The old maxim says that it is better to try and fail than never to try at all. But, failure is seldom accepted so philosophically. Disappointment, frustration, and apathy may follow more often than patience, especially when a group has failed in an attempt to help its own community.
Countless community development groups do not reach their goals because both organizers and participants do not know why it is they sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. This booklet, aimed at community leaders and organization specialists, tries to provide an understanding of some key organizational and "survival" factors in community groups. Sociological literature reveals a series of principles that should, if brought into use, increase the useful life span of a local community development group. "It is easy to start a group, but easier still for it to fail" (Batten 1971).
Community development groups have probably been used-or at least formed-in almost every city and village in the United States to serve as focal points for leaders to address community problems and opportunities. Theoretically, community development can and does occur without formally organized development groups. However, a volunteer development group is one effective way for people to participate, direct, and engage in worthwhile change. Organizations survive by exchanging resources in transactions with their environments (Pfeffer & Salancek 1978 in Working with Our Publics).
It should be noted at the outset that it is not the survival of the group itself that is important, although this booklet concentrates on ways to survive. A group that survives must be a vehicle for creating a better community if survival is to be meaningful. "Groups can have a synergy created when the combined efforts of cooperation between two or more persons produce an effect that exceeds the sum of what the individual members could do alone" (Corning & Caney 1986 in Working With Our Publics, Page & Berkow 1994).
The first principle in successfully maintaining a voluntary development group requires that the perceived needs of group members be met at a satisfactory level. Effective group work is a balancing act in many ways, one of which is balancing individual benefits and organization outlines.
"Perceived needs"-what the member wants from his group-may be personal or community needs which are seen as benefiting the individual, the community, or both. Group members are motivated by personal as well as community goals, and many people combine these motivations. The satisfaction level in meeting an individual's needs will vary according to group membership, time, place, urgency of problems, and other socio-psychological factors affecting the members of a particular group.
For example, a community that erects an industrial shell building to attract new industry illustrates both types of "need" motivation. Business entities are interested in bringing new money to the community and helping their own business represents one type. The teacher working on the same project in the belief that the community needs more jobs for its residents represents a second type. Others may feel both kinds of needs. The important point is that members must see either a personal or community "need" that will be accomplished by the development group. It is from their own perceptions that they will derive satisfaction and continue as active members.
From a community development point of view, it is not necessary or even wise to judge the superiority or inferiority of one type of motivation over another. It is imperative that some need be present among each member of a voluntary development group if the group is to survive. A voluntary development group may be doomed to failure from the beginning if the perceived needs of group members are not considered in the initial organizational process (Blau 1964, Homans 1974). Batten says simply: "A group must meet the needs and expectations of its members, or it will break up...."(Batten 1971, Coser and Rosenburg 1970, Vanderwyst 1975).
How does a group organizer know what the perceived needs of the group are and how does he or she know if the needs are being met ? The most direct way is to ask the members of the group themselves. However, this will not always work because members are many times unable or unwilling to state their needs. People often have a "gut-level" feeling that something is right or wrong but cannot put it in words (Skinner 1989, Blau 1964, Emerson 1976, Kullberg 1977, Turner 1975, Cook 1987, Gillette & McCollom 1990). Sometimes individuals are reluctant to mention their motivation because they fear their reasons are socially unacceptable to other members, to the community, or to the organizational specialist.
Group members have confided several such needs that are feared unacceptable to the larger group membership (Turner 1975, Emerson 1976, Gergen et. al. 1980, Page & Berkow 1994, Hogg & Abrams 1993). For example, a minister who aspires to a denominational office realizes he needs to be a part of community betterment activities if he is to be seriously considered by the hierarchy of his church. A community business owner who has political designs needs the public image of being interested and active in community-wide projects. A company official who recently moved to the community when a new plant was built is more interested in being accepted by community leaders than with the activities of the development committee.
Whether or not group leaders and organizational specialists agree with all the various needs of members, they must listen carefully to each member to understand his or her concerns and see that these are considered in one way or another. It is obviously impossible to meet or even to consider all members' needs all of the time. Not all members can be kept in any group, or is it always in the community's best interest to do so. A certain amount of discord seems likely in all active groups where differences always exist.
