?
P

ix
m

an
n/

Im
ag

ez
oo

/
G

et
ty

Im
ag

es

10

Interpersonal and Group Process
Approaches

learning
objectives

Understand the diagnostic issues associated with interpersonal relations
and group dynamics interventions.

Illustrate the principles of the process consultation intervention.

Describe the process of third-party conflict resolution.

Discuss and evaluate the core organization development (OD)
intervention of team building.

T
his chapter discusses change programs
related to interpersonal relations and group
dynamics. They are among the earliest inter-

ventions devised in OD, they remain very popular,
and they have been adapted for use in a variety of
worldwide and cross-cultural settings. Interper-
sonal and group process approaches are aimed
at helping group members assess their interac-
tions and devise more effective ways of working.
These change programs represent a basic skill
requirement for an OD practitioner.

Interpersonal and group process approaches,
including process consultation, third-party inter-
ventions, and team building, are among the most
enduring OD interventions. Process consultation
helps group members understand, diagnose, and
improve their behaviors. Through process consul-
tation, the group should become better able to
use its own resources to identify and solve the
interpersonal problems that often block work-related
problem solving. Third-party interventions focus
directly on dysfunctional interpersonal conflict. This
approach is used only in special circumstances and
only when both parties are willing to engage in the

process of direct confrontation. Team building is
aimed both at helping a team perform its tasks
better and at satisfying individual needs. Through
team-building activities, group goals and norms
become clearer. In addition, team members
become better able to confront difficulties and
problems and to understand the roles of individuals
within the team. Among the specialized team-
building approaches presented are interventions
with ongoing teams and temporary teams such as
project teams and task forces.

As the economy has globalized and as
organizations in other countries have developed,
OD practitioners are applying these fundamental
OD interventions more and more. Like other
social innovations, however, process consultation,
third-party interventions, and team building must be
adapted to fit with local cultural values. Traditional
OD values, rooted in North American and
European cultures, favor openness, directness, and
participation. Other country and organization cultures
may not favor these same values, requiring
adjustments in these interpersonal and group
process interventions. For example, third-party

265

interventions are less likely in Asia given the ?saving
face? norms prevalent in that region. Similarly, team-
building processes must account for norms of

uncertainty, avoidance, and deference to authority
during problem-solving activities or interventions
intended to alter group processes.

10-1 Diagnostic Issues in Interpersonal and Group
Process Interventions
Chapter 5 introduced the diagnostic issues associated with OD interventions. With
respect to interpersonal and group process issues, we draw mostly from the concepts
involved in group-level diagnosis. The primary inputs to understanding group effective-
ness are the organization?s design?its strategy, structure, and culture. For example, if the
organization is pursuing an aggressive growth strategy with a functional structure,
moderate-to-high levels of conflict may be quite acceptable. As described in Chapter 12,
the high levels of expertise that are a strength of functional structures also produce a
tendency for conflict. The OD practitioner must diagnose whether the aggressive objec-
tives are exacerbating that tendency. Client concerns over the levels of conflict and
requests for conflict resolution interventions may be inappropriate. The organization?s
design may be a more important driver of conflict than individual skill levels or group
functioning problems.

The primary design components of group effectiveness are goal clarity, task struc-
ture, composition, group functioning, and performance norms. Each of these design
components must be considered in interpersonal and group process interventions. For
example, if a group?s goals are not clear, improving their decision-making processes
may only allow them to be more effective at solving the wrong problems.

In general, however, individual and group process interventions address the task
structures, group functioning, and performance norm elements of the model, and their
current characteristics must be diagnosed. Such social processes directly and indirectly
affect how work is accomplished. When group process promotes effective interactions,
groups are likely to perform tasks successfully.1 Group process includes:

? Communications. One area of interest in all of these interventions is the nature and
style of communication, or the process of transmitting and receiving thoughts, facts,
and feelings. Communication can be overt?who talks to whom, about what, for
how long, and how often. It can include body language, including facial expressions,
fidgeting, posture, and hand gestures.2 Communication can also be covert, as when a
manager says, ?I?m not embarrassed? as his or her face turns scarlet. Covert commu-
nication is ?hidden? and the process consultant often seeks to find the best way to
make the message more explicit.

