Introduction
The task force of the Department of Defence (DOD) on inclusion and diversity convened a meeting in which initiatives to tackle institutional bias in the armed forces were deliberated. The 15-member team composed of leaders from different ranks within the U.S. Air Force met in a session during which steps to promote equal opportunity were discussed. The leader guided the task force through the agenda of the meeting. He started with a short introduction, outlined the items on the agenda, and explained the policy areas that need to be addressed. Members issued different arguments and proposals during this meeting. This paper provides a critique of the taskforce session focusing on the observed decision process, values and ethical issues observed, and group member roles.
Group Work Theory
A group named the task force on inclusivity and diversity held a public meeting critiqued in this paper. The type of group was a task group, which is typically assembled to fulfil a specific goal (Corey et al., 2017). The task force was assembled with the purpose of recommending immediate changes and actions for addressing racial and gender biases in the military. The special meeting was convened at the conference hall of the DOD on September 17, 2020, for three hours (8.00 am to 11.00 am).
The agency sponsoring and hosting the group is the department of defence. The diversity and inclusion task force was set up to address systemic bias and demographic disparities in the army. It comprises a group of 15 members from different ranks and racial backgrounds, including minorities. The department appointed the task force and assigned it the task of developing policies and procedures that promote inclusion and give equal opportunities to personnel to maximize individual potential. During the meeting, the members discussed five topics related to advancing inclusivity in the department. They looked at culture and policy, training, recruitment, and promotions. The members suggested actions to promote diversity and eliminate bias in these four areas.
Group Session Critique
Leader Strengths
The facilitator of the meeting was the task force’s chairperson – a white military leader knowledgeable about the minorities’ experiences and barriers to inclusion and diversity. The success of a session depends on group dynamics such as leader-attendee interactions. In task groups, leaders must manage the behaviors that may affect meeting effectiveness and outcomes, for example, complaining cycles (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017). Three personal strengths were observed in the chairperson of the task force. First, he started and ended the meeting on time – exactly after three hours. Additionally, the agenda was run efficiently with most members allowed to present their views. Ineffective management of time, including starting late, affects overall team performance (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017). The leader’s judgment on the conversational floor space allocated to each speaker was effective.
The chairperson’s second strength was his effective communication strategies for encouraging contributions from members. He urged speakers to share their experiences and opinions on racial bias and discrimination portraying him as a social leader. According to Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2017), such meeting facilitators hold back their opinions and first listen to the argument, even if they do not support a participant’s view, before commenting. Third, task force chairperson was a democratic leader – he did not champion any particular cause, which could have created antagonism in the group during the meeting. He only raised a topic, allowed members to share their thoughts, and summarized the suggested actions, focusing on solutions.
Specific Skills Used
Effective facilitation of meetings helps participants to collectively move through the topics in a healthy, productive manner. The task force chairperson communicated the meeting’s agenda and clear guidelines on how members would give their contributions, emphasizing the time constraints. According to Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2017), effective facilitation is founded on clarity from the onset. This skill entails explaining the steps participants will take, issuing pre-written instructions, and indicating expected behaviors during the meeting.
The leader also exhibited effective group management skills, which ensured a participative atmosphere for all participants. He demonstrated empathy by encouraging members from a minority background to express their feelings and frustrations with institutional policies and procedures that impede inclusion and diversity. Showing understanding is important in avoiding antagonism in the group, especially where sensitive topics are being discussed (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017). The leader was also exhibited active listening and effective communication skills – paraphrasing and reinforcing each member’s contributions.
Stage of the Group
Group dynamics are critical to understanding how teams develop and acquire a sense of identity. Optimal performance is not expected when groups are first formed due to strained social exchange and relationships (Corey et al., 2017). Several stages of group development are involved in forming effective teams. At each phase, salient issues must be resolved for the group to succeed in achieving its goals. From the observations made during the meeting, the task force on inclusion and diversity is at the norming stage of group development. This phase is characterised by an appreciation of “individual differences and shared expectations” and a sense of group cohesion (Corey et al., 2017, p. 56). The members cooperated well in suggesting solutions for racial bias in the military. Additionally, the responsibilities were shared around the table, which was essential in securing collective consent for the proposals.