To give a development group a good chance for survival requires, nevertheless, that needs be taken into account at the organizational stage. When persons are contacted about possible membership, the communities' needs should be part of the dialogue. Members need to understand why they are being asked to serve and what is expected of them. A leader or organizer should be prepared to accept a certain number of refusals. People frequently have valid reasons for not serving. The best tactic when designing an approach to potential members is to make sure that it is based on the real needs of community residents.
There are several ways to determine community needs as a basis for approaching possible members. Three ways will be mentioned here, but these are only illustrative. A community-wide survey of citizens is one excellent way to determine broad-based needs. This method is not always feasible but is usually worth the effort when undertaken. A small survey of knowledgeable people from the community is also a widely accepted approach less costly than a full public survey. Be aware, however, that any limited survey typically fails to be representative of the entire community. A third way of identifying community needs is to study local newspapers for persistent problems which appear to affect the whole community. Whatever method is used, it has to strike a responsive chord in the promising member to be effective.
While need is the central focus of the group, group survival also depends on establishing operational goals. An "operational" goal involves a specific issue or activity which may realistically be "solved" or helped through the actions of a voluntary development group. Simple examples might be the establishment of a medical clinic, the building of an industrial park, an energy saving campaign, etc. The successful maintenance of a voluntary development group requires that operational goals be established, understood, and generally accepted by the members of the group.
The way in which operational goals are set is an important consideration in maintaining a group. Usually the setting of goals must involve all the membership in the process. Involvement does not necessarily mean a direct role for each member in defining goals. But, each member should feel he has the right to be involved, or at least the right to reject or modify any goal that is proposed as his group's goal. Imposed goals will, in most cases, drive members from the organization.
Maintenance of a voluntary development group also requires that the group have a successful experience within a time span decided by the members themselves.
Most members of a voluntary development group have many opportunities to expend their energies in community activities. They are more likely to lend their talents and resources to efforts which are the most apt to accomplish some worthwhile community project. Sociologists recognize achievement and success as a major American value. Zander notes the importance of success in group activity is that the criterion for success must be clear. These successes can foster conditions for further success (Bear 1956, Cook and Emerson 1984).
Many development groups lack well defined goals, and more particularly, do not have criteria for success. This is perhaps the biggest single flaw in many community development operations. Members have unrealistic ideas about how soon complex problems can be worked through or resolved. A major community problem usually demands several years from the idea or need stage to the final completion of a project or program. Three to 15 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for building a hospital, developing a park system, establishing a new industry, or completing a major program to meet the recreation needs of youth in a rural community.
Short-term successes may be less dramatic but are equally valuable in holding a group together for the long haul toward the final goal. To help a group find some success in the first few months of existence requires projects and success criteria that are practical. Success in this sense is whatever people really believe is an accomplishment. Such successes do not require laying the bricks and mortar of a new industry, but involve doing a labor survey, distributing a new industrial brochure, identifying available industrial sites, or initiating an industrial park. Any or all of these could constitute specific goals.
Accomplishment of such activities is a success if each was initially seen as a worthwhile community effort. The industry itself may be only the crowning success of many smaller successes for the group. Only the group members can decide when they are successful, or unsuccessful.
The successful maintenance of a voluntary development group requires that members find the group attractive and satisfying. Cartwright and Zander point out that "One of the most obvious reasons for joining a group is that one likes the people who are in it." Members may find satisfaction from the prestige of associating with other members of the group; they may like the fellowship among group members; they may enjoy the opportunity to express ideas and concerns before leaders of the community (Warner and Heffernan 1967, Cook 1987, Page & Berkow 1994). Many other desirable benefits may be seen by a particular member.
In many ways these attractions are obviously another dimension of individual "needs." The group leader or organizer should try to recognize all the reasons that keep members actively involved in a group.