? The functional roles of group members. The OD practitioner must be keenly aware
of the different roles individual members take on in a group. Both upon entering and
while remaining in a group, individuals must address and understand the self-identity,
influence, and power issues that will satisfy personal needs while working to accom-
plish group goals. In addition, group members must take on roles that enhance:
(a) task-related activities, such as giving and seeking information, elaborating work
processes, and coordinating and evaluating activities; and (b) group-maintenance
actions, directed toward holding the group together as a cohesive team, including
encouraging, harmonizing, compromising, setting standards, and observing. Many
ineffective groups perform little group maintenance, and this is a primary reason for
bringing in an OD consultant.

266 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

? Group problem solving and decision making. To be effective, a group must be able
to identify problems, examine alternatives, and make decisions. For example, one
way of making decisions is to ignore a suggestion, as when one person makes a sug-
gestion and someone else offers another before the first has been discussed. A sec-
ond method is to give decision-making power to the person in authority. Sometimes
decisions are made by minority rule?the leader arrives at a decision and turns for
agreement to several people who will comply. Frequently, silence is regarded as con-
sent. Decisions can also be made by majority rule, consensus, or unanimous consent.
The OD consultant can help the group understand how it makes decisions and the
consequences of each decision process, as well as help diagnose which type of deci-
sion process may be the most effective in a given situation. Decision by unanimous
consent or consensus, for example, may be ideal in some circumstances but too
time-consuming or costly in other situations.

? Group norms. Especially if a group of people works together over a period of time,
it develops group norms or standards of behavior about what is good or bad,
allowed or forbidden, right or wrong. The OD consultant can be very helpful in
assisting the group to understand and articulate its own norms and to determine
whether those norms are helpful or dysfunctional. By understanding its norms and
recognizing which ones are helpful, the group can grow and deal realistically with its
environment, make optimum use of its own resources, and learn from its own
experiences.3

? The use of leadership and authority. An OD practitioner needs to understand pro-
cesses of leadership and how different leadership styles can help or hinder a group?s
functioning. In addition, the consultant can help the leader adjust his or her style to
fit the situation.

Each interpersonal and group process intervention includes diagnosis as an essential
ingredient and is guided by the client?s objectives and understanding of these processes.

10-2 Process Consultation
Process consultation (PC) is a general framework for carrying out helping relationships.4

Schein defines process consultation as ?the creation of a relationship that permits the
client to perceive, understand, and act on the process events that occur in [his or her]
internal and external environment in order to improve the situation as defined by the
client.?5 The process consultant does not offer expert help in the form of solutions to
problems, as in the doctor?patient model. Rather, the process consultant works to help
managers, employees, and groups assess and improve human processes, such as commu-
nication, interpersonal relations, decision making, and task performance. Schein argues
that effective consultants and managers should be good helpers, aiding others in getting
things done and in achieving the goals they have set.6 Thus, PC is as much a philosophy
as a set of techniques aimed at performing this helping relationship. The philosophy
ensures that those who are receiving the help own their problems, gain the skills and
expertise to diagnose them, and solve them themselves. PC is an approach to helping
people and groups help themselves.

As a philosophy of helping relationships, Schein proposes ten principles to guide the
process consultant?s actions.7

? Always try to be helpful. Process consultants must be mindful of their intentions,
and each interaction must be oriented toward being helpful.

CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 267

? Always stay in touch with the current reality. Each interaction should produce
diagnostic information about the current situation. It includes data about the client?s
opinions, beliefs, and emotions; the system?s current functioning; and the practi-
tioner?s reactions, thoughts, and feelings.

? Access your ignorance. An important source of information about current reality is
the practitioner?s understanding of what is known, what is assumed, and what is not
known. Process consultants must use themselves as instruments of change.

? Everything you do is an intervention. Any interaction in a consultative relationship
generates information as well as consequences. Simply conducting preliminary inter-
views with group members, for example, can raise members? awareness of a situation
and help them see it in a new light.

? The client owns the problem and the solution. This is a key principle in all OD
practice. Practitioners help clients solve their own problems and learn to manage
future change.

? Go with the flow. When process consultants access their own ignorance, they often
realize that there is much about the client system and its culture that they do not
know. Thus, practitioners must work to understand the client?s motivations and
perceptions.

? Timing is crucial. Observations, comments, questions, and other interventions intended
to be helpful may work in some circumstances and fail in others. Process consultants
must be vigilant to occasions when the client is open (or not open) to suggestions.

? Be constructively opportunistic with confrontive interventions. Although process
consultants must be willing to go with the flow, they also must be willing to take
appropriate risks. From time to time and in their best judgment, practitioners must
learn to take advantage of ?teachable moments.? A well-crafted process observation
or piece of feedback can provide a group or individual with great insight into their
behavior.