What Worked Well in the Group
The task force was small (15 members), which allowed the chairperson to invite all of them to make contributions to each topic. He started with background facts about inclusion and diversity to provide a basis for the discussion. Also, the group leader circulated the agenda a day before the meeting, which helped participants to form some opinions about each topic in advance. The discussion was structured in a superb and logical format – the chairperson raised an issue, group members shared their thoughts, and a decision was made. The meeting process was also conducted, as it started and ended on time. Additionally, the seating arrangement – members sat side by side – promoted interactions and limited disagreements.
What Should Have Been Done Differently
Some members took a long time to make a point, and the leader did not interject to ensure brevity. The early part of the session was lively but the meeting lost its energy after two hours. The attention lag could have been reduced if members were brief or fewer items were on the agenda. The chairperson seemed to favor specific action steps for addressing bias in the military without including dissenting views. For example, a member’s suggestion to revise policies on appearance that disadvantage minority cadets was endorsed by the leader despite others opposing it. This issue could have been deferred until further discussions are held to facilitate change in the group. Further, allocating each participant time to speak, including the silent ones, and building on each speaker’s ideas would have ensured better involvement of group members. The leader should have allowed pre-meeting talk and socialising to build consensus on sensitive topics. Holding the meeting outside the precincts of the DOD could have created a neutral atmosphere that encourages free discussions.
Values and Ethical Issues
Cultural Issues
Cultural issues were bound to arise during the meeting given the diversity of the team. For instance, participants from racial minority groups were rather silent and laid back compared to others. They were from a culture that is typically restrained, which limited their active participation. Another cultural issue noted during the meeting was when the facilitator asked African American group members to share their experience of racial bias. The room fell silent for a moment, implying that they were not comfortable talking about it. Thus, while the facilitator thought that members would be interested in the topic, their body language suggested otherwise.
The two cultural issues observed were handled well to ensure that the meeting progressed to its conclusion. The leader encouraged members to contribute, including the silent ones, by expressing interest in what they have to say. Everyone had time to explain his or her point of view before moving to the next issue. The second cultural issue was handled by creating an awareness of the different forms of racial bias in the military. The leader began by giving facts and figures of opportunities provided to minorities in the army. Suddenly, the body language of the members changed and they freely shared their experiences.
Core Values
Some values promoted by different organisations, including learning institutions, are universal. Two of Saint Leo University’s core values were observed in the group: community and respect (Saint Leo University, 2020). The members exhibited a sense of unity and identity and listened respectfully to others during the meeting. A spirit of interdependence (community) was observed with members paying attention to each other’s views and reinforcing them. Further, the leader encouraged unique experiences and perspectives from minority groups and encouraged a free exchange of opinions in coming up with policy solutions to the issue of inclusion and diversity in the army.
Group Member Roles
In the spirit of cooperation, the task force members were assigned different responsibilities. The group leader facilitated the discussion by inviting participants to speak and ensuring that all opinions are heard. He started and ended the session after exhausting the agenda items. The leader delegated the role of taking the minutes of the meeting to another member. The other participants listened actively to the discussion and expressed their feelings thoughts when allowed to speak. A few members raised their concerns and reservations about the enforcement of the policy changes proposed to address inclusion and diversity. Specifically, they were unsure how teaching army cadets about unconscious bias would be carried out.
Conclusion
Meetings are a platform to discuss or develop solutions to specific issues. In each session, the group exhibits shared knowledge through an exchange of ideas. The meeting of the task force on inclusion and diversity was largely effective except for a few challenges (cultural issues and pre-meeting socialisation opportunities) that were addressed on time. The leader exhibited effective facilitation skills that promoted a participatory atmosphere, making the session fruitful.
References
Corey, M. S., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2017). Groups: Process and practice (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Kello, J. E. (2017). The critical importance of meetings to leader and organisational success: Evidence-based insights and implications for key stakeholders. Organisational Dynamics, 1, 1-5. Web.
Saint Leo University. (2020). Mission and core values. Web.