Membership structure is another important consideration in maintaining a volunteer community group. The successful maintenance of a voluntary group requires that the membership be directly inclusive and/or representative of community residents whose support will be necessary for accomplishing the group's goals.
"Inclusive" is the key word to understanding and applying this principle. When a community group makes decisions which affect itself and the community, members not participating in the decisions will feel less involved with the group and less inclined to cooperate or assist in any action program (Smith 1981, Knowles 1972, Brown & Zahrly 1990, Johnson 1994). Likewise, other factions, groups, or power leaders in the community not represented in the decision-making of a particular group will show the same reactions as those non participating "in-group" individuals-a lack of cooperation or aid, feelings of exclusion, etc.
For decision making with a community impact, the widest possible participation, or at least representation, should be sought in order to ensure adequate consideration of community goals. Of course, for short term or limited-impact programs, only appropriate individuals need be sought; it is unlikely that a musician would want to discuss and decide on agricultural problems.
Inclusive participation must be qualified in another sense too. It would be of no value to assemble an entire community or a sizable group, and have only a few of the members actually involved in discussion. Membership is more than a simple matter of belonging. Members contribute to the group according to their ability to recognize issues, determine relevant ends, and take stock of alternatives. Inclusive participation, as an ideal for the community and community group, implies that all members contribute or have the ever-present opportunity to do so. Inclusive membership, or representation, is a fallacy in the absence of involvement.
A second feature of membership structure concerns size and composition. The successful maintenance of a voluntary development group requires that the group's membership be tailored, in terms of size and resources, to the needs of the people to be served.
As group size increases, in general, communication breaks down, and there is a time lag in reaching decisions. On the other hand, group composition may offset this disadvantage by providing members with a wider range of abilities. Small size may facilitate discussion, but large size may increase human resources (Turner 1975, Emerson 1976, Cook 1987, Page & Berkow 1994).
Leadership is reflective of working with groups, rather than for groups, or to groups. Group leadership in community development implies facilitation of group processes (Snider 1985, Johnson 1994).
The successful maintenance of a voluntary group requires that the leadership be appropriate to the needs of the members. The type of leadership needed in a community voluntary group is most often the democratic type. Many voluntary groups-probably fail because leaders want to run the group as they see fit. Volunteers usually will not tolerate this type of leadership for very long.
The leadership of a group is largely responsible for creating a group atmosphere conducive to accomplishing group goals. A group environment is much more effective in securing needed viewpoints and eliciting a consensus if members feel free and encouraged to express their opinions.
Batten (1971) has described a "non-directive" method of leadership, as he refers to it, and says that such a leader:
...does not attempt to decide for people, or to lead, guide, or persuade them to accept any of his own specific conclusions about what is good for them. He tries to get them to decide for themselves what their needs are: what, if anything, they are willing to do to meet them, and, how they can best organize, plan, and act to carry their project through. Thus, he aims at stimulating a process of self-determination and self-help, and he values it for all the potential learning experiences which participation in this process provides. He aims to encourage people to develop themselves, and it is by "hinting and acting for themselves, he believes, that they are most likely to do so."
Democratic leadership not only helps in securing wide cooperation, it also aids the group in refining, modifying, and eventually accepting what are agreed to be the best ideas and decisions. In short, through the give and take of group discussion using the resources of human diversity, better decisions are likely to result. Kreitlow et al. ( 1965) points out that:
...democratic leadership also provides for perpetuation of the group. No one person is indispensable. All members of the group are delegated responsibilities from time to time, and are always aware of the of Objectives and procedures of the organization. This makes it comparatively easy for other members to assume leadership in case the regular leader is missing.
Kreitlow and his co-authors also credit democratic leadership with the ability to draw out individual group members into eventual leadership roles. They believe that people deeply involved in democratic groups are those most able to put new ideas and new methods into practice: "The persons best able to use these changes constructively will be those who have had experience in weighing and analyzing ideas" (Leadership for Action in Rural Communities 1965).
Flexibility on the part of the community group is a two sided issue. On the one hand, internal group cohesion is desirable as a "cementing" force. But on the other, excessive cohesion will create a resistance to new ideas and prevent adaptation to changing community conditions.
