A study of committee dynamics

110 Pages·05.031 MB·English

by  Baker, Kathryn

A STUDY OF COMMITTEE DYNAMICS
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the School of Social Work
The U niversity of Southern C alifornia
In P artial Fulfillm ent
of the Requirements fo r the Degree
Master of Social Work
hy
Kathryn Baker
Charles Devine
Herbert Leibowltz
January 1950
UMI Number: EP66320
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EP66320
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest"
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
5 *o '4f0 & t <®7
TTtL thesis, written under the direction of the
candidate’s Faculty Committee and approved
by all its members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Social Work in partial fulfilment of the re­
quirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
Dean
Kathryn Baker
Charles Devine
Herbert--La ibo.w3Lta
Thesis of
Faculty Committee
___
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED * • • * 1
Introduction * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • » # 1
Group dynamics—a new emphasis * • • « • • • 1
Data of present study • • • • • « « • • • • * 2
Study plan * • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • * 3
The focus of present study • • • • • « • « • 4
Lim itations of the study • • • • • • • * • # 5
D efinitions of terms used • • • • • • • • » • * 6
II* REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................... 8
The sociometric w ritings • • • « • • • • • • « 10
Group dynamics • 14
Gaps in present w ritings « ♦ • • • • * • • • * 13
H I* THE GROUP, THE METHOD OF STUDY, AND MATERIALS
USED « • « * • * • * • « • • • • • » • • * • # 19
The group • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • • • • * 19
Committee composition • • • • • # ♦ • • • • # 21
Method of study • • • » * • * • « # • • • « • ♦ 23
In itia l plan of study • • • « • • • • • • • • 23
Revised plan of study • • • • • • • • • • • * 24
IV* ANALYSIS OF INTER-ACTION CONTENT DATA........................ 29
The role of the sta ff person « • • • • • • • • 31
The role of the chairman * • • • • • • • • « * 40
Role of two committee members as analyzed
by content analysis data » • • • • • ♦ • • * 47
i i i
CHAPTER PAGE
Total individual participation • • • • • ♦ 48
Relation to to ta l group participation • • 52
In te ra c tio n chart of to ta l committee • • « 61
V, ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP METHODS FOR STUDY OF EFFECT
ON GROUP MOVEMENT BY SELECTED COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF • * • • * • ................................ 65
Analysis of sta ff role in movement • • • • • • 68
A second method of judging movement • • • • « 75
A third method of judging movement • • • • • • 81
VI* FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS « * • • • • • • • * • 91
Findings .............................. ♦ 91
Hypothesis I * * * * * * « • • • • • * • • • 91
Hypothesis II » • • » • • • • * » • * * « « 95
Questions raised and im plications for further
research • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • 96.
BIBLIOGRAPHY • * « * « • • * • * * . . • * • * • * • , 100
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I# Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivities by Dr*
Genevieve W* Carter to Total Participations
According to Categories by Size-Groups • * * • 36
II* Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivities by Dr*
Genevieve W* Carter to Total Participations
by All Members in Each A ctivity Category
by Size-Groups • • • * • • * • • • • * « * • * 39
III* Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivities by Mr*
Harleigh B* Treeker to Total A ctivities
According to Categories by Size-Groups * * * * 43
IV* Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivities by Mr*
Harlelgh B* Treeker to Total A ctivities
by All Members According to Categories
by Size-Groups • * * • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • # 46
V* Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivities by Dr*
Samuel H* Jameson to Total A ctivities
According to A ctivity Categories by
Slze-Groups * • • • • • • * • » • * • ♦ * • * 49
VI* Ratio to In itiatio n s of A ctivities by Dr*
Harry Smallenburg to Total A ctivities
According to A ctivity Categories by
Size-Groups • • * • * • • • • • • • • * * * * 51
V
TABLE PAGE
VII* Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivity by Dr#
Samuel H# Jameson to Total A ctivities by
All Members According to Categories by
Size-Groups # # • • • « • # • • • • • • • # 53
VIII# Ratio of In itiatio n s of A ctivity by Dr#
Harry Smallenburg A ctivities by All Members
According to Categories by Size-Groups # # 57
IX# Frequency of P articipation by Committee
Members in A ll Meetings Attended, in Order
of Magnitude, and with Average Participa­
tions Per Meeting • • • • • • • • • # # # 64
LIST OP FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1# Percentage D istribution of Individualvs
Participations by A ctivity Categories Per
Meeting Attended (For Mr* Harleigh B* Treeker,
Chairman, and Dr* Genevieve W* C arter, S taff * * * 37
2* Percentage D istribution of Individual^
P articipations by A ctivity Categories Per
Meeting Attended (For Dr* Harry Smalleriburg
and Dr* Samuel H* Jameson) • • • • • * * • ..,* * * 59
3* Inter-action Chart of Total Committee • • • • • * 62
4* Schedule I Schedule for Judging Movement
Around Individual’s P articipation • • * * * • • 67
5* Schedule II Inter-action Identification Chart
Summary for Meeting Date November 23, 1949 * * * 34
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED1
I* INTRODUCTION
Group Dynamics—a new emphasis* During the past two
years much in terest has been centered in a new approach to the
study of groups, known as Group Dynamics* It is now recognised
that the opportunities for greater group productivity w ill de­
velop as there is increased understanding of the forces oper­
ating w ithin the group process* Group Dynamics w ill yield data
which might he employed in helping groups to become sensitive
to th e ir problems and to become more competent to solve them*
This focus of In terest on Group Dynamics has created a
new vocabulary as w ell as a new research methodology, much of
which has stemmed from the experiments at the Bethel, Maine
Institutes* These in stitu tes have been sponsored jointly by
the National Education Association and the Research Center for
Group Dynamics of the Massachusetts In stitu te of Technology,
in cooperation with Teacher's College, Columbia U niversity,
Cornell U niversity, Springfield College, and the U niversities
of C alifornia, Michigan, and Maine*
To date there has not been an evaluation of th is newly
developed approach of research as to its m erits for and its
1
This chapter was prepared by Miss Kay Baker*
2
impact upon education, social work, or any other professional
practices where the process of the group interaction is of
primary importance* Nor are we sure at th is point as to how
much in group dynamics is new knowledge and how much is a re­
vival and focus of in terest on already existing knowledge,
The w riters hope th is report w ill contribute to a continued
in terest in use of observational methods for analysis of com*
m ittee dynamics in community organization settin g s.
Data of present study. At the time the w riters under­
took th is project, one year had been spent in collecting the
m aterials which constitute the raw data of the study here re­
ported, The Research Committee of the Welfare Council of Metro­
politan Los Angeles had as sinned, as part of its function, a
self study in the in terest of research on committee dynamics.
Several observational techniques were explored for i t was ap­
parent early in the study project, that the complexity of com­
m ittee dynamics would require the use of different techniques
for collection of data. Turning the research spotlight on the
many involved in ter-relatio n s which make up the process w ithin
a committee meeting can be compared with the several camera
angle shots necessary to reflect a complex panorama view.
Data on committee behavior were available from the
following sources:
(a) sociograms which show schem atically the in ter­
action between members by time periods around agenda items;