Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: September 29, 2003
Latest Update: September 29, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, September 2003.
"Fair use" encouraged.

Bales studied face-to-face interaction groups to determine how small groups worked. Small group in this sense, included around 14 or 15 people, who could and did see each other face-to-face. Interaction was assumed to be different in larger groups where people didn't have the occasion of actually connecting faces to names. Clue: Does this tell you anything about the importance I attach to to our interpersosnal intereactions in which we recognize each other and have face-to-face interactions? Many of the kinds of learning our schools were set up for were set up for face-to-interaction. That means that much of Bales' Interaction Process Analysis should apply. What happens as class size increases and increases? Eithe we have to find new ways to engage in real interpersonal interaction or the whole nature of learning will become more like the minimal flexibility of interactive TV.

Look at Bales' theoretical framework.

Argyris and Schon's Theory of Action:

Boland and Deal delve into another aspect into the interpersonal relationships within organizations, one paramount today, greed and interpersonal conflict. There's one sum of money out there, and we're each trying to get as much of the profit as we can. Words appear in Bolman and Deal like "own and control," "defensive," "selfish," "mistrust," "conformity." Lots of words that carry heavy negative connotations. See their copy of the table from Argyris and Schon on p. 164. If you don't have the book, see if you can get someone to xerox you a copy.

Now Bolman and Deal don't like that model of leadership, any more than we do. But it does describe some workplaces and I'd like you to be aware of it. They provide a second more effective model on pp. 165 ff.

1. "Emphasize common goals and mutual influence."
2. "Communicate openly and publicly test assumptions and beliefs."
3. "Combine advocacy and inquiry."
   • advocacy: making clear your choices and perferences, and concerns
   • inquiry: asking what others choose, prefer, and feel are their concerns.

   Discussion: What elements of the Argyris and Schon model seem to relate to Bales' Interaction Process Analysis?

   1. Did Bales's theoretical framework allow for common goals? How? Did a group member of lower status get asked very often what he wanted? How active is the traditional redefining of goals and agendas in any social and/or work environment?

      How does a group decide on its goals? Does it have a meeting? What role do the restrooms play in such decisions?

      Why do you reckon routinization gets in the way of goal and agenda setting? Consider how often you engage in the job-related task and how much of your time is devoted to goal and agenda setting. Consider also our training for goal and agenda setting. Where do we get to practice such tasks? When?