Focus Groups

A focus group is qualitative research by its nature (Puchta and Potter, 2004, pp.1-24). The researcher asks participants questions and expects open responses in the interest of conveying thoughts or feelings. In conducting a focus group, researchers are

seeking more complete perspectives on the research’s interim results. More general interpretations and use of the research need to be exploited in focus group results.

Qualitative interviews transcend key managers’ concerns, expectation, vision and dream. They relate what is feasible to develop the company in the short term and establish new business lines to improve profitability. Chinese community relationships among key managers are a critical success outcome from this research project. No analysis of individual qualitative interviews can represent the thinking across the entire company, so a semi-structured focus group was scheduled after the first intervention when company divestment and spin-offs had been completed.

3.9.1 Aim of focus group

In this project, the focus group mediator posed a series of questions intended to obtain insight into the way the group perceived the effects of establishing a learning

organisation and how the factory’s Chinese community relationships exerted influence. As a representative sample of company members, the focus group offered insights consistent with those shared in key managers’ qualitative interviews. Focus group mediators should always endeavour to put questions in such a way as not to lead group members to provide what they perceive to be the desired answers, but rather honest and insightful responses (Stewart and Shamdasani, 2007, pp. 92-96).

Theme analysis was next employed to dissect focus group results and to match them against initial qualitative interviews from key managers. A set of fine-tuned constructs and operationalised variables were identified to describe a model for the learning organisation influenced by Chinese community relationships.

The role of insider researcher exerted no influence in this focus group discussion. Ethically, all staff employee were assured there would be no misuse of their opinions collected in the course of this insider research, including opinions from group

discussion and ‘town hall’ meetings, unstructured interviews and focus group

discussion. Explicit installation of caution money is an assurance of greater job security. This caution money is under the direct control of all employees. Chinese culture of serving food during formal business discussions was honoured and this exerted no

57

Since this was insider research, it was impossible to ask an external person to act as a moderator for the focus group discussion.

Guanxi involves inter-personal friendships, passion and commitment. The aim of this

focus group meeting was to evaluate the performance of divestment and critical factors. The establishment of caution money represented a move by the management to share the business with all the staff, therefore the focus group session was in the interests of all staff; the insider researcher could not exert influence on representatives, since the company is their own business.

3.9.2 Issues of implementation of focus group to Chinese workplace

Empirically, there are standard steps in focus group preparation, execution and

reporting. A standard focus group assumes the participants are strangers to each other. The nature of insider research and the closeness of participants in the Chinese

community within the factory needed some adaptation to enhance reliability. The steps in the factory’s internal focus group with adaptations are as follows:

In the preparation phase, the objectives of the focus group were clearly defined and communicated to all staff in routine ‘town hall’ meetings. This aligns with the open and full participation culture that founded this factory. Preparation was undertaken in February 2014 to schedule the focus group for April 2014.

In the inception phase of this research, all company members were walked through the concepts of a learning organisation, attending numerous ‘town hall’ meetings and departmental small group discussions. Special caution money was setup to protect individual factory members’ job security. The scenario analysis performed by key managers signalled critical items to ensure during the divestment and organisational transformation. All were key discussion items in the focus group session:

• Performance of divestment

• Concerns and happiness in the course of company transformation • Role of community relationships and internal communication • The overall capability for problem solving

• Degree of customer intimacy

• How the company was to scout for new business

Scripts for the focus group were based upon these key items. There was a one-page discussion sheet with the above items in sequence. Roughly, half an hour was allocated for each item, with a 15 minute break after each two items.

Focus group participants were nominated by their respective departments through internal discussion groups, not restricted to departmental heads. A key attribute for nominated participants was the capability to solicit sub-group consensus to present a all opinions to the focus group. All nominated participants were encouraged to

undertake small group discussions within their small groups to collect opinions on divestment and critical factors.

Names were submitted to the management team for transport arrangements, but otherwise the small groups were kept strictly confidential. There were 16 factory members nominated. In the invitation, all were assured that the focus group’s purpose was to listen to their opinions. Their share of caution money was under their control and free from influence by the management team, including the insider researcher. In the invitation, it stated that the focus group would be in the format of a casual dinner without alcohol and that participants could bring notes and charts for discussion. All questions were distributed to the invited participants a fortnight before the focus group session.

Insider researcher role

The selection of facilitator for this focus group was a challenge. Company secrets might be leaked if an external party took this role. In the event, company members trusted the insider researcher to arrange this role and were duly assured that there would be no risk to their job security; that their portion of caution money could not be controlled by management; and that there would be no strong drink to impair the judgment of focus group participants. A public nomination process was performed across the factory to locate a facilitator and the insider researcher was suggested. This was confirmation of the assurance of fairness and equity in selecting a facilitator, although it was

recognised that there might be bias because of the position held by the researcher. The location of the focus group was selected by asking the participants for their

preferred venue. They all proposed hiring a private room at a local hotel for dinner. This fits the Chinese culture of discussing and eating at the same time. A relaxed

59

Process

The focus group commenced in a relaxed manner. Representatives were picked up by coach and transported to the hotel private room. A light dinner was served for 45 minutes then the dining room converted into a discussion room with the help of hotel staff. Notepads and pencils, a computer with a projector, a flip chart, a one-page focus group script, a list of participants, name tags, refreshments, tea and coffee and a clock timer were installed.

The insider researcher started the focus group, as the facilitator, and asked participants to introduce themselves one by one. Next, each item on the focus group script was introduced, with 30 minutes per item, and participants given one minute to raise comments and concerns. The insider researcher noted key points on paper and at the end summarised the key points on the computer, projected for review. Owing to the number of participants, at 16, voice recording was considered too difficult to be used for transcription. Further, this focus group aimed to review the results of divestment and critical factors, so only the key points were jotted down for reporting back to all focus group participants. There were two ‘safe harbour’ measures to compensate for not using voice recording. The first was to present a key point recap when a focus group script item was discussed. The second was preparing a summary report for all focus group participants to review and confirm. This took place one week after the focus group session: Appendix 4 contains the details.

The trust from the focus group members in the facilitator, that is, the insider researcher, made the use of paper notes sufficient to record the focus group process. In the course of the session, this use of notes to record participants’ comments was explained. The focus group was carried out as scheduled, with enough time for each participant to respond spontaneously, asking new questions during the discussion, and probing deeper into a particular focus group item. Nevertheless, the insider researcher facilitator took the following precautions:

• Speaking at a reasonable volume and assuring participants that the focus group session was to be a convivial occasion

• Ensuring all participants were heard and involving quieter members • Encouraging full answers in discussion

• Keeping good time and not exceeding limits

• Keeping discussions on track; and making sure all questions raised were answered

The insider researcher/facilitator projected the key points of each focus group item and sent to all participants for their swift endorsement. A full report was written up a week after the session to all representatives for review, revision and confirmation.