. They stressed the importance of lateral and circular group models, active membership, and the role of relationships in the development of the groups. Gladding (as cited in Campbell, 1996) confirmed this emphasis. In reflecting on the process of meeting groups, Gladding stated:

Anyone who believes a meeting is run by information and facts needs to re- visit what is happening in the group. Time after time I realized it was rela- tionships between group members that either made or unmade the pro- ductivity in groups I led or in which I participated. (p. 74)

Gladding's experience supports the contention that process is as impor- tant to the work of meetings as content. Process is defined as the interac- tions and dynamics between members of groups. Content, on the other hand, is defined as the task or purpose of the group. Process facilitates content, and process needs to be balanced with content or a group will fail to attain its objectives. Napier and Gerschenfeld (1983) observed:

Simply put, meetings [tasWwork groups1 should provide people with a taste of success and a belief that their time has been well spent. This expe- rience happens most when individuals have the opportunity to partici- pate, feel involved, believe that their ideas are being valued and solicited, and know that something positive and constructive will result from the time and effort expended. By carefully designing the effective use of time, as well as membership participation, the chance for attaining successful outcomes increases dramatically. (p. 108)

Thus, the manner in which process and content issues are addressed has an impact on how participants view the success of a meeting. Donigian (1994) contended that only when group leaders understand process can they learn to run specialized groups such as task, psychoeducational, counseling, or therapy groups.

Therefore, the emphasis in this article is on the importance of achiev- ing and maintaining a balance between process and content in a spe- cialty group (i.e., a meeting). The implications of the model presented here as a conceptual map may be generalized to other specialty groups as well.

ILLUSTRATING THE CONCEPTUAL MAP

Groups are composed of many elements (e.g., people, time, verbal and nonverbal interaction). Two of the most important elements comprising

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hulse-Killacky et al. /VISUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS 115

a group are process and content. In the conceptual map presented subse- quently, process facilitates content with the goal of creating balance (Kraus & Hulse-Killacky, 1996). This map emphasizes balance because an exclusive focus on the content of the group can obscure attention to the nature of members’interpersonal interactions in the group (Conyne, 1989). Conversely, too much attention to process can blur the purpose of the group, leaving members feeling frustrated and without focus (Ward, 1993).

An Ideal: Balanced Process and Content

A group meeting over time can be conceptualized as a bell-shaped curve (see Figure 1). A bell-shaped curve intuitively seems appropriate, because it represents the accumulation of energy and the dissipation of energy that occur within a meeting. The curve identifies warm-up, action, and closure phases of a group, with a thin line representing con- tent and a heavier line representing process. The design of these visual maps is not unlike Moreno’s contribution of moving through phases or stages in psychodrama groups, as cited in Blatner (1988). Visually, read- ers can recognize the symmetry in the time designated to the three phases of the group. Notice that balance between process and content is illustrated by the process line supporting the content line smoothly and consistently over the duration of the meeting.

There are a series of focus questions that guide a leader’s behavior through the warm-up, action, and closure phases of meeting groups (see Figure 1). In essence, these questions act as a leader’s internal dialogue to guide the leader’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors throughout the course of a group. In the warm-up phase, leaders address questions of ‘ V h o am I and who am I with you?” and “Is the purpose clear?” These questions fit with Conyne’s (1989) orientation to the people and purpose stage for task groups. Others (cf Lyman, 1993; Napier & Gerschenfeld, 1983) encourage leaders to attend to both sets of questions to strengthen coalition building early in meeting groups. The action phase is charac- terized by attention to the questions of ‘Who are we together?” and “Are all matters related to content represented?” Again drawing from Cony- ne’s (1989) model specific to task groups and other models derived pri- marily from counseling group literature (Frew, 1986; Sklare, Keener, & Mas, 1990), leaders help members speak in clear language (i.e., t o use “I” statements; to speak directly to another person, not about them, etc.), reflect on how actual here-and-now behaviors and interactions are influencing the work of the group, and develop procedures for giving and receiving appropriate feedback. Paying attention to the “how” of the meeting allows leaders to bring attention to behaviors that may help or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

116 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / March 1999

Focus Questions: Action

warm-up Who are we togethert Closure Are all matters related Who am It to content represented{ What dummes

resulted fmm this group emenend

Figure 1. Balanced Process and Content

hinder the work of the group. The closure phase combines both process and content issues by addressing the question, ‘What outcomes resulted from this group experience?” Leaders can guide members in reflecting on goals and products accomplished as well as how the workings of the group as a whole, the members, and the leader contributed to the goal accomplishment. Adequate attention to closure allows for clarifying tasks and goals to address between meetings and for preparing for future meetings.

