School Group Effectiveness and Productivity
by Susan A. Wheelan, Ph.D., Felice Tilin, M.Ed., and Jayminn Sanford, Ed.D.,
Temple University
 Organizational
development (OD) is a process of planned change designed to help organizations
achieve their goals and to operate more effectively (French, Bell, and Zawacki
1989). Schools use organizational consultation less than any other type of
organization, despite mounting evidence that OD can be of value in school
improvement efforts (Runkel and Schmuck 1987; Wheelan and Conway 1991).
Increased collaboration, improved problem solving and decision making, new
curricula, and positive changes in student attendance, behavior, and achievement
are some of the results reported in the literature.
The term "organization" is typically defined as a cluster of groups (Caplow
1983; Ivancevich and Matteson 1987; Schein 1980). In the majority of
school-based OD interventions, groups of faculty, administrators, and community
members in various combinations are targeted. School effectiveness depends on
their ability to work together cooperatively and productively, and in turn,
their group effectiveness is directly related to educational outcomes such as
attendance, behavior, achievement, and parental involvement.
The idea that group effectiveness is related to organizational productivity
is based on years of research and practice. The development of effective work
groups or teams is now understood to be an essential component of organizational
success (Peters 1988; Reich 1987; Sundstrom, Demeuse, and Futrell 1990).
While there is strong evidence that faculty group effectiveness is related to
organizational productivity, educational researchers have paid little attention
to this area of inquiry in their attempts to describe the variables associated
with school effectiveness. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of the educational
research literature suggested that variables which could be construed as
by-products of faculty groups-school culture, collaborative
teacher/administrator decision making, and school-wide policy and
organization-have little influence on student outcomes, particularly on student
learning (Wang, Haertel, and Walberg 1993).
 This
finding raises a number of questions: Do factors such as team effectiveness and
organizational culture, found to be so influential in predicting productivity in
other types of organizations, have no influence on school outcomes? Are the
goals and organizational characteristics of schools so unique that group and
organizational theory, research, and practice are wholly irrelevant? Is
productivity in the school environment primarily the result of individual
teacher effectiveness, student characteristics, and parental support, as the
study suggests? Is it possible that the morale and productivity of the faculty
group has no influence on educational outcomes? Is a school such a singular
organization that factors that affect all other organizations do not apply to
it?
Any teacher, administrator, or involved parent would answer "no" to these
questions. In fact, anyone who has sat on a committee that was unable to make
decisions, or where turf battles seemed more important than educational goals,
would agree that the effectiveness of school groups influences educational
outcomes significantly. The following example illustrates some of these points.
A Curriculum Committee
Nine middle-school teachers were assigned to a curriculum
committee responsible for creating and implementing an
integrative curriculum prototype. After meeting for over a year,
the team had managed, with difficulty, to pilot its first
integrative unit. However, work on the second unit was not
proceeding well. Committee members reported that meetings were
fraught with disagreements. An unwillingness to collaborate,
ineffectual decision-making procedures, and frequent attacks on
the group leader also were reported. The school principal sought
consultant services to help the group get back on track.
The consultant employed the Group Development Questionnaire (Wheelan
and Hochberger 1996) to assess the committee's functioning. The
Group Development Questionnaire (GDQ) is designed to assess the
developmental level of work groups.
Research has uncovered considerable evidence that groups go
through several phases (Tuckman 1965; Tuckman and Jensen 1977;
Wheelan 1990; Wheelan 1994). The first phase is a period of
dependency and inclusion. In this phase, group members are
concerned with personal safety and need dependable and directive
leadership. In the second phase, counter dependency and fight,
members of the group begin to challenge the leader's authority
and to openly disagree with one another.
If these disagreements are successfully resolved, the group
enters the trust and structure phase, which is characterized by
increased group cohesion and cooperation. During this phase,
members begin to organize and plan ways to achieve their goals
and objectives in earnest. A work phase-a period of intense
focus on goal achievement-follows. Finally, in groups that are
not ongoing, a termination phase occurs (Wheelan 1994).
While this is the normal course of group development, groups
can get stuck in or revert to earlier developmental stages as a
result of internal or external factors that inhibit their
progress. Such a state of affairs negatively affects group
productivity. From a practical perspective, then, methods are
needed to assess the developmental level of groups and generate
intervention strategies to facilitate group development. The GDQ
is one such method.
The GDQ profile of the curriculum committee suggested that it
was stuck in the second phase of group development, counter
dependency and fight. Disagreements, negative feelings, lack of
support for the leader, and a lack of organization and focus
were evident. The group rated its effectiveness at 71 percent
out of a possible 100, and rated its productivity 2.2 on a scale
of one to four.
Clearly, the dynamics of the group were negatively affecting
its ability to generate a quality integrated curriculum. It was
equally clear that students were being affected by the delay and
would be affected by the fact that the curriculum, should it be
developed, would probably not be of high quality.
Using information gained from the assessment, the consultant
developed a plan to help the group improve its effectiveness.