? Everything is information; errors will always occur and are the prime source for
learning. Process consultants never can know fully the client?s reality and invariably
will make mistakes. The consequences of these mistakes, the unexpected and sur-
prising reactions, are important data that must be used in the ongoing development
of the relationship.

? When in doubt, share the problem. The default intervention in a helping relation-
ship is to model openness by sharing the dilemma of what to do next.

10-2a Basic Process Interventions
For each of the interpersonal and group processes described above, a variety of interven-
tions may be used. In broad terms, these are aimed at making individuals and groups
more effective.8

Individual Interventions These interventions are designed primarily to help people
be more effective in their communication with others. For example, the process consul-
tant can provide feedback to one or more individuals about their overt behaviors during
meetings. At the covert or hidden level of communication, feedback can be more per-
sonal and is aimed at increasing the individual?s awareness of how their behavior affects
others. A useful model for this process has been developed by Luft in what is called the
Johari Window.9 Figure 10.1, a diagram of the Johari Window, shows that some personal
issues are perceived by both the individual and others. This is the ?open? window. In the

268 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

?hidden? window, people are aware of their behavior, motives, and issues, but they con-
ceal them from others. People with certain feelings about themselves or others in the
work group may not share with others unless they feel safe and protected; by not reveal-
ing reactions they feel might be hurtful or impolite, they lessen the degree of
communication.

The ?blind? window comprises personal issues that are unknown to the individual
but that are communicated clearly to others. For example, one manager who made fre-
quent business trips invariably told his staff to function as a team and to make decisions
in his absence. The staff, however, consistently refused to do this because it was clear to
them, and to the process consultant, that the manager was really saying, ?Go ahead as a
team and make decisions in my absence, but be absolutely certain they are the exact
decisions I would make if I were here.? Only after the manager participated in several
meetings in which he received feedback was he able to understand that he was sending
a double message. Thereafter, he tried both to accept decisions made by others and to
use management by objectives (described in Chapter 12) with his staff and with individ-
ual managers. Finally, the ?unknown? window represents those personal aspects that are
unknown to either the individual or others. Because such areas are outside the realm of
the process consultant and the group, focus is typically on the other three cells.

The individual interventions described in practice encourage people to be more open
with others and to disclose their views, opinions, concerns, and emotions, thus reducing
the size of the hidden window. Further, the consultant can help individuals give feedback
to others, thus reducing the size of the blind window. Reducing the size of these two
windows helps improve the communication process by enlarging the open window, the
?self? that is open to both the individual and others. This is a very North American and

FIGURE 10.1

The Johari Window

SOURCE: Adapted from ?The Johari Window,? Human Relations Training News 5 (1961): 6?7.

CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 269

European notion and using the Johari window in this way may not be appropriate in
different cultural and cross-cultural settings.

Before OD practitioners give individual feedback or encourage others to engage in
feedback activities, they first must observe relevant events, ask questions to understand
the contextual and cultural issues fully, and make certain that the feedback is given to
the client in a usable manner.10 The following are guidelines11 for effective feedback in
a Western setting:

? The giver and receiver must have consensus on the receiver?s goals.
? The giver should emphasize description and appreciation.
? The giver should be concrete and specific.
? Both giver and receiver must have constructive motives.
? The giver should not withhold negative feedback if it is relevant.
? The giver should own his or her observations, feelings, and judgments.
? Feedback should be timed to when the giver and receiver are ready.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no guidelines for effective feedback in other
cultures, and it may be one of the best indicators of a Western bias in OD. Under the
assumption that knowing how you are perceived by others is a generally positive con-
cept, feedback should be guided by the values of the local country and organization.
For example, being ?concrete and specific? may be inappropriate for relationship-
oriented cultures, and gaining consensus on the receiver?s goals or worrying about the
timing of feedback may not be an issue in cultures with strong authoritarian values.

Group Interventions These interventions are aimed at the process, content, or struc-
ture of the group. Process interventions sensitize the group to its own internal processes
and generate interest in analyzing them. Interventions include comments, questions, or
observations about relationships between and among group members; problem solving
and decision making; and the identity and purpose of the group. For example, process
consultants can help by suggesting that some part of each meeting be reserved for exam-
ining how these decisions are made and periodically assessing the feelings of the group?s
members. As Schein points out, however, the basic purpose of the process consultant is
not to take on the role of expert but to help the group share in its own diagnosis and do
a better job in learning to diagnose its own processes: ?It is important that the process
consultant encourage the group not only to allocate time for diagnosis but to take the
lead itself in trying to articulate and understand its own processes.?12 This sound advice
helps to make process consultation relevant in different cultural contexts.

