|
Problematic Moments in Global Groups: James A. Cumming PO Box 737, Brattleboro, VT 05302 Introduction
|
|||
|
Working groups in organizations in the new global context are increasingly multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-national. When we think of diversity in organizations we are talking about increased social diversity and differences. The usual dimensions of diversity explored in the US like race, gender, class, ability, and sexual orientation, are augmented with others such as national culture, organizational cultures, religion, professional background, and language. For the sake of brevity I will call these more highly diverse groups in organizations "global groups." In this paper I will present an approach that aims to help global groups become more competent. The approach helps the group to focus on what happens at significant moments in the life of the group. I will argue that by focusing on such moments group competence is increased, as members become more aware of the effects of group dynamics and diversity on their thinking and learning. This increased awareness presents the group with an opportunity to test out new patterns of behavior. The approach is based on the assumption that productive discussions about group process will occur when the group discusses and analyzes a significant moment, which they have all shared. Descriptions and interpretations of the moment will differ, of course, according to the different perspectives of members. However, the analysis is grounded in what each member of the group experienced about the behavior of the group and its members at a particular moment. If that moment has been captured on videotape, then the group has the opportunity to undertake a more "objective" analysis about what members said and did. All moments in the life of a group are not created as equal. Some moments have considerably more significance than others do. Critical discourse analysis uses the term "problematic moment" to describe key moments in language use that are worthy of in-depth analysis. I have borrowed this term and adapted it for my project, which I call "The problematic moment approach to developing group competence." Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis brings together language analysis and social theory by combining the socio-theoretical approach of discourse with the text-and-interaction approach of linguistically oriented discourse analysis. The concept of discourse and discourse analysis is three-dimensional. Any instance of discourse is seen as being simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice. The text dimension attends to the language analysis of texts. For me, text in a group is both what is said and not said (silences) as a result of the interactions between members. The discursive dimension specifies the nature of the processes of text production, distribution, and consumption. For example, a particular organization is constituted as an object of knowledge in all that is said in the statements that name it, divide it up, describe it, and explain it. Moreover, that particular organization as an object of knowledge is not a stable object but subject to continuous transformations through the use of language. So, discursive practice is constitutive in both conventional and creative ways as it contributes to reproducing social relationships, systems of knowledge and belief, and social identities, and to their potential change. The social practice dimension attends to an analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. For example, a work group in an organization is producing discourse that may be, to varying degrees, a part of any of the economic, political, cultural, and ideological dimensions of that organization. The immediate origins and motivations of change in the way people talk lie in the problematization of conventions for producers or interpreters of discourse. For example, the problematization of conventions for interaction between men and women in organizations has their bases in contradictions between traditional gendered subject positions and new gender relations. People try to solve these dilemmas by being creative in the language they produce. Attempts to change a discourse leave traces in the form of the co-occurrence of contradictory or inconsistent elements. For example, the attempt to have a title for women that does not indicate their marital status has only been partially successful. The term "Ms" was originally introduced to impose gender symmetry. But the term "Mrs." has been retained in everyday use with the result that the use of the term "Ms" may now be interpreted as a political act, which may lead to the user becoming marginalized (Fairclough, 1992:207). Critical discourse analysis is a set of theories that are used to examine the relationship between changes in text, discursive practices, and social practices. It aims to generate hypotheses about the kinds of social change going on by looking for contradictions or inconsistencies in the production and consumption of text. In the context of a group discussion, these contradictions or inconsistencies take the form of a "problematic moment." For Fairclough these are: Moments in the discourse where there is evidence that things are going wrong: a misunderstanding which requires participants to 'repair' a communication problem, for example through asking for or offering repetitions, or through one participant correcting another; exceptional disfluencies (hesitations, repetitions) in the production of the text; silences; sudden shifts of style" (1992:230). Because of the huge amounts of data generated when you do full