One increasingly encounters the subtle strategies of group control as described by Fr. Joel Garner in his November, 1995 Ministry Congress workshop “Parishes of the Future”.[1]  These strategies are in use around the country by “change agents” such as the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) and belong to a systematic procedure variously known as the Delphi Technique or the Alinsky Method (after the IAF founder, Saul Alinsky) depending on the circumstances of their use.

 First developed by the U.S. military for using expert opinion to “predict” the probable outcome of future considerations in order to design long-range plans.  The Delphi Technique became popular in industry as a “forecasting” tool to identify trends.

 The Delphi has several advantages.  Harold Sackman, in his book Delphi Critique, calls one of these advantages the “halo effect”.  A business manager, drawing on the conclusions which consulted experts have reached after rounds of “prioritizing exercises”, can state honestly that company decisions have been made on the best advice available.  This certainly takes the heat off an individual over a “bad call”.  It also reduces personal accountability.

 As a “forecasting tool” however, the Delphi’s abilities are wishful thinking.  “This concept of expert”, writes Sackman, “is virtually meaningless in experiments dealing with complex social phenomena.”  Groups of ordinary citizenry having no particular knowledge on a given subject, demonstrate just as much accuracy in “forecasting” trends as a panel of experts.

 The Delphi, however, has other features, which make it highly attractive to social engineers and unscrupulous managers with hidden agendas.

According to Sachman, “Arbitrary feedback by a Delphi director can shift opinion in any desired direction” 

 The Delphi process is not constructed to bear the serious pull and shove of dialog or the earnest exchange of ideas on which a genuine consensus is built (or at least in which greater understanding is nurtured).  While an outlet for self expression may be provided at the “house meeting” or data gathering stage, the actual sorting and prioritizing of data are done by a handpicked “leadership” (or chosen team of “experts”).  Even the “collection of data is shaped by the kinds of questions asked.  “What are the needs of your parish?” can be worded to elicit participant’s focus on external social needs or internal, spiritual needs, merely by the careful phrasing of the questions

The organizers who use the Delphi, or the parish development process or the Alinsky Method, claim to be consensus builders.  At the end of the process, advocates assert, the group will be united in seeing what needs to be done and why.  But this manner of “consensus building” is specious.  The endless rounds of making lists and compiling information deaden both the interest and the will.  “By the third or fourth round”, says Sackman, “even the diehard individualist is inclined to yield.”  After a long session of going over and over this “need” and that “need” (or whatever is being examined), one comes to the point of “Who cares?  Let’s just get finished already.”

A trained facilitator can exert tremendous influence over the group.  “Do we all agree this is what should go first?”  “I think all of us agree that this would be a very worth while project.”  Studies have demonstrated that most people under these circumstances will follow the perceived majority — eventually (which is also why politicians make such a fuss over their polls).  In Sackman’s words, “The Delphi procedure arrives at consensus by feeding back the correct answer, by rewarding conformity and effacing prevailing individuality.”

The later stages of the Delphi Technique, which call for brainstorming to arrive at creative solutions, the involvement of other people in the working out of a project, the establishment of time frames, the stretching of “ownership” in an idea, are good organizational tools to keep the community engaged, but are only as worthwhile as the project undertaken.  Similarly, the Christianized version of the Delphi, with its final “Tapping into the Spirit” afterthought, is only valid so long as we are doing work of the Holy Spirit.  If the agenda is our own, and the activity self-willed, we cannot count on spiritual empowerment.

The Delphi Technique (or Alinsky Method) becomes unethical when it is used by trained facilitators working with uninformed groups to direct them toward support of actions and goals of which they have not been fully apprised.  While the Delphi can be “innocently” applied by pastors to develop parish ministries, it can also be used by a pastor with a “hidden agenda”, e.g., fostering an acceptance of dissent directed toward the Church. Organizations, like the Industrial Areas Foundation, are funded by multinational corporations[2] precisely for the function of using the churches as a social wedge to promote outcome-based education “reform”.  Manipulative techniques of group control are essential tools for the IAF if highly questionable and unpopular programs (such as OBE) are to be put into place.  The change agent understands the covert function he serves.  If his proposed changes were acceptable to the majority of people, his job would be unnecessary.

[3] From an article in the May/June Issue of  The Wild Man’s Journal, www.catholicgentleman.com, Copyright © Tom Walsh 2005