Content interventions help the group determine what it works on. They include
comments, questions, or observations about group membership; agenda setting, review,
and testing procedures; interpersonal issues; and conceptual inputs on task-related
topics.

Finally, structural interventions help the group examine the stable and recurring
methods it uses to accomplish tasks and deal with external issues. They include com-
ments, questions, or observations about inputs, resources, and customers; methods for
determining goals, developing strategies, accomplishing work, assigning responsibility,
monitoring progress, and addressing problems; and relationships to authority, formal
rules, and levels of intimacy.

Application 10.1 presents an example of process consultation at Christian Caring
Homes. The focus of the application is the relationship between two senior executives
during a succession process but also involves relationships with the organization?s
board and top-management team.13

270 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

a
p

p
li

ca
ti

o
n

1
0

1 PROCESS CONSULTATION AT CHRISTIANCARING HOMES, INC.

C
hristian Caring Homes, Inc. (CCH or ?The
Homes?) is among the largest multilocation,
nonprofit senior care providers. The organi-
zation comprises four facilities spread

across two states with a strong community rep-
utation dating back 40 years. After 35 years at
the helm, the CEO, Winston, decided to retire at
age 62. The CCH Board decided that before
conducting an external search for Winston?s
successor, they would explore the qualifications
of three internal candidates. The Board chose
CCH?s young CFO, Paul, as Winston?s succes-
sor. Paul had several years? experience as an
external auditor and three years within the orga-
nization. The Board announced that Winston
was ?CEO and President? and Paul would be
?CEO and President-Elect.?

The Board wanted to ensure that Paul had
the proper support to make the transition and
that Winston?s well-earned value and respect
would be preserved and leveraged. As a result,
the Board created a three-member ?Transition
Steering Committee? consisting of the Board
president and two long time board members
with experience in management and recruiting.
The Committee suggested that the two leaders
might benefit from a consultant?s advice over
the agreed-upon one-year transition period.

The Steering Committee located and vet-
ted a semi-retired, locally based OD consultant,
Simon. They introduced him to the leaders for
consideration.

In the ?get-acquainted? meeting of the
steering committee and the two leaders,
Simon noted that Winston and Paul appeared
congenial. They approved of Simon?s experi-
ence and his history of commitments to the
region and social service organizations. Simon
asked the two leaders what was rewarding
about their jobs and what Winston valued
about his contribution to the Homes. Winston
responded with pride about past accomplish-
ments and was supported by his designated
successor and the committee. He then took
the lead in describing the ongoing challenges
that would coincide with the transition.

After the meeting, each leader emailed
Simon expressing thanks for his attendance
and copied the other. Over the next month,
communication between Simon, Paul, and
Winston consisted of three exploratory email
exchanges and two conference calls (always
with both leaders) to address the question:
How might Simon be of help?

The two leaders then suggested that Simon
make a proposal. They wanted their senior lead-
ership team (SLT) to review any possible work-
ing arrangement. Simon wrote a short proposal
for a four-month ?transition process consulta-
tion? to explore and advance the handoff
between Winston and Paul and the transition
of their roles, responsibilities, and relationships
with the board and the SLT. At the end of that
time, the two leaders could assess the value
from the consultation. Simon further recom-
mended a retainer arrangement, obviating the
concern for open-ended consultant expense.

The SLT discussed the proposal at their
next monthly meeting. Winston and Paul
together called Simon to report that the SLT
had agreed they could proceed with the
engagement.

Simon reflected on the work to date. It had
taken more than two months to agree to work
together. He felt impatient with what appeared
to be extreme caution on the part of the top
leadership of CCH. He also noted that the
two leaders were never apart. They always
appeared together at SLT meetings, on calls,
or in emails. However, the process seemed
interesting and at this point, he ?went with
the flow,? slow as it was.