transcriptions (including text, silences, overlaps, etc.) of interactions between people in a group, it is extremely useful to focus attention on one particular moment in the group’s life. But, Fairclough’s description of a problematic moment is vague and the criteria for what is a problematic moment is open to many interpretations. From the perspective of critical discourse analysis practitioners, it is perhaps not so important for them to be clear about what a problematic moment is in a group. The fact that discourse may be generated in a group is incidental to their interest in focusing on the production, distribution and consumption of texts. It is a concept that makes sense within a whole theory, which they use to understand changes in discourses and what that may mean. However, in my role as a consultant to groups, I am interested in assisting groups to learn about their own processes. I want to provide groups with a tool that assists them to do their own analysis of language and interactions. The issue of what is a problematic moment then becomes much more salient. I need to be able to describe my approach in such a way that it convinces a group that it is worth spending their time identifying and analyzing problematic moments. I also need to provide clear guidelines for the process of study of these moments. What is a "moment"? I have taken the concept of "problematic moment" and used it to study group dynamics experientially. My research indicates that such moments are usually signaled by moments of group silence, which may be extremely brief. However, there is a certain noticeable quality about such a moment. So, for example, most members of the group are able to identify the same particular moment as significant if asked at the end of a working session to report on memorable moments. The moment may or may not have the negative connotations sometimes associated with the term "problematic." It may, for example, be that kind of silence when group members feel a considerable sense of connection and harmony. Or, it could be a moment when the group fractures and members disconnect. The ‘problem’ under consideration in this approach is at the level of group discourse, not at the level of the experience of individual members. I think it is the same kind of moment that Bergson calls "durée:" a moment of silence that prepares the way for discourse, possibly new discourse, and with that the possibility of change. It is as though something happens during a problematic moment that takes us out of linear, horizontal time (chronos) and into a vertical experience of time (kyros), where memory intrudes and disrupts the flow of chronological time. These moments are not like snapshots without a past or future: they are composed of counterpoints between past, present, and future. My claim is that they have the potential to make visible aspects of group practices that are normally naturalized, and therefore invisible. I should point out here that there is a whole literature on the topic of silence related to discourse and dialogue. Authors such as Bateson (1972), Brummett, (1980), Collins (1975), Ehrenhaus (1988), Jawarski (1993), Mortensen (1994), and Scott (1972) reveal a palimpsest like world of complex meanings that are sustained as much through the uses of silence as through talk in conversations. The following quotation captures something of what I am talking about (Jolis, 1996:27):
I also need to mention the neglected topic of the study of moments. Pillemar suggests that because moments are idiosyncratic, emotion laden, messy, and occurring within ongoing flow of daily activity they lack the necessary qualities for scientific study (1998:4). The primary goal of cognitive psychology is to discover general rules about how people learn, solve problems, and form concepts. Consequently, specific life episodes have rarely been the focus of studies in his field. So far I have identified a theory of discourse and a concept that helps focus the application of that theory on a particular moment. However, my focus of attention is on understanding this kind of moment as it occurs in a group setting. Consequently, I need to bring in group theories to support the application of discourse theory in that context. Bringing in group theories My experience and knowledge of group process comes from two traditions: The Tavistock Institute tradition of group relations and the National Training Laboratories tradition of T-groups. Both traditions are based on the study of our experience in groups in the "here-and-now" and a non-hierarchical process of learning. While much is similar, they draw on very different theoretical traditions. For Tavistock the background is systems and psychodynamic theory. For NTL the background is more psychosocial; people who were interested in field and gestalt theories, small group research, and small group communication. One of six key differences Holvino identifies between the traditions is as follows (1997):