The successful maintenance of a voluntary group requires that it remain flexible to change and adopt new goals as appropriate.
The local community development group should, ideally, avoid a static, rigid structure that is unresponsive to internal and external changes. Since change is ever present, the ability to adapt to change (perhaps while creating it) can help to ensure survival, or at least acceptable demise. Skilled group workers know when to manage and when to resolve group conflict. Conflict can be useful to the survival of the group as a means of values clarification (working without publics). Balance of group cohesion must also be maintained. Too much or too little cohesion can make the group ineffective.
The group's influence over an individual depends in part on the degree to which one accepts and joins one's self to the group structure. The "belongingness", or cohesion. Cohesion arises from success in achieving goals that meet needs, and is also a function of mutually perceived similarity among individuals. Cohesion is one level of commitment (Kanter 1972).
Cohesion can be a positive force in directing group members toward a worthwhile common goal, and, in itself, can be a significant factor in keeping the group from disintegrating. As groups function, complications can arise from cohesiveness and restrictive norms. However, excessive cohesiveness within the group can also act as a brake on productivity, present a powerful obstacle to change, and shut out new ideas. The free flow of fresh new members for the group is also restricted with a cliquish cohesion.
Another complication is group think. Group norms that stress "everyone getting along" and consensus building can possibly sacrifice critical thinking and idea generation. The group norms override realistic appraisal of the situation or alternative actions (Janis 1982). The "over cooperation" is group think. Group think can result in self-censorship and mislead assumptions of unanimity. Realistic expectations or alternative ideas must be encouraged throughout the group functions.
From the onset of formation, the group must recognize that there comes a time when the group must terminate its function. Whether the termination means disbanding the group or changing direction, change is inevitable.
The time to address this issue is at the formulation of the group. The group must decide whether their focus will be broad and different tasks will be tackled or will the focus be issue or task specific and once accomplished, the group terminates. Most community groups form around an issue and are very specific in goals and objectives to be accomplished. Many times, once the goal is accomplished, group members want to continue the group with a different task. Without prior thought as to what should be the logical step after goal achievement, many community groups experience sharp membership decline, dissension among members on goals, and irreversible division in loyalties. To reform and redirect energies of the group requires prior thought and skill facilitation.
A broad range of research and writings in group behavior reveal a series of principles on the successful maintenance of a voluntary community development group:
Arensberg, C. M. , and Nichoff, A.H . , Introducing Social Change: A Manual for Community Development. New York: Aldine-Atherton, 1971.
Baldock, Peter, Community Work and Social Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.
Batten, T.R., Communities and Their Development. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Batten, T.R., "The Major Issues and Future Direction of Community Development." Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.34-44, 1973.
Batten, T.R., The Human Factor in Community Work. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Beal, G.M., "Additional Hypothesis in Participation Research." Rural Sociology 21 (Sept.-Dee.) 24-256, 1956.
Beal, G.M., E.W. Coward and R.M. Brooks, "Some Effects of Intangible Goals on Resource Development Programs." Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 2, No. I, pp. 48- 58, 1971.
Becker, H., and Boskoff, A., eds., Modern Sociological Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1957.
Blau, P., Exchange and Power In Social Life. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964.
Boone, Edgar J., R. David Mustian, Richard T. Liles, and John M. Pettitt, Working With Our Publics. North Carolina State University, 1988.
Brager, G. and Specht, H., Community Organizing. London: Columbia University Press, 1973.
Brown, E. and J. Zahrly, "Non-monetary Rewards for Skilled Volunteer Labor: A Look At Crisis Intervention Volunteers." Non Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 18 No. 2 (Summer):167-177, 1990.
Cartwright, D., and A. Zander, Group Dynamics. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
Cary, Lee J., ea., Community Development as a Process. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1970.
Cook, K.S., Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park: California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987.
Cook, K.S. and R. Emerson, "Exchange Networks and the Analysis of Complex Organizations." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 3:1-30, 1984.