Simon attended the next two monthly day-
long SLT meetings. He did not participate
except when asked for his view. Invariably,
he responded with a group process observa-
tion that tended to relate to one of three
themes that emerged during the meetings:

1. The operations leaders formed subgroups
based on the geography where their facili-
ties were located.

CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 271

2. Routine HR issues absorbed a big chunk of the
agenda.

3. Paul often made statements intended to bring
a ?corporate? point of view.

Simon followed up each meeting with a one-
page review of what appeared to be the key issues
regarding roles, relationships, and responsibilities
related to the transition. In follow-up discussions
with Winston and Paul, they expressed different
interests. Winston focused on individual facility
issues while Paul wondered how he could get
the SLT members to take a high-level view of
issues facing The Homes as an organizational
entity. Simon frequently commented on this differ-
ence in approach. He was aware that successfully
navigating a transition would involve the whole
organization, not just the two top roles, and he
shared that awareness.

After two more months, there appeared to be
no actions or plans regarding the transition. Simon
was surprised when the Board president called
him and asked if anything was being done about
the ?organization structure.? Despite his curiosity
about where the subject of organization structure
had come from, Simon responded that he saw his
agreement as exclusively with the two principals
and that they were in the best place to communi-
cate progress to the Board and to her. The Board
president immediately agreed and was happy to
respect the client/consultant boundary.

In his next conference call with Paul and
Winston, Simon inquired if there ?were any issues
around organization structure.?

The question appeared to open up a huge
trove of information. As CEO, Winston had 14
direct reports and no Chief Operating Officer role.
Simon was told the story of Pinkerton, the previous
COO, who had attempted (with the support of an
external consultant) to implement a coup through
which he would replace Winston. The Board had
intervened to fire the autocratic and ?conniving?
Pinkerton. The position had not been filled for
two years. The story supported the conclusion
that the CCH executives were reluctant to take
strong, independent action and feared being
manipulated by consultants. This story of organiza-
tional intrigue and power dynamics seemed to
explain the caution and politeness that Simon had
originally observed.

Simon considered three possible choices for
what to do next:

1. Explore directly the lack of substantive action
regarding the transition of executive responsi-
bilities. Was the implication of the Pinkerton
story that the organization did not trust consul-
tants? Did they not trust him?

2. Explore the subject of a structural change. Did
the leaders see ?structure? as a solution and if
so, what problem was being solved by a struc-
tural change?

3. Explore his observations that the organization
had a congenial and compliant attitude and cul-
ture. Did the Pinkerton experience result in an
organization style that devalued consensus
and transparency and favored risk-avoidance?

Simon chose the second option with the fol-
lowing hypothesis: If the leaders felt a problem
existed because of structure, then following that
path of inquiry might reveal obstacles to redistribu-
tion of leadership responsibilities?likely necessary
following Winston?s departure. It might also
expose doubts or distrust in the SLT executive
group regarding Paul?s, Winston?s, and Simon?s
motivation. Simon concluded that because of
their experience with the authoritarian Pinkerton,
the SLT members did not raise issues of doubt or
distrust. They appeared so tyrannized that Simon
later joked that they had been ?Pinkerton-ized.?

Following disclosure of the painful history, and
while Winston was away at conference, Paul
arranged a business dinner with the SLT. He floated
the possibility of creating an organization for the
Homes that would not include a new COO. He
found some support for the idea and shared it
with Winston when he returned. The two leaders
asked Simon for his reaction and inquired whether
he could help with such a change.

Simon was quite surprised at Paul?s move.
Paul had openly challenged the assumption that
Winston?s laissez-faire style would be continued
during the transition period and beyond. For his
part, Winston was skeptical that ?collective leader-
ship from the SLT? would render the COO role
unnecessary but accepted it as a way that Paul
could ?learn the ropes.?

Simon?s first reaction was to jump at the
chance to work with structure but realized that

272 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

10-2b Results of Process Consultation
Although process consultation is an important part of organization development and has
been widely practiced over the past 45 years, a number of difficulties arise in trying to
measure performance improvements as a result of process consultation. One problem is
that most process consultation is conducted with groups performing mental tasks (e.g.,
decision making); the outcomes of such tasks are difficult to evaluate. A second difficulty
with measuring PC?s effects occurs because in many cases process consultation is

such a move could have unknown implications for
a smooth transition. Instead, he chose the oppor-
tunity to readdress and possibly advance the tran-
sition process by offering an observation and a
confronting intervention.

The observation was that the transition between
Winston and Paul would necessarily require changes
throughout the organization. Working with the
proposed structure was one way (an experiment)
to anticipate and work through the changes in
responsibilities that might bring clarity for the execu-
tives constituting the SLT. Simon could help them
learn from their work.

The confronting intervention was to send Win-
ston and Paul an email with an attachment entitled
?The Leader?s First 90 Days,? and a single ques-
tion: ?