As I will discuss later, both traditions are needed to understand the phenomenon of a problematic moment. Some of the main concepts used by researchers in the exploration of unconscious phenomena within work groups (the Tavistock tradition) are described by Stein as – the notions of the individual and group unconscious, defenses against anxiety, splitting and projective identification, the basic assumptions, transference and envy (1996). Unconscious phenomena are not easily accessible to the conscious minds of individual members of a group. In some cases all group members may share such phenomena and the notion of a "group unconscious" may be referred to. Bion’s notion is that unconscious phenomena in a group may run counter to and undermine the rational pursuit of its task (1961). The group functions "as if" it is working on its task, but factors which group members are largely unaware prevent it from actually doing so. My concern in this paper is to produce an adequate and effective description of the notion of a problematic moment so it can be applied with global groups. I want to make a theoretical link between the concept of a problematic moment in critical discourse analysis and the experience of a problematic moment as both a conscious and unconscious phenomena shared by group members. However, before attempting that I will examine the concept of a problematic moment by looking at similar and related concepts from a variety of disciplines. Different kinds of moments in the life of a group In group theory, the term "critical incident" has been used for an event in a group that is important enough to require the intervention of a facilitator. Cohen and Smith define it as "the confrontation of a group leader with one or more members, in which an explicit or implicit opinion, decision, or action is demanded of that leader" (1976). However, the idea is circular as it leaves unclear what is the phenomenon that is supposed to trigger the response of a facilitator. It also leaves the judgment as to what is a critical incident up to the facilitator. From my understanding of the NTL approach to groups, a critical incident is a challenge to the group process, for example, a group member making a statement such as "This process stinks!". A facilitator then has a choice of a variety of interventions to dealing with this disruption to the group process, which may also be used to support the group’s development. For me, a critical incident is clearly not a problematic moment. It is also not a "clinical incident": a term used to describe a distress reaction severe enough to interfere with the achievement of the participant's or the group's learning goals. For example, when a participant's behavior does not meet the norms of a particular group, he or she is seen as deviant, which itself creates distress for most individuals. This kind of event is located at the individual, not at the group level of my investigation. In the field of ethnomethodology, Garfinkel talks about points of "reality disjuncture" which are moments where there is a contest over accounts of experiential reality, and "deviant cases" which are moments where some regular conversational procedure or form is not implemented. He encouraged researchers to experiment with using inappropriate language in certain contexts to create reality disjunctures, for example, a young student took the stance of a being guest in his own house and quickly drove his mother to distraction. However, my experience is that using such an approach would create a critical incident rather than a problematic moment in a group. Problematic moments cannot be created intentionally. In the field of ethnography, Agar talks about "rich points" which are events when you experience another cultural frame of reference and become aware of something about your own identity that used to lurk on the edges of consciousness as the natural order of things. Most of us have experienced the power of cross-cultural encounters to reveal new aspects of ourselves. However, such descriptions are usually discussed at the level of interactions between individuals or groups. I am not aware of any literature that talks about "rich points" happening at the group level. Critical discourse analysis draws from some aspects of post-structural theory. Poststructuralists talk about "contradictions" which are points of tension between different ways of speaking the world into existence. Fairclough’s concept of a problematic moment is some kind of linguistic marker indicating a contradiction in the discourse. Finally, screenplay writers talk about a "plot point" which is an incident, or event, that "hooks" into the story and "spins" it around into another direction. These are moments when a character(s) makes choices that create the drama that follows. There are usually two in every movie. I introduce this idea because I see a problematic moment as a moment when the group experiences a choice point where it may be possible to change the discourse, and hence their potential to take new action. Defining a problematic moment using the iceberg model of group dynamics According to Reddy, an "iceberg" of group dynamics exists that is capable of sinking the "ship" of any work group (1994:93). Figure I illustrates the five levels at which any given dynamics exist and where a consultant can choose to intervene. Level 1 is primarily content, above the surface and easily observable. Level II are those interaction behaviors that are primarily overt, such as interpersonal conflicts. Level III are covert and core group issues such as membership, control, competence, intimacy, and sexuality. At level IV we focus on the values, beliefs, and assumptions we hold about the world. Levels III and IV must be inferred from the behavior patterns seen in Levels I and II. Below Level IV is the unconscious, which is "the reservoir of one’s basic instincts, motivations, impulses, and unacceptable wishes." In general, it seems that NTL deals with group dynamics issues at Levels II and III, whereas Tavistock pays attention to Levels IV and V. Reddy’s view is that at Level IV we are dealing with the "least changeable characteristics of the individual" and that in most organizational settings we do not target these dynamics as group members find this kind of work "highly disclosing, confronting, too personal, and disruptive."
