You are here: Home | White
Papers | Ten Keys to Defusing Political Land Mines in the Back Room
Download PDF Version
Ten Keys To Defusing Political Land Mines In The Back Room
By
Bruce Crandall
Focus groups are rarely predictable. Sometimes groups know embarrassingly little
about a given topic. Some groups talk too much. Others hardly talk at all. Some
respondents dominate the discussion. Others can barely put sentences together.
Experienced moderators know the scenarios well. They also know that the
discussion taking place by clients behind the one-way mirror can often spell
success or failure. Very often a moderator’s success may have less to do
with how well he or she covers an assigned topic or controls the flow of a
discussion than with intrigue and misconceptions in the observation room. How a
moderator prepares for political contingencies in the back room is a critical,
though often overlooked, variable in his or her success.
Political skirmishes in the back room are most likely to occur when client
observers are:
-
not adequately briefed or consulted before a group begins
-
large in number (including observers from competing divisions within the
client’s company)
-
made up of executives from competing research companies or advertising agencies
-
inexperienced focus group viewers.
One experience is a case in point: Some time ago, an associate had been given
the assignment to observe two focus groups. The moderator would conduct both
groups, while the associate would sit in the back room with the client and
other observers to answer questions and take notes. Since the moderator had
reviewed the project with her client several times (including the study
objectives, discussion guide, and the expected outcomes of the project), she
anticipated that the groups would be similar to others her firm had conducted
for them. This time was different, however.
For one thing, the client wasn’t certain as to which other observers would
show up, exactly how many to expect, or when to expect them. After the first
group had begun, the client and the other observers trickled into the back
room: marketing managers, sales and promotion directors, product-line managers,
and advertising executives. As they finally settled in to observe the group,
the back room formed several factions, each reacting independently of the
others. Many seemed to be hearing news from respondents that did not go over
well. The client took the last available seat next to an agency executive.
Halfway through the group, after huddling with the agency executive, the client
suddenly became impatient with the flow of the discussion and requested that
the research firm change moderators. This seemed like a curious request,
especially since the moderator had apparently been covering all of the assigned
topics. Over the moderator’s objections, the client demanded a new
moderator for the next session.
The second group turned out surprisingly well from a research perspective, given
the circumstances. However, the research was secondary. The experience was more
about survival, about contingencies. The moral is: Back room politics can not
only damage your credibility as a researcher, but can seriously undermine your
relationship with your client as well.
The question is, how can a moderator not only survive in similar situations, but
prevent back room land mines from exploding in the first place? Although there
are no foolproof methods, here are a few simple suggestions to help moderators
better prepare for intrigue in the observation room:
Confirm with your client as early as possible who will attend the group.
Sometimes clients themselves don’t know which observers will attend until
the last minute, but usually they at least have an idea. If possible, limit the
number of observers. The larger the group of observers, the more difficult it
is to manage them. Also find out the role of the observers within their
companies, and review the study objectives again to assess which departments
might be impacted the most by the research results.
Whenever possible, the moderator should arrange to have at least one associate
(depending on the number of observers attending) in the observation room. The
associate should be well briefed on the study objectives, discussion topics,
and the key observers or “power brokers” attending the group. The
associate should also have experience moderating focus groups. After all, you
never know (as in the case related earlier) when an observer will be called on
to moderate.
During the initial planning stages of a qualitative project, the moderator
should have already developed the discussion guide and reviewed the focus group
mechanics with his or her client by phone or in person. Before the start of the
first focus group, the moderator should schedule a meeting with the client. The
moderator should meet with the client, ideally, several days before the first
group is scheduled, to confirm the most important points to cover in the
discussion guide, as well as those points of secondary interest (i.e.,
discussion topics that can be eliminated if time runs out). The moderator
should tell the client that she plans to conduct the groups and should inform
the client about the group mechanics like introduction, discussion rules,
open-ended discussion flow, the moderator’s final return to the back room
before the discussion’s end, and so forth. No matter how many times a
client has observed focus groups, it’s important to review the role that
the moderator will play before each group or series of groups. Most good
moderators strive to be nonthreatening and nondirective during the first half
of the group. If the client is accustomed to a more aggressive style, he may
become impatient with the group’s pace and the wandering discussion early
in the session.
Additionally, a meeting the night before (perhaps over dinner) or an early
morning meeting the day of the groups is a good way to review again with the
client how you plan to conduct the groups. A dinner or breakfast meeting
between a moderator and client can also help solidify their working
relationship. This can be invaluable later on when back room politicos are
jockeying for position.
Frequently, however, it’s not possible to schedule an early meeting. The
next best arrangement is to meet with the client and other observers (if
possible) at least two hours before the start of the first group to go over the
same types of details. This is also the time to answer any last-minute
questions, so that there will be no surprises once the group has begun. Such
consultation will instill a sense of confidence in the client (and the
moderator), since the client and other observers have the opportunity to
provide input. Despite the need to be flexible, the moderator should not stray
too far from the latest draft of the discussion guide, agreed upon prior to the
group. Some executives are prone to last-minute suggestions that can wreck the
planned flow of a group discussion.