In ideal meeting groups, participants feel satisfaction when tasks are completed. Members are recognized as contributing to the productive group, and, as a result, believe that their attendance made a difference. Four brief scenarios (presented visually) follow, representing common occurrences in meetings. Examples of content and process distortions and suggestions for how to remedy these difficulties are the focus. The goal of the scenarios presented is to promote conceptual understanding of what occurs when content and process are unbalanced. Although the task group represented in a meeting is used, the graphs here are gener- alizable to other groups as well.

Content Inhibiting Process: Too Busy for Much

Leader statement: ‘We have little time and lots to do today. So, let’s get right down to business. Now, the first item is. . . .”Often, task groups,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hulse-Killacky et al. /VISUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS 117

by their very nature, are characterized by frenetic product orientation. Members are often accountable to deadlines and pressures of productiv- ity. The task becomes paramount and membership in this group is strictly a method for accomplishing a given task.

Discussion. Too often, task groups’ attention to process is disabled by the faulty assumption that such attention is counterproductive or coun- tercontent. Note in Figure 2 the disproportion of time allocated to the warm-up phase, how content is immense throughout the action phase, and how closure is merely ceasing one project to prepare for the next. Visually, readers can clearly see how the overbearing weight of the con- tent disturbs the balance in Figure 1. Groups in the form of meetings are less, not more, productive when content is consistently emphasized and process ignored. Such a group may achieve some success but becomes dispirited and demoralized over time. Always focusing on content is a grind.

Process First, Content After: Prior to the Real Work

Another scenario illustrates the attempt to address people needs by dedicating token efforts and time to the warm-up phase of the meeting. Leader statement: “Now for the first half hour tonight we are going to play some ‘noncompetitive games’ in the hope of getting to know each other.” This token effort relegates process to an activity the group needs to get through prior to beginning the real work. It is like putting money in a toll booth to open the gate. The process is front-loaded and, perhaps, once the warm-up activity or the get-to-know-one-another exercise is completed, the group gets down to business. Note how in Figure 3 the process line is quite separate from the content line, demonstrating that process offers very little toward enhancing the effectiveness of the task group. Irrelevant warm-up activities often can result in members feel- ing disconnected from the meeting content. Typical members’ responses include: “I’m amazed that we waste so much time on all that welcome stuff. What good it does is beyond me. I think I’ll come to the next meet- ing 20 minutes late and avoid the touchy-feely time.” These comments reflect the confusion members feel when attention to process is sepa- rated from the content of the task.

Discussion. How does a leader demonstrate an understanding of pro- cess and content and begin to facilitate a meeting of individuals to work together as an interdependent group? Meetings are more productive when members have time to get acquainted, build connections, define

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

118 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/ March 1999

‘We have lots to do today. So let‘s get right down to business. . . .”

Figure 2. Content Inhibiting Process

purpose, set goals, and establish norms. We suggest that leaders con- sider beginning a meeting with comments such as: “Let’s begin by intro- ducing ourselves and spending some time to clarify our purpose and ex- pectations for working together.” This simple opening statement demon- strates norm and relationship building and conveys the leader’s recogni- tion that some up-front coalition building time will benefit the goals of the group (Conyne, 1989; Gladding, 1995; Jacobs et al., 1994; Schindler- Rainman, 1981; Trotzer, 1989). Through such a procedure, the fabrics of process and content are better intertwined, and group members believe they are both giving to the group and getting something from it.

A Task Master: Ignoring the Process

In the example visualized in Figure 4, the leader is focused only on task. Visually, the process lines rise up and down, as if process is saying, “Notice me.” Consider this event in the action phase: A member rolls her eyes, makes no eye contact with the member speaking, and sighs in dis- agreement at comments, yet remains silent in the group’s work. Other members’ attention is drawn from the group’s task to the nonverbal and verbal behaviors of this member. In turn, the leader comments, “Come on people, we need to keep working and stay focused on our agenda for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hulse-Killacky et al. /VISUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS 119

“NOW for the first half hour tonight we are oing to play some ‘noncompetitive games’ in the d ope. . . ?

