<
"A Troubled Forum or…. when good groups go bad" >
>
> via a
● Extra credit points
● The
best way to approach this assignment is via the mindset of a group consultant.
This also means you will have to look BELOW the surface in order to analyze
& apply course concepts.
●Carefully
read the case study below. Write 2-3 paragraphs in which you discuss:
►
4 SPECIFIC reasons why this forum
was destined to be “Problematic” &/or ineffective
►
3 SPECIFIC recommendations you
would make to the planners of this forum in order for this meeting to
exemplify effective
group discussion.
THE
SCENARIO--- (
identifying details have been changed but the details about the forum really
happened)
Recently
, a
forum on the topic: Issues of
Diversity in Theater Employment was
held from 5-7pm in NYC in large meeting room of a theatrical organization. The
room was about 4 times as wide as our classroom, was adjacent to some busy
offices & lounge areas, and was ventilated by a rather noisy air
conditioner. A microphone-less
lectern was positioned in the middle of the front of the room. The
advance flyer which had been mailed to members of the organization contained such phrases as “A Member
to Member Discussion” “ Help us help you target the problems and obstacles
members are experiencing…”
As members arrived, they checked in, received a 5X7” card with a number on it & were told to pick up some informational brochures explaining the work of the committee which was sponsoring the forum. By the time that the program began (some 15 minutes after the advertised starting time) approximately 80 people were seated throughout the room.
The general sequence of events occurred as follows:
1. Committee chair welcomed attendees, pointed out several officers of the organization {one of which was identified as moderator} , & then introduced keynote speaker.
2. A 30 minute, extemporaneous, Keynote talk was delivered by a well-liked, award winning actor.
3. Moderator made a transition & asked audience to begin asking questions. Questioners were “given the floor” by being identified via their numbers on their 5X7” cards.
4. Questioner #64 expressed mild disagreement with Keynote speaker’s theme; Keynote speaker responded by agreeing with the frustrations being expressed .
5. Next, Questioner #2 vehemently disagreed & went on a rather lengthy tirade – becoming more & more emotional & moving the topic away from the original theme & more onto a different but related incident. Other audience members began exchanging looks (e.g. rolling eyes) .
6. Once again the Keynote speaker’s response began with an acknowledgment of the questioner’s emotions (i.e. exercising Empathic Listening!!) and then added a reiteration & reinforcement of the original themes expressed in the Keynote.
7. The same basic pattern was repeated with Questioner #85.
8. The Committee chair interrupted the proceedings & rather firmly asserted that this meeting was to follow the committee’s agenda & was not to be monopolized by any one person. Peeved audience members shouted out such things as: “Where is the agenda, then?”. The moderator described the rules of procedure (no written agenda existed) & a questionnaire was passed out for attendees to fill in while the moderator explained the work of the committee & the information the committee had hoped to garner from this meeting.
9. For the next hour or so this same cycle repeated itself: 3-4 Questioners making emotional commentaries (not really questions) / The audience energetically echoing the dissatisfactions / the Moderator and/or other committee members deflecting the attention to explanations & surveys by saying that there was a “process” they wanted to follow / the audience complaining that the surveys were not what they came to talk about.
10. The forum ended with audience being asked to write down (on their own paper) reactions to some phrases that were due to be inserted into the new employment contracts. The only copy avalable of these pheases was via one large display chart which was placed on an easel in the front of the room.