When it comes to group interaction, we recognise face-to-face approaches to communication as the richest medium of exchange. Information, thoughts and ideas are transmitted from senders to receivers, and back, in an instant. That's all good actually, excellent in fact. Still, don't you sometimes catch yourself pausing for a while, wondering if this really was indeed the best form of communication under all plausible scenarios.
Two semesters back, I had a lecturer who had flown in from the States to teach us a business-related module for one of our summer courses. While on the flight over, he found himself immersed in a conversation with a local Singaporean on his way home. At the beginning of class, he shared with us the little trivia raised by that particular local, that "in Singapore, you will hardly find a classroom full of enthusiastic students who will bombard you with questions or engage in full-heated discussion like their American counterparts over in the US." Odd huh, how we are able to yak so much outside of class (or with our neighbours seated beside us in class), yet abstain from replying to questions posed to us by the instructors standing before us. But it happens.
When we're engaged in group meetings to embark on a project or come up with an idea for an event of some kind, it seldom is the case where we get equally vocal members on a team. More often than not, in an group or organisation, there will always be loud-spoken creative folks who seem to come up with the greatest quirkiest ideas, or the powerhouse brainiac who believes that his/her solution is absolute. What about the rest, those we see as "detached", or "absent in presence", "the silent one"? What hides beneathe that quiet veneer, have we any idea?
Socialising is seen as necessity or a basic natural instinct that needs to be filled in order to have a mentally and emotionally balanced life. Not all human beings are, however, engineered to be at ease with this game of socialising. Not everyone craves to be in the limelight. Not everyone wants to be heard in a roomful of people. Not everyone can raise their hands to throw a question to the teacher without getting sweaty palms, or stride up to a podium to deliver a presentation and speech without the fluttering of butterflies churning in their bellis. Why? That's because group-talks just isn't their comfortable platform for communication.
Therefore, in a bid tap on the intelligence, creative juices, or interesting perspectives that fly around in the minds of all these people, businesses have come up with a most strategic tool that (lo-and-behold), completely leaves out the face-to-face communication factor!! Effective communication (as we know it), has been brought to a whole new realm. It is called the Delphi Method.
This Delphi method is an iterative process in which managers and staff complete a series of questionairres, each developed from the previous ones, to achieve a consensus forecast. When the financial crisis hit large organisations smack in the belly, the financial world turned upside down. Trends and cycles were disrupted. Never seen before southward plunges on financial GROWTH charts were the new normalcy and it threw all plans and schemes for success off kilter. There was a pressing need for the input of every member on board to make the right decisions for the future. Yet, as we all know, perspectives are different and coloured and unique to every individual. Forecasting of the future impacts the choices and decisions we make. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that we get as accurate a forecast as possible from the consensus (meaning everybody).
The Delphi method achieves this like no other way of communication simply because it functions without the need of participants ever meeting at all. Picture this, a charismatic man of standing in the company voices out his opinion - that 50% of the company's employees are to be retrenched so the remaining half can be saved. You have a differing perspective on thing, and believe that a company's loyalty to it's workers is important, thus the introduction of compromised/subsidised salaries across the board would be a better and fairer option to execute. There might be several others who share the exact same viewpoint that is running through your head, but not one of you voice this out because you all know that you will be shot down before your are even heard through by the man with the better glib of the tongue.
According to the Delphi method, there is an added sense of annonimity which makes discussion all the more effective! Usually all participants maintain anonymity. Their identity is not revealed even after the completion of the final report. This stops them from dominating others in the process using their authority or personality, frees them to some extent from their personal biases, minimizes the "bandwagon effect" or "halo effect", allows them to freely express their opinions, encourages open critique and admitting errors by revising earlier judgments. Participants comment on their own forecasts, the responses of others and on the progress of the panel as a whole. At any moment they can revise their earlier statements. While in regular group meetings participants tend to stick to previously stated opinions and often conform too much to the group leader. The Delphi method prevents it, which makes this method so awesome!
When I put the two and two together, I wonder if face-to-face communication could ever achieve an equal level of effectiveness and objectivity. I guess that when you put on that mask in a Delphi group, it gives you a sense of protection and it lowers a person's usual inhibition, thus allowing you to air your views more candidly than you normally would in any given conversation head-on. Perhaps it would be interesting if we had lessons conducted in a fashion where students were given the liberty of conveying their thoughts and opinions to an on-screen medium without having to move the slightest bit of their lips. There'd probably be a whole lot of debating going on in the class then, not to mention the influx of ridiculous comments from the jesters in class; so maybe not. But it'll be interesting. :)
Thanks for reading, folks!
-Over and out-