Figure 3. Process First, Content After

today.”The leader fails to recognize how the disruptive member’s behav- ior ultimately hinders the group’s task completion. The leader thus acts as an ill-informed machine supervisor focusing on goals or production achievement at the cost of losing constructive input that could contrib- ute to the achievement of the outcome.

Discussion. As a meeting moves into the action phase with increased interchanges between members and the leader, the leader’s choice t o ig- nore given member behaviors rather dramatically influences the con- tent and process ofthe meeting. What might a leader do to appropriately address process issues and avoid becoming a task master in the action phase? One suggestion relates back to the concept of establishing norms during the warm-up phase. A leader can introduce and clearly commu- nicate that the group over time will review how the activities and work- ing relationships in the group fit with the defined purpose and goals. Once attention to process is established as a predictable and accepted part of the group, the leader is free to ask members to evaluate how pro- cess is helping or hindering the work of the group. A leader might ob- serve, “I sense we are off track for some reason. What’s going on in here?” By linking the process commentary to the group’s purpose and norms,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

120 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / March 1999

Tome on people, we need to ke,ep worklng and stay focused on our agenda for today.

Figure 4. A Task Master

the leader helps members evaluate their work together and promotes cohesion, like the threads of a fabric.

In addition, by coaching members to speak in “I” statements and to address their comments to one another, and by offering opportunities to develop appropriate strategies for giving and receiving positive and cor- rective feedback, the leader strengthens the possibility that the group will address issues that are getting in the way of the group’s purpose. Removing such work pressures can improve work flow (Conyne, 1989).

Breaks in the Balance: Early Departures

Membership in meeting groups can be unpredictable and unstable. People may arrive late for the meeting or leave early before the meeting ends. The mix of people coming and going presents a dilemma for the leader who is trying to maintain a balance between content and process. Particularly challenging to a leader is how to address closure when a member leaves early.

Figure 5 depicts poor group closure when early departures occur. Leader statement: “Oh, my, I didn‘t realize you would be leaving so early I guess we can stay and continue our work until our meeting time is con- cluded.” The leader once again is focusing on task and does not address

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hulse-Killacky et al. /VISUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS 121

‘Oh my, I didn’t realize that you would be leavmg so early.”

content

// process \ I I I I

-b -UP auion dosure P

Figure 8. Breaks in the Balance

closure in terms of content or relationships in the group. Such behavior is ultimately counterproductive. The group changes when people leave early or arrive late. The group functions differently, and that difference needs to be recognized.

Discussion. In the closure phase of our conceptual map, we recognize the need to help members end and reflect on the meaning of their experi- ences. Group text authors (Gladding, 1995; Jacobs et al., 1994; Napier & Gerschenfeld, 1983) provide information both about how to end sessions and end groups. To give closure the attention it deserves, two tasks are identified for this phase. The first is to reflect on learning that has oc- curred for individual members, for members in relationship to other members, and for the group as a whole (Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Ya- lom, 1995). The second is to reflect on the connection between work in the group and action beyond the group. By engaging in this type of re- flection, members become clearer about what has been accomplished and what the next steps might be.

What is a leader to do when confronted with a member who announces, “Sorry, I need to leave,” when closure activities have yet to begin? The leader might observe, “I’m sorry you have to leave early, Before you go, let’s review our work for today and what your role is in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

122 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK I March 1999

preparing for the next meeting.” In addition, we suggest that when lead- ers set norms in the warm-up phase, they define closure as part of the structure for the meeting. Well-developed closure activities can help leaders and members alike reflect on the meaning of their experiences together and provide members with ideas on how to link the process and content from the ending group to groups in the future.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this article, a conceptual map has been presented to assist group leaders in designing meetings that address process and content issues in a balanced way. A meeting group was chosen as the specialty area in which this emphasis was illustrated. Visual representations and writ- ten scenarios of common dilemmas that occur in meetings were exam- ined and discussed using questions from the visual conceptual map illustrated in Figure 1.

