The group is interested in data in three areas. One, health; they want to know how being part of an SRG is helping with their wellbeing. Two, SRG dynamic; to what extent levels of connection, trust, and belonging (or the quality of ‘jellying’ to use member’s words) in the group affect their mission. Three, money; how is each member and the group doing financially (savings, profit).

The group dynamic is analysed through the group’s WhatsApp conversations.

  1. Connection is defined in terms of number and balance of contributions on the chat and nature of interaction (are interventions instructive or open ended through asking questions or sharing; do people respond with one-off type or back and forth type of responses).
  2. Trust is measured via presence of conflict/difficulty within the group (e.g., not getting along) or between the group and the outside world (e.g., difficulties with the project). Are members able to resolve the conflict, remain in good relationships and continue with their group’s mission?
  3. Belonging is reflected in the levels of care that members express toward each other and their SRG mission.

Below is an example of feedback on group dynamic discussed at one of our sessions.

One member asks, How do we feel about two people making up 1/2 of the conversation in the group? A series of back and forth leads the group to reflect that knowing the percentage of contribution in the SRG group could be a helpful metric for a number of reasons:

  1. Makes people mindful of their relationship to the group. I belong to this group. 
  2. Makes people reflect on their individual contribution. Am I contributing enough? 
  3. Creates a context for the group to have a conversation about balance in an SRG, and to raise the issue of any needed adjustments.

There was a strong theme on the need to attach meaning to the data. On its own, this feedback could be read as two people talk more than others (bad) so let’s make everyone talk more (good). But the group’s ability to reflect and therefore attach meaning to the data surfaced more nuanced interpretations to the data.

Some people talk more than others. Some people are listeners. That does not mean they are not involved just because they do not talk as much as the others. It isn’t about everyone behaving in the same way. It is about seeing the data, having conversations about how things are going in the group, and making changes if needed.