Moderating Groups 1

As promised.

We won't cover the pros and cons of groups, but you'll come across them at some point, like it or not. It may be useful to know what to expect.

We won't cover the skills you'll need to uncover true insight rather than mere information. That's covered elsewhere, and there's no better place to look than Truth Lies and Advertising by John Steel.

We'll look at the art of how to manage the group itself. It's a lost planning skill which is a shame. I think that every now and again, you should do your own. It saves a fortune if you're pitching and there's nothing like meeting real people face to face.

In any case, if you have a better idea of how groups work, you'll be much better placed to work with your researcher.

But it is terrifying if you haven't done it before. So do as many internally as you can. Bribe people in the office with sandwiches, do whatever it takes. It costs a lot to get 8 people in a room, you don't want to waste that money. So get half good.

Two things are likely to go wrong:

1. No one talks and you can't get the conversation going.
2. They're uncontrollable and everyone insists on talking at once, leaving your agenda ruined.

So we'll cover the key skills of moderating, interviewing skills and group dynamics. Then it need never happen.

Basic interviewing techniques

If you ask a simple question, you'll get a simple answer. Qual is about depth, digging underneath what people say and do to understand why. Simple direct questioning never gets under the skin of the issue. And people rarely say what they mean. They overclaim, and the real attitudes are usually unconscious and difficult to put into words.

So good interviewing is about ACTIVE LISTENING. Constantly thinking about why people are saying what they are, looking for contradictions, reading body language. It involves constant probing. Here's some rules of thumb:

• Reflect and echo what they've said. This will show empathy and relax people.
• Paraphrase and summarise what people have said in your own words. It allows you to check you've understood what people have said - if you allow them to correct you.
• Meta commenting - expressing what you believe is going in the group is great for drawing out bigger themes.
• How you behave is crucial. You'll develop your own style - some are bossy and challenge, others are calm, warm and open. But common traits of good moderators tend to be transparency - appearing honest and truthful, being non-judgmental and interested in what people think and showing as much empathy as you can.
• Help people articulate what they're saying. Prompts where you can to get more out of them - repeat the bit they said that's interesting to get more (fresh garlic you say?) And get clarification....."You think that because..." "I'm interested in why you say that.."
• And body language helps getting out more - lean forward, look quizzical, nod as they speak.
• But use 'Why' sparingly - if you keep asking people to justify what they're saying you'll just piss them odd and they'll go cold on you. Consider replacing it with, "How come?" "Why do you think that is?"
• You can really open up a line of questioning by slowly and gently asking things like, "i wonder what was in your mind when you said that?" But you can change the pace and finish off question with more closed versions, like, "So what's the main benefit?".

Group Moderating

To me it's a mix of two roles. One one hand you're a detached neutral observer collecting data, but on the the other, you're a dynamic problem solver wanting their help. It's a neat trick to be detached AND sponge like, but no one said this was easy. Much of it comes down to group dynamics.

And those will be in tomorrow's post.

Comments

[Andrea]

Great start!

I always thought the moderator's body language makes it easier for people to open up. I knew a person that would sit and look at people quizzically and after having said something (which wasn't a question), as if he was expecting the group to contribute. I thought that was a bit spooky, in a "come-to-daddy-tell-him-what's-wrong" way. "You know you want to."
Well, no one did!

And some other bloke who moderated a group by sitting in his chair, his hands on the table, palms touching each other as if he was going to say a prayer. I would have, for the disastrous result...

[np]

Funniest I've ever seen was this fella who thought he was Jeremy Paxman. Never used him again, never will!

[Charles Edward Frith]

You've been doing an absolutely sterling job on all this over the last few months NP. Well done. I do hope you can pop all the links into the plannersphere Wiki at some point too.

[John Dodds]

But do you really learn anything in groups - they seem to be full of people who know what groups are for and frequently their couch answers in terms of what the company is trying to achieve, i.e they speak about what they think joe public would want rather than what they would want.

Isn't it far superior to observe what people actually do rather than ask them questions - even given the smart guidelines you've listed?

[np]

John, you're not wrong. I agree that in most cases it's better to watch and ask.
But planners are sometimes stuck with groups whether they like it ot not. Hopefully this will help to make the most of it.

AND, I think much of the problem with groups is down to designing the discussion guide and moderating really well. The more you draw people out of themselves the better. And the right tasks can be really revealing. They're not perfect, but if you want speed, or something rough to build on, then fine.
I reckon the problem is that too many people take what people say as gospel, as opposed to looking for what they're not saying...

[John Dodds]

Looking for what's not said is a smart thought. It would also be good to find a way to get different participants but clearly that's a hard one.