The concepts in our map reflect the influence of Rogers (1988), Conyne (as cited in Ward, 19931, and Hayes (as cited in Hulse-Killacky, 1993), all of whom view groups as collective, democratic, and heterarchi- cal systems, where members are active resources, and where leaders both lead and follow. Additionally, the balance of the map conveys an appreciation for the roles of both process and content.

We have used concepts specifically tied to the literature on task groups (e.g., Conyne, 1989) as well as those that were developed origi- nally for therapeutic groups Walom, 1983). Together, they provide the process and content elements that guide behaviors of meeting group leaders. Task and work groups are common experiences in the lives of most people in today’s world. Some group specialists believe that these groups may provide more challenges for leaders than do traditional counseling groups (e.g., J. P. Trotzer, personal communication, January 19,1996) and thus may require more attention and preparation in coun- selor training programs. Ettin (1993) believes that through participa- tion in groups, where members learn to cooperate and collaborate with each other, members and leaders can enhance skills for being effective citizens in other areas of life. The tasldwork environment provides an opportunity to address the task while learning how to id en ti^, under- stand, and develop empathy for differing worldviews, work styles, and needs.

Like Donigian (1994), we believe that “regardless of the group’s focus or purpose, processes remain the same; and thus link groups together”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hulse-Killacky et al. /VISUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS 123

(p. 6) . Leaders of meeting groups often dismiss process as relatively unimportant or do not feel confident and competent about how to use process to enhance the purpose and productivity of the meeting. This article supports the importance of process in meeting groups and pro- vides practical suggestions for how leaders can use the process effec- tively. In closing, we invite readers to approach meetings as a group work design and to strive for a balance between content and process in the meetings they lead.

REFERENCES

Blatner, A. (1988). Acting-in: Practical applications ofpsychodramatic methods (2nd ed.).

Campbell, L. (1996). Samuel T. Gladding: A sense of self in the group. Journal for Special-

Conyne, R. K. (1989). How personal growth and task groups work. Newbury Park, CA

Conyne, R. K., Wilson, F. R., & Ward, D. E. (1997). Comprehensive group work: What it

Donigian, J. (1994). Group reflections. Together, 23,6. Donigian, J., & Malnati, R. (1997). Systemicgroup therapy:A triadic model. Pacific Grove,

CA BrookdCole. Ettin, M. F. (1993). Links between group process and social, political, and cultural issues.

In H. I. Kaplan & B. J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive group psychotherapy (3rd ed., pp. 699-716). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Frew, J. E. (1986). Leadership approaches to achieve maximum therapeutic potential in mutual groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, II,93-99.

Gladding, S. T. (1995). Group work:A counseling specialty (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Mer- rill.

Hulse-Killacky, D. (1993). Group work as a developmental context: An interview with Richard L. Hayes. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18,3-10.

Jacobs, E. E., Harvill, R. L., & Masson, R. L. (1994). Group counse1ing:Strategies and skills. Pacific Grove, CA BrooWCole.

Kraus, K., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1996). Balancing process and content in groups: A meta- phor. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21,90-93.

Lyman, L. (1993, November). Group building for successful inclusionprograms. Paper pre- sented at the Flint Hills Educational Research Development Association Special Edu- cation Inclusion Conference, Emporia, KS. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 138)

Napier, R. W., & Gerschenfeld, M. K. (1983). Makinggroups work. Boston: Houghton Mif- flin.

Rogers, J. L. (1988). New paradigm leadership: Integrating the female ethos. Journal for the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 51,143.

Schindler-Rainman, E. (1981). Training task-group leaders. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 6, 171-174.

New York Springer.

ists in Group Work, 21,69-80.

Sage.

means and how to teach it. Alexandria, VA American Counseling Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

124 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/ March 1999

Sklare, G., Keener, R., BE Mas, C. (1990). Preparing members for “Here-and-Now” group

Trotzer, J. (1989). The counselor and the group: Integrating theory, training, and practice

Ward, D. (1993). An interview with Bob Conyne. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18,

Yalom, I. D. (1983). Inpatient group psychotherapy. New York Basic Books. Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory andpractice ofgroup psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York Ba-

counseling. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15,141-148.

(2nd ed.). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

99-108.

sic Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

52 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014