The plan included educating the members about group development,
providing them with information about their current
developmental profile, and facilitating a process in which they
planned ways to improve the group's functioning. This last step
is crucial, since change is accomplished by member efforts, not
by outside intervention.
Tips for Improving Group Effectiveness
Even without the help of a consultant, there are many things
that school-based groups can do to improve or sustain
effectiveness and productivity:
-
Learn about groups and how
they operate. Group effectiveness is an excellent topic
for an in-service session.
-
Discuss group functioning
each time the group meets. A brief discussion about how
the group is functioning should be on the agenda of every
meeting.
-
Ask the group for feedback.
Periodically, ask group members for anonymous written
feedback about group functioning and how it can be improved.
-
Take group member's feedback
seriously. Devote a portion of the next meeting to
planning ways to improve the group.
-
Keep the focus on the group.
The biggest mistake that groups make is to place the blame
for group problems on the leader, one member, or a subset of
members. If group issues become personal issues, it is
difficult to resolve them without the help of a consultant.
When individuals feel attacked, counterattacks and cycles of
revenge and retribution typically follow.
-
 Keep
groups small. Research suggests that groups of
less than ten are more cohesive, organized, and productive.
If a large group cannot be reduced in size, design meetings
to include time for subgroup discussions. For example, if
there are 20 people at a meeting, create five groups of four
members each. These subgroups discuss an issue for 20
minutes and report the highlights of their discussion to the
entire group. Using this format ensures that everyone
contributes to the discussion.
-
Spend time planning how goals
and tasks will be accomplished. Don't jump too
quickly into working on goals and tasks. Groups that spend
time planning how they will work together are more
productive in the end.
-
Allow the group enough time
to accomplish its goals and tasks. The time frame
should take into consideration the fact that groups need
time to develop and coalesce. It takes about six months for
groups to mature.
-
Do not assume that
implementing these suggestions is the responsibility of the
group's leader. Group effectiveness is a joint
responsibility: every member plays a role in the group's
success or failure.
-
If these suggestions don't
improve things, get the help of a good consultant.
Remember, stuck groups are not bad groups and they don't
contain bad or incompetent people. If you get stuck in a
doorway, sometimes it takes a push from someone else to get
unstuck. The same is true for groups.
A Call for Collaboration
The authors are seeking school collaborators for a research
project that will explore the relationship between the
effectiveness of school groups and educational outcomes.
Collaboration might include training a cadre of school-based
people in the group assessment and intervention strategies that
we use; they, in turn, could provide training and consultation
to school groups who request it. Perhaps we can find grant funds
to cover the initial costs.
The assessment and intervention data collected will
eventually provide a large enough data base to study the
relationship between school group effectiveness and educational
outcomes in detail. If your school may be interested in
collaborating with us, please contact Dr. Susan Wheelan, Temple
University, Ritter Annex 447, Philadelphia, PA, 19122;
telephone: (215) 848-1678
References
Beer, M., and E. Walton. 1990. Developing
the competitive organization: Interventions and strategies.
American Psychologist 45: 154-61.
Bowes, D. 1973. OD techniques and their
results in 23 organizations: The Michigan ICL study. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 9: 21-43.
Caplow, T. 1983. Managing an organization.
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
French, W. L., C. H. Bell, and R. A. Zawacki,
eds. 1989. Organization development. 3d ed. Homewood, IL:
BPI Irwin.
Golembiewski, R. T., C. W. Proehl, and D.
Sink. 1982. Estimating the success of OD applications.
Training and Development Journal 36: 86-95.
Ivancevich, J. M., and M. T. Matteson. 1987.
Organizational behavior and management. Plano, TX:
Business Publications, Inc.
Peters, T. J. 1988. Thriving on chaos.
New York, NY: Knopf.
Reich, R. B. 1987. Entrepreneurship
reconsidered: The team as hero. Harvard Business Review
65 (3): 77-83.
Runkel, P. J., and R. A. Schmuck. 1987.
An account of studies of organizational development in schools.
Eugene, OR: The University of Oregon, UCEA Center on
Organizational Development in Schools.
Schein, E. 1980. Organizational
psychology. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sundstrom, E., K. P. DeMeuse, and D. Futrell.
1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American
Psychologist 45 (2): 120-133.
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence
in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63 (6): 384-99.
Tuckman, B. W., and M. A. C. Jensen. 1977.
Stages in small group development revisited. Group and
Organizational Studies 2: 419-27.
Wang, M. C., G. D. Haertel, and H. J.
Walberg. 1993. Toward a knowledge base for school learning.
Review of Educational Research 63 (3): 249-95.
Wheelan, S. 1990. Facilitating training
groups. New York, NY: Praeger.
Wheelan, S. 1994. Group processes: A
developmental perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wheelan, S., and C. Conway. 1991. Group
development as a framework to understand and promote school
readiness to engage in an OD project. The Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation 2 (1): 59-71.
Wheelan, S., and J. Hochberger. 1996.
Validation studies of the Group Development Questionnaire.
Small Group Research 27 (1): 143-170.
|