Iceberg of Group Dynamics according to Reddy
At this point I would like to put out a working hypothesis about the nature of a problematic moment:
As Harvey has shown, discourses have the power to construct regimes of time and space (1990). So a disruption to a discourse of chronological time may lead to the experience of vertical time where memory intrudes and disrupts the flow. This may contribute to the potential effect of a problematic moment of helping to make visible aspects of group practices that are normally naturalized, and therefore invisible. These group practices may to some extent be unconscious. The dialogical unconscious If, as I claim, a problematic moment occurs between the conscious and unconscious of a group I need a theory to help me operationalize what is going on in that space. One view pictures the unconscious as a place where "one’s basic instincts, motivations, impulses, and unacceptable wishes" reside (Reddy, 1994:93). The image I have is a kind of muddy residue at the bottom of one’s mind – probably best not stirred. And, according to Stein: Several people entering a group are likely to have unconscious minds, which have both different properties as well as certain aspects in common. The hypothesis of the group unconscious suggests that in most circumstances there is a tendency for certain of the common aspects to increase and be fostered by the individual members’ experience in the group. These common unconscious thoughts are the ‘group unconscious’, and may contribute to the distorting of the external reality that the group inhabits. (1996:145) From this view the group unconscious seems to be conceived as a "pool" of shared thoughts, feelings, mechanisms, and processes. It is just there and there is not much you can do about it except sink or swim! A rhetorical or dialogical understanding of the unconscious avoids treating the idea as a kind of thing, which has properties. In the next two paragraphs I will try to summarize Billig’s view of the unconscious below as it is helps illuminate that space between the conscious and the unconscious levels in Figure 1 (1998). To think is to engage in argument. So human thinking is inherently dialogical. However, language is not only expressive, it is also repressive. In learning to speak we acquire desires which must be routinely, or habitually, repressed, or driven from our conscious awareness. The possibility of a dialogical unconscious implies that to understand what is happening in a group we must pay attention to both what the groups talks about and what it does not talk about. Group members often collaborate with each other to protect themselves from the task of discussing a difficult topic and, as a consequence, maintain their projections. In other words, avoidance (a certain kind of silence) is dialogically constructed and projected. Conversation in a group makes considerable demands on its members. Conversation analysts have described the multiple codes that must be obeyed for talk to be accomplished. Urges to rebel against these demands must be repressed and driven from the mind. Otherwise, these urges, perhaps shameful, would occupy our consciousness and hinder our ability to sustain interactions. Because repression is habitual, it can be routinely observed in routine uses of language, which has a sophisticated syntax of negation. Rhetorical devices can be internalized for use in our own internal, silent conversations. We use rhetoric to censor the streams of our external and internal dialogues. A key conclusion from the above is that the processes of thinking and repression can be observed and reflected upon in any conversation that occurs in a group. My claim is that a problematic moment is a special moment in the life of a group when the process of repression breaks through and presents the group with the opportunity to reflect on its own discursive unconscious. My preliminary findings are that there seem to be at least three discursive possibilities for a group after a problematic moment has occurred. The group experiences:
An example of the application of the problematic moment approach The actual process of using the problematic moment approach for a group and organizational intervention is remarkably simple, as the following example will demonstrate. The group had no problems identifying significant moments from their meeting and was able to accomplish a sophisticated analysis of what those moments meant with some process guidance from the consultants. BEC is a small organization sharing space in the basement of a church with their offspring organization, a housing development corporation. The mission of BEC is to advocate on a variety of shifting social issues, which assail a very diverse community with a high population of immigrants in the heart of a city. A multicultural board made of representatives of the key groups in the community and an executive director, a white bilingual male, manage the affairs of the organization with a skeleton staff of part-timers and community volunteers. The organization is well respected and very influential in the community, but its very purpose signifies a constant dealing with differences, in the community and internally. The author of this