Sometimes, however, despite the moderator’s best efforts, observers will
simply arrive late. When a client and other observers arrive late, it then
becomes the associate’s responsibility to brief the back room before they
settle down to watch.
Always call ahead for directions, so that you don’t waste time hunting for
the focus group facility. Plan to arrive at least two hours before the start of
the first group. This way, the moderator and associate can go over last-minute
details to ensure that they have all the materials needed before the client and
other observers arrive. An early arrival also gives the moderator time to
review notes and the discussion guide, to mentally prepare, and to instill
confidence that things are in order.
The moderator should always provide the client and other observers with copies
of the discussion guide, so that everyone can follow the discussion on paper.
If the moderator is presenting concepts or bringing materials to show
respondents, he or she should have all creative (i.e., storyboards, videos,
mock-ups, etc.) in his or her possession and should clearly understand how to
present the materials before arriving at the focus group facility.
Review the respondent lists with the client prior to the start of a group to
verify the number of respondents who have arrived and to check the demographic
makeup of the group. Screen out respondents when there’s an overabundance
of a particular type of attendee (e.g., too many seniors or too many females)
and retain those who can “balance” the group. Sometimes, however, a
“qualified” respondent survives the initial screening process, but is
later discovered to be “unqualified” (e.g., a current or former
employee of the client’s company or industry) after the focus group has
begun. Unfortunately, some respondents fall through the cracks, while others
simply don’t tell the truth.
If possible, it’s better to let the unqualified respondent remain in the
group, so that the discussion won’t be disrupted. The expulsion of an
unqualified respondent can inhibit the other respondents from freely voicing
their opinions. Sometimes, however, when a moderator believes that an
unqualified respondent’s remarks are damaging to the overall results of
the group, the respondent should be discreetly removed, so that the balance of
the discussion will be as unbiased as possible. For example, the moderator may,
under some pretense, excuse himself from the group and return to the back room
to consult with the client. If it is agreed that the respondent should be
removed, a facility staff member might be asked to enter the focus group room
and tell the respondent that they’ve “received a phone call” to
remove the unqualified respondent. This method also works well for removing
unruly, or particularly untamable respondents. Although it’s still the
best policy to keep an errant respondent in the group if possible, retaining
especially troublesome or unqualified respondents can sometimes raise questions
about a moderator’s ability to supervise recruiting or to manage the
respondents.
Once the moderator has left the back room to start the group, the
moderator’s associate becomes responsible for managing the back room. This
assignment is critical. The associate must understand who the power brokers
will be and should sit close enough to answer their questions, squelch damaging
comments, and foster a positive relationship with them. In fact, the
associate’s presence alone will usually help to deter observer criticism.
When the associate manages a back room well, he or she often builds
relationships with the other observers, sometimes leading to additional work
from other divisions in the client company or from the visiting agency. In
short, an associate’s help in the back room can be an indispensable part
of successful focus group moderation.
Make clear during your pregroup briefing with the client and other observers
that the moderator will come back before the group’s end to see if the
topics have been covered sufficiently, or if there are additional questions to
ask. This step usually discourages note passing from the back room to the
moderator during a group. Frequent note passing to the moderator can disrupt
the flow of the discussion, waste time, and undermine the moderator’s
leadership of the group.
After finishing a group, the moderator should ask clients for feedback and
suggestions about the group just completed, and solicit suggestions to improve
future groups. If adjustments are needed, the moderator can then change his
moderating approach or make slight revisions to the discussion guide. Such
client input usually strengthens the moderator’s position with the client.
Arrange to meet with the client after the last group of the day (or, if
multiple groups, after the series of groups) to evaluate the results of the
groups and to clearly define the next steps to be taken. During the meeting, be
sure that the client understands what he or she should expect regarding
deliverables, deadlines, subsequent quantitative research, etc. If subsequent
quantitative research will take place, the formal debriefing can be used to set
up the quantitative methodology (i.e., product testing; attitude, trial and
usage survey; etc.). In short, the formal debriefing is a good time to
brainstorm with the client and to tie up any loose ends.
While these suggestions require planning and effort, they will greatly improve
a qualitative project’s execution, strengthen a moderator’s relationship
with the client, and help to defuse political land mines in the back room.
Copyright © 1997 by Decision Analyst, Inc.
This article may not be copied, published, or used in any way without written
permission of Decision Analyst.
Additional Resources from Decision Analyst
To contact the author, Bruce Crandall, please call 1.800.262.5974 or
email him at bcranda@decisionanalyst.com.
Related Services
Related White Papers
|