Coser and Rosenberg, Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings. New York: MacMillan Co., 1970.
Decker, Colleen, "Proceedings of the Far West Philosophy of Education Society." Tempe, Arizona, 1971.
Emerson, R.M., "Social Exchange Theory." Annual Review of Sociology, Inkeless, Alex, James Cleman and Ned Smelser (eds.), 2:335-362, 1976.
Gergen, K.J., M.S. Greenberg, and R.H. Willis (eds.), Social Exchange Advances in Theory and Research. NY, NY: Plenum Press, 1980.
Gillette, J. and M. McCollum. Groups in Context: A New Perspective on Group Dynamics. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley Publishing Comp. (1990)
Glanz, E.C. and R.W. Hayes, Groups in Guidance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.
Goodenough, W.H., Cooperation in Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1963.
Haiman, F., Group Leadership and Democratic Action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.
Hartford, M.E., Groups in Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.
Hartley, E.L. and R.E. Hartley, Fundamentals of Social Psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952.
Hayes, A.W., Rural Community Organization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1921.
Hollander, E.P., ea., Current Perspectives in Social Psychology. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Hogg, M.A. and D. Abrams, Editors, Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives, New York: Harvestor Wheatsheaf. (1993)
Hollander, E.P., Principles and Methods of Social Psychology. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Homan, G.C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (rev.). NY:Harcourt, Brace & World, 1974.
Janis, Irving Lester, Stress, Attitudes, and Decisions: Selected Papers. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1982.
Johnson, D.W. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon (1994)
Kanter, R.M., Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press.
Knowes, M., "Motivation in Volunteerism Synopsis of a Theory." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 1 (April):27-29, 1972.
Kreitlow, B.W., et. al., Leadership for Action in Rural Communities. Danville: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1965.
Kullberg, Vicki, "Toward a Formal Statement of Homan's Social Exchange Propositions." Humbolt Journal of Social Relations, 4(2):9-20, 1977.
Long, R.L., "Groups: A Theoretical Analysis from a Symbolic Interactionist Perspective." Paper presented to a small groups course, The Ohio State University.
Mills, T.M., The Sociology of Small Groups. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Murray, C.E., et. al., Group Work in Community Life. New York: Association Press, 1974.
Nelson, Lowry, et. al., Community Structure and Change. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960.
Northern, H., Social Work with Groups. London: Columbia University Press, 1969.
Page, R.C. and D.M. Berklaw. Creating Contact Choosing Relationship. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass (1994)
Pfeffer, J. and G. Salacik, The External Control Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. NY:Harper and Row, 1978.
Pulver, G.C., "A Matter of Knowledge and Will." Joumal of the Community Development Society, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 30-34, 1970.
Rogers, E.M., and R.J. Burdge, Social Change in Rural Societies. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1972.
Sanderson, D., and R.A. Polson, Rural Community Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1939.
Saunders, T. Frank, and C. Decker, Double Think Tucson: Farmington Press, 1973.
Skinner, B.F., Recent Issues in the Analysis of Behavior. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Pub. Co., 1989.
Smith, D.H., "Altruism, Volunteers and Volunteerism." Joumal of Voluntary Action Research, 10:21-36, 1981.
Spicer, E.H., ea., Human Problems in Technological Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1952.
Thomason, George F., The Professional Approach to Community work. London: Sands & Company, 1969.
Trecker, H.B., Social Group Work: Principles and Practices. New York Association Press, 1972.
Turner, J.H., The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1975.
Vanderwyst, Donna, "George Hornans on Exchange Theory." Joumal of Sociology 7 (June): 1-14, 1975.
Warner, W.K. and W. Heffeman, "The Benefit Participation Contingency in Voluntary Farm Organizations." Rural Sociology 32(2):139-153, 1967.
Warters, J., Group Guidance. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Wileden, A.F., Community Development: The Dynamics of Planned Change. Totowa, N.J.: The Bedminster Press, 1970.
Zander, A., Motives & Goals in Groups. London: Academic Press, 1971.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status.
Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Adm. and Director, OSU Extension.
TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868