paper and his partner were called in to assist the board in becoming more sensitive and effective at managing the cultural, language, and class differences among its members. The meetings of the board, held every month, were conducted in English and simultaneously translated into three other languages - Portuguese, Spanish, and Khmer. The group was having trouble working as an effective board, yet recognized the importance of learning from and finding better ways of working with their very rich and representative social differences. We agreed on the following approach. We would videotape a regular board meeting. After the meeting we would ask board members attending the meeting to identify at least one problematic moment they had observed in the meeting, and to briefly assess the effectiveness of the meeting using a short evaluation form. An edited version of the videotape was produced containing the four problematic moments, which were identified in the course of the two-hour meeting. The edited tape was fifteen minutes long and was shown to the board in a one-day retreat. Analysis of each moment helped the board to assess strengths and areas of improvement in the way the board managed itself and its differences. Based on this assessment and discussions, action plans were developed by the group for the future improvement of the board's work and multicultural relations. The context for one of the problematic moments was when the executive director reported to the board of directors on the key activities of the last month. One of the most time and resource consuming efforts of the last months had been providing assistance and orientation to immigrants in the community about a new law which had passed changing the immigration and residency requirements in the US. Many families in the community were affected and BEC staff had provided assistance in filling out the forms which would allow individuals and families to take advantage of a "grace period" set by the law, before they would be automatically deported to their countries of origin. A brief discussion followed his report, which clarified the need and scope of the services offered. Various board members voiced their concern as to whether this activity fitted in with the mission of the organization and whether it would exhaust the scarce resources of the organization. A Cambodian board member raised his hand and asked to speak. Through the translator, he told the story of his hardship and agony in coming to this country after being persecuted in Cambodia. In a very moving description he described how important the immigration laws had been in saving him and his family, how important the support received by him from BEC had been for his survival in the country, and how important it was for BEC to continue to offer that assistance and support to others in the community now. A few seconds of silence followed his speaking. When interviewed, all board members identified that moment as the most important problematic moment of the evening. In the one-day retreat they discussed how during that moment of silence they had gotten in touch with the mission of the organization and their own commitment to working on the board. They then felt more comfortable agreeing to support the immigration assistance program despite the considerable drain it would mean for the organization’s resources. This problematic moment taught us about the importance of voice and stories in a board where social differences are crucial to the mission and task of the organization. Story telling and listening to stories, though not much considered an important organizational activity and form of communication, emerged in this incident as one of the most important forms of communication across different languages, cultures, nationalities, class and educational differences. The personal story also became the representation of the organizational task and the glue that leveled this board and allowed it to continue working across the difficulties of lack of funds, lack of resources, four languages simultaneously translated, and long and complicated board meetings. Memories of horrific and painful events emerged in this moment. In the US, we have put considerable effort into repressing thinking about that period of our history. We can easily imagine in a less appropriate group setting such a story leading to a discursive breakdown and the group being unable to continue its work. Moreover, the timing of the event was such that it prevented a discursive enactment of business as usual at BEC. Board members were clearly moved by the power of the story and, in my opinion, there was a discursive breakthrough. The mission of the organization came to have a far deeper meaning for board members than it had at the beginning of the meeting. Problematic moments in global groups The story above also illustrates the benefits and problems of working in a global group. By its very nature a global group has members who have different sets of values, beliefs, and assumptions about the world. Members also have different conventions for engaging in conversations and will have repressed different ways in which it is unacceptable to engage in social discourse. Given the nature of international power relations, some norms of social interaction are going to be more dominant than other norms. So, for example, despite the extraordinary efforts of the BEC board to be inclusive about other language groups, the dominant language was still English. However, in a group environment where the emphasis is on dialogue and learning, it is much more likely that differences at Level IV and V will occur in a global group than in a same culture group. Hence, the problematic moment approach offers the global group a way of studying how successful it is in creatively managing its differences at a very deep level. As successful new strategic directions in organizations can only emerge from productive interactions between people in organizations and between organizations, so consultants need a variety of tools to help groups become more effective. It seems probable that by paying attention to problematic moments as they occur, a global group will improve its competence to work as a group. In addition, the process and theory presented here also offer possibilities for new ways of thinking about how unproductive and dysfunctional groups in organizations are sustained as objects of knowledge, and how they might be transformed through the use of language. Of course, the more we move towards participatory and collaborative ways of working, and the more we pay attention to our differences in values, beliefs, and assumptions, then the greater is the risk of incidents occurring that could shatter whatever solidarity is beginning to emerge in a group. So, the more tightly controlled the group process is, then the less chance there is for problematic moments to emerge. For example, in a group organized according to the rules of parliamentary procedure there are likely to be many examples of critical incidents (individual challenges to the process that requires the intervention of the chair), but few problematic moments. For the approach I am suggesting to be effective, there needs to be a balance of freedom and structure in "space" in which the group works. One difficulty with applying the approach in a group is that it seems to be impossible for an individual to be quick enough to recognize a problematic moment as it occurs and then to make a group intervention. Agreement as to whether a problematic moment(s) has occurred, seems to work best by having a group discussion at the end of a session and then arranging to review and analyze it at a later date. A question for further exploration is whether it would be possible for a group to use this technology and do the analysis without the benefit of a consultant. Another difficulty is that members of a group may wish to use the approach but get stuck trying to conceptualize the term "problematic moment" before actually experiencing them in their group work. This may be one of the strategies the group uses to avoid taking on the task of examining its own process. In practice, it is easy for a group to identify the problematic moments they experience in a group without knowing exactly what it is. Sometime ago a group member complained to me about the lack of clarity of the term "problematic moment" while at the same time criticizing me for not paying attention to one that had just occurred in the group! It seems to be enough to aim for a few candidate problematic moments for the group to analyze. The group may then find that some of the candidates are in fact critical incidents. Differentiating the types of moments then becomes part of the process of applying the approach. References Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bion, W. R. (1961). Experience in groups. New York: Basic Books. Billig, M. (1988). Rhetoric and the unconscious. Occasional paper no. 67. Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School. Brummett, B. (1980). Towards a theory of silence as a political strategy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 289-303. Cohen, A. M. & Smith, R. D. (1976). The critical incident in growth groups. La Jolla, CA: University Associates. Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology. New York: Academic Press. Cumming, J. (1997). Denaturalizing international development education: Silence and the new world dis-order. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ehrenhaus, P. (1988). Silence and symbolic expression. Communication Monographs, 55, 42-57. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Holvino, E. (1997). Rekindling Lewin’s social change spirit: Developing new theory for groups and social justice. Paper presented at Lewin’s legacy/Lewin’s potential: Next steps for group process, consultation and social justice, July 7-9, 1997, Bethel, Maine. Jawarski, A. (1993). The power of silence. Newbury Park: Sage. Jolis, A. (1996). Speak sunlight. Berkeley Books: NY. Pillemar, D.B. (1998). Momentous events, vivid memories. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Reddy, W. B. (1994). Intervention skills. Pfeiffer & Co. Scott, R.L. (1972). Rhetoric and silence. Western Speech, 36, 146-158. Stein, M. (1996). Unconscious phenomena in work groups. Handbook of work group psychology. Ed. M.A. West. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
|
|